This New York Times’ graph offer a telling look at the failure of Bush’s presidency:
Bush has had precisely two serious and sustained bumps. One came after a horrifying attack on the country, the second after he launched a horrifying attack on Iraq. His presidency, then, has been vampiric in nature, thriving when the republic waned and the body counts mounted. He has received precisely no big boosts for domestic policy priorities or achievements. And the trend, after 9/11, is down, down, down. Not just a natural drift out of the stratosphere, but a plummet to the depths. Only three presidents in the 20th century reached Bush’s lows of unpopularity. Carter and Nixon never recovered — but they, at least, had the excuses of rampant corruption, stagflation, and the Iranian hostage crisis. Bush’s unpopularity is entirely the fault of his own mismanagement. According to early reports, tonight’s proposed salve will be a minor change to the marginal deductibility of employee benefits packages. That’ll save him.
But what if 9/11 had never happened? He would have faded into obscurity by Nov 2004 and I would have gotten my wish of two former Presidents named Bush at the family Thanksgiving dinner.
This is not to say we’d have President Kerry either.
Note how precipitously his popularity dropped after the Iraq invasion: a three-month deviation from the slide . . . .
Thanks, Osama. This might prove he really does hate America.
8 Comments
It is any wonder then that the next big bump he expects is from Iran? The big question is, of course, will Americans fall for it.
I swear to G-d, I think Dick Cheney’s motto is “Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people”
No hyperbole… he is the worst president ever.
But with his self-proclaimed powers he keeps compounding the problems he has set in motion. Cheney is basically saying: “We dare you to try to stop us.”
The next two years may be a rocky ride. He and his handler(s) won’t want to give up a bit of power. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there isn’t some effort to suspend or vacate the 2008 election in the name of “national security.”
Yikes, Paul! :-o
That is a grim graph, although it’s impossible to say what would’ve happened if there’d been no war. Simple extrapolation may not apply.
But I’m not defending Dubya, surely the Worst. President. Ever.
Dare I blame Dick Cheney? At the very least he aided and abetted.
well, yeah, we shouldn’t extrapolate but we can ;-)
Seriously, other than cutting taxes for his club, what else was he going to do? Osama has gotten him more than a single line in the history books — all he would have deserved. We’re not talking about someone who possessed the power to surprise us: this is the monkey to Cheney’s organ grinder.
I don’t disagree.
If, after 9-11-2001, President Bush had promised the nation that he would take the fight to the enemy, ensure that there would be NO more successful terrorist attacks on U.S. soil for at least half a decade, thwart the nuclear ambitions of two murderous Middle Eastern dictators, and lose fewer than 5000 American soldiers in the process, everyone would have have called him absurdly optimistic at best, and more likely nuts. But, in fact, he did ALL those things, while setting a refreshing example of personal rectitude, and helping to maintain a strong American economy.
He has always put America’s good ahead of his own popularity. The result is that America is better off because of his leadership, and his own popularity is in the dumps. Nevertheless, I believe that George W. Bush will go down in history as one of America’s greatest presidents.
-Dave Burton
Cary, NC
Well, I hate to burst your bubble but it took having a inept doofus like GW Bush in office to provoke an attack like 9/11/2001.
As for the loss of fewer than 5,000 soldiers, it sounds like you’re willing to sacrifice 1,700 more young men and women than we have lost so far: for what? We’re asking these folks to keep on paying, in blood, for something we already achieved. Saddam Hussein is out of power, dead. Elections have been held and a government has been formed. Why are our troops still there? And why are you willing to see 1,700 more killed?
And for his “personal rectitude” the jury is very much out on that score: I suspect we’ll learn a lot more about daily life inside the Bush Bubble between now and Jan 20, 2009, and a bit more afterwards.
I don’t know how you dead-enders, you in the 28% who still think this president is competent, sleep at night.
Post a Comment