When Bush Is History

[Crabtownboy]

Not to kick the president on his way out the door, but he was wrong when he told White House reporters at a wistful, nostalgic news conference yesterday that "there is no such thing as short-term history." It's true that some presidencies look different after a few decades. But it's also true that presidential acts can have immediate consequences -- and that George W. Bush will leave office next week as a president whose eight years in office are widely seen as a nadir from which it will take years to recover.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../01/12/AR2009011202480.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Translation;

Obama can pretty much blame Bush for ever failure he has for his first four years, and the left will let him.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Translation;

Obama can pretty much blame Bush for ever failure he has for his first four years, and the left will let him.

Kind of like many Bush supporters have blamed his failures on his predecessor. Politics never changes...just the players.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I don't remember Bush blaming Clinton, so I hope Obama himself doesn't do what I sarcastically said he would. Supportes of either party like to read articles that play to their own prejudices.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

There are always plenty of people to blame. It is all [the Congress, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon Johnson, Abraham Lincoln]'s fault.

Of course you don't see them hesitate when it comes time to take credit.

The truth is that it takes decades to see what the real long term results of a president's actions are. The short term results are all that matters to most politicians because they are all that matters when it comes to re election.

 

[Martin]

The author you quoted is factually wrong. Sure there is short-term history, but short-term history changes quickly. What will matter in the long-term is long-term history. Many presidents who look very different after historians have been able to access the various files/notes (etc) in the president's library/archives. That process will take years to even really get started. There are more than a few presidents who looked bad at the end of their term but who, over time, have had their image improved through study of their records and the unfolding of history. George W Bush need not worry himself with short-term history. The only thing that will matter is long-term history. How will Americans in 25, 50, 100 years view Mr. Bush? That is the issue. The answer to that question will be determined by the history found in his library and how his policies played out in the long term. It is simply too early to give any sort of final judgment on the Bush administration.

George W. Bush will leave office next week as a president whose eight years in office are widely seen as a nadir from which it will take years to recover.

==That is a political statement based on the author's opinion. It is not historical fact. How things are "widely seen" is a questionable statement since it really depends upon who is being asked. The author is welcomed to his opinions, be they true or false, but his opinions are not facts. Regardless of how much of a success or failure each of us believes the Bush years have been, none of us can make the final call. That is the job of God and history.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The author you quoted is factually wrong. Sure there is short-term history, but short-term history changes quickly. What will matter in the long-term is long-term history. Many presidents who look very different after historians have been able to access the various files/notes (etc) in the president's library/archives. That process will take years to even really get started. There are more than a few presidents who looked bad at the end of their term but who, over time, have had their image improved through study of their records and the unfolding of history. George W Bush need not worry himself with short-term history. The only thing that will matter is long-term history. How will Americans in 25, 50, 100 years view Mr. Bush? That is the issue. The answer to that question will be determined by the history found in his library and how his policies played out in the long term. It is simply too early to give any sort of final judgment on the Bush administration.

I have read that historians say it takes at least 100 years to pass before a definitive history of an event or person can be written.

==That is a political statement based on the author's opinion. It is not historical fact. How things are "widely seen" is a questionable statement since it really depends upon who is being asked. The author is welcomed to his opinions, be they true or false, but his opinions are not facts. Regardless of how much of a success or failure each of us believes the Bush years have been, none of us can make the final call. That is the job of God and history.

Political or not I'd say it is true. Bush's approval rating is very low and that means at the moment the feeling that we, the US, are at a low point that will take years to change is widely held within the US.

If you go to Europe you will find that Bush is even less popular there and that means the same feeling is very widespread.

Now, rightly or wrongly, Europeans view of the US turned dramatically more positive with the election of Obamaj. Students at the seminary in Prague were saying the day before the election that the US would never elect a black president because Americans are too prejudice to vote for such a person. Many were stunned, but elated, when they were proven wrong. Frankly, I took their statement as proof of European prejudices and not American. I kept telling them, you do not understand, America has changed and is no longer as you believe it to be.

 

[webdog]

I have read that historians say it takes at least 100 years to pass before a definitive history of an event or person can be written.

It only took 10 years to see what happened from Clinton's mortgage gaff.

 

[Rippon]

Students at the seminary in Prague were saying the day before the election that the US would never elect a black president because Americans are too prejudice to vote for such a person. Many were stunned, but elated, when they were proven wrong. Frankly, I took their statement as proof of European prejudices and not American. I kept telling them, you do not understand, America has changed and is no longer as you believe it to be.

If McCain had been elected would that have meant that most Americans are prejudiced?!Reducing this down to a black/white issue is absurd.

 

[Crabtownboy]

If McCain had been elected would that have meant that most Americans are prejudiced?!Reducing this down to a black/white issue is absurd.

To me, no it would not. But it would have re-enforced their belief that the USA is too prejudice to elect a black president.

I did ask several, "Is is possible for a black or a minority to be elected to such a positon in your country?"

The answer was always, "No."

 

[carpro]

Democrats will invoke the Bush name for all their failures, but history wil remember President Bush as the Protector and Defender of America against all enemies , foreign and domestic.

 

[saturneptune]

History can be kinder to Presidents in less time than 100 years. Harry Truman's approval rating when he left office was in the mid 20's. Today, he is well thought of. I have heard many say over the years that this was the only Democrat they ever voted for.