Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Nostalgia For The Bad Old Days

Over at the NY Times, Stanley Fish asks if you miss George W. Bush yet.
Well it’s a bit more than a year now and signs of Bush’s rehabilitation are beginning to pop up. One is literally a sign, a billboard that appeared recently on I-35 in Minnesota. Occupying the right side (from the viewer’s viewpoint) is a picture of Bush smiling genially and waving his hand in a friendly gesture. Occupying the left side is a simple and direct question: “Miss me yet?” The image is all over the Internet, hundreds of millions of hits, and unscientific Web-based polls indicate that more do miss him than don’t.

A perhaps more substantial sign incorporates a sign famous (or infamous) in the Bush presidency. The March 8 cover of Newsweek reproduces the famous 2003 photograph of Bush on the flight deck of the U.S.S. Lincoln. The president is in the left of the picture, striding away from the famous banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished.”


Those words haunted Bush for the next five years, but now, Newsweek reports, they may play differently because — and this is emblazoned on the cover — we may have “Victory At Last.” It has to be said, declare the cover-story’s writers, that “now almost seven hellish years later . . . something that looks mighty like democracy is emerging in Iraq”; and, they add (eerily echoing Bush’s words in 2003), this development “most certainly is a watershed event that could come to represent a whole new era in the history of the massively undemocratic Middle East.”

Of course, one might disagree with that assessment, but the fact that it is made in the lead article of a major mainstream magazine tells its own story. It is a story that intersects with another, the story of the precipitous decline in Barack Obama’s support and of a growing suspicion, found on the left as well as on the right, where it is much more than a suspicion, that the politics of change may have been a slogan with less promise in its future than “Mission Accomplished.” (The imminent passage of a health care bill keeps being predicted, but so far no “victory at last.”) 
So after nearly eight years, Bush is vindicated because America may finally be getting out of the war of choice Bush joined in 2003, and after one year, Obama is the worst President even because he hasn't passed health care reform, unlike...all the other Presidents ahead of him, or something.  Got it.

Despite the sheer silliness of this particular exercise in mental masturbation, it does prove a point:  Bush cause so much lasting and permanent damage during his presidency and especially the last two years of his term that America wistfully pines away for the heady days of say, March 2001...before this country was sent down the chute to Hell.

Yeah folks, I've been saying for quite some time now that it was going to be a long, painful trek back to just where we were ten years ago financially.  There's enough damage here that some of it may never be fixed, at least not until another generation or so.  But miss Bush?  Really?

I don't think so. The effort to rehabilitate him at the expense of Obama will continue however, and the shallow like Fish lead the way.

5 comments:

In Ur Blog Eatin Waffles (Accept no fail imitations) said...

It's amazing how many articles have been released pointing out that the financial meltdown was actually a result of something that happened before the Bush presidency. Who cares about facts, it's just easier to blame the person in power, especially if they are of the opposite political party of your own. People are doing it with Obama now, is everything going wrong his fault? No. He will be blamed for it though.

When it comes election time it will be pointed out how he campaigned in New Jersey, Virginia, Massachusetts, went to Coppenhagen and failed to get the Olympics, went to Coppenhagen and had the Chinese basically flip him the bird, etc, etc...

Do I think he's lived up to his hype and campaign promises? No. I honestly think he's a lot more far left than he led people to believe on the campaign trail, and rightfully so because if people knew they would not have voted for him. He owns this now, no more looking back, a leader has to own what they have they cannot continue to make excuses or have others make excuses for them.

I do not think however he's the worst President in history, I could make a Carter joke but I'll leave that be. He's only a year in and has plenty of time left, no one starts out fully understanding the position but he needs to take the bull by horns so to speak and get more involved. I don't think going all over the country doing town halls will do this, I think it's a further waste of taxpayer funds.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

People are not buying what he's got to say, people do not believe in Government and will not. Offer solutions that keep the Government from going further in debt and keep the Governments hands out of the cookie jar and they will support it.

Zandar said...

If it happened before the Bush years, then how does Obama own it after 13 months?

My God you're a terrible troll.

In Ur Blog Eatin Waffles (Accept no fail imitations) said...

Did I say Bush didn't own it? Let me re-read what I posted....

K I thought so, I never stated Bush didn't own the situation as he was the leader, but owning something and being at fault for something don't always go hand in hand. It would be nice if people had to be held accountable and deal with the repercussions of their own decisions but in politics that's not always the case. Decisions made today could have adverse effects years down the road. I'm surprised you don't already know this.

If we're going to call a spade a spade then lets do so. You were trying to be technical and state "This is as a result of Bush" to which I corrected you. I would assume with some journalism experience you would understand.

So you did nothing to effectively refute my point, as you really never do. So far it seems you really can't have a substantive debate about anything, you have to make reference to troll or anonymous and then move on without disproving a thing I said.

Zandar said...

And when you say Bush had nothing to do with it, you're equally wrong.

Technically, this goes back to Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton as well.

But the most damage was done under Bush and his executive branch's refusal to regulate the banks under the rules that existed. Period.

And the financial meltdown of 2007-2008 wasn't Obama's fault. That's 100% fact.

You still lose.

In Ur Blog Eatin Waffles (Accept no fail imitations) said...

Really? Apparently you are a complete idiot..I never said "Bush had nothing to do with this!"

You again are selectively reading and then trying to prove a point against something that isn't even there.

See I love the fact that you only read liberal blogs and don't bother to look anything up for yourself because it allows me to do things like this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

I believe that right there completely proves that you are an utter idiot and failure even as a liberal, I'm sorry progressive blogger. Now was his proposal perfect? Nothing ever is..

So where was Obama, the beacon of hope and change?

Related Posts with Thumbnails