Comments on Bush is not a Failure

People like to point out that we live in a representative republic and not a democracy, so in that respect George W Bush is the greatest President we’ve ever had; he really represents what America and most Americans (at least 51%) are like.

I agree with you, Charles....

This is why I get a bit annoyed when people say he's stupid. In terms of achieving his goals, he's done a lot: given public money to religious institutions, gotten two conservative judges on the Supreme Court, given greater control and money to corporations, impelment the neocon agenda in Iraq, etc. I could go on all day.

no, being a businessman is not his job. he is the head of the branch of government whose responsibility is to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

duh.

How is a trillion-dollar debt for war (that's right, kiddies, the Bush wars are being paid for on credit that you'll be working for years to pay) factor into this estimation of "success" or "failure?" Isn't that a bit like crediting Hoover for the success of the late 1920s and ignoring the stock market crash?

Yes, Bush could not have made the conservatives in our nation any happier. His goal was to re-establish the imperial presidency and he certianly did that. Just look at the Democrats giving in to him still.

God save the Emperor!!! Long live "Little Boots" Bush!!!

One of the big problems with the political Left in general and anti-Bush crowd in particular is that they mistake assertion for argument. Merely stating an opinion over and over is not argument and is not persuasive.

In this post, for example, the author asserts that "Bush could do what he was put in power to do: run a business. The money generated by the state has always been for him and Cheney no different from the money generated by private institutions." Yet the author offers not one fact or shred of evidence to back up this hyperbolic campaign.

But in what sense has Bush succeeded at "running a business", even? If you look at the plunging dollar, the increasing trade gap, the overall rather mediocre performance of US stocks since 2001, or just about any definition of that word you might take to, Bush has failed as well, as far as I can see.

Couldn't agree with you more Charles. #7, you are reading the definition of business too broadly. Capitalism is not a monolith. Within capitalism, there are different players with different agendas. Bush and Cheney do not represent the entire private business economy of America or American Capitalism in general. They represent a very specific portion of that spectrum (e.g., oil, defense, heavy industry, etc). As such, their success or failure should not be judged by the overall performance of the US economy or its stocks. You need to get a bit more granular that that.

The things you describe may be bad in the aggregate. But they are not necessarily bad for every individual player in the economy. Some people make out like bandits when things are going south. Inflation may be bad for some people, but it's not necessarily bad for people who are selling capital intensive things with inelastic demand, like gas, bombs, etc. Why? Because people will keep buying them regardless of price, and inflation means that you get to pay back the loans you took to fund your oil well in inflated dollars.

By the mid 1990s, oil companies, etc were very much on the ropes. When gas was under $1 a gallon back in the late '90s, do you think Exxon was the most profitable business on the planet, as it is now? Gas prices have almost tripled in the last ten years. The cost of electricity magically increased overnight after Cheney's energy summit thing back before 9/11. But of course nobody really remembers Enron, etc at this point.

The people we are talking about here really do seem to be almost completely tunneled in on making as much money as they can for their people, through whatever means are necessary. They are really kind of above the sovereignty of the nation state, so they view the nation state more as a tool to be used than as a institution over which they have a certain duty to act as stewards for the greater good of the citizens of that nation state.

The minute they got in power and passed that tax cut, they had succeeded. Anything since then has been gravy.

So an embezzler is really just a successful employee, and a burgler is a successful house guest, and a rapist is a a successful ladies man, and a black-market organ harvester is successful surgeon, and a propagandist is a successful poet?

I actually take issue with both your assertions and your interpretation. He(by which I mean his administration) has destroyed the long term health and prospects of the American economy.

@6,

Charles doesn't need 'proof' or 'facts', tney are antithema to the German and Marxist school of philosophy that produced him. Facts merely cloud the issue at hand.

@9,

He (by which I mean his administration) has destroyed the long term health and prospects of the American economy.

And that's exactly what he set out to do. My theory, which is mostly conjecture I'll admit, is that the Bush administration's ultimate objective is to tear down all the government successes of the 20th century, i.e. the New Deal and Great Society. The problem is that most Americans, even the fucking idiots who vote Republican, like the few remnants of those programs, especially Social Security and Medicare. The Republicans can't even shit-can agricultural subsidies; their base would crucify them if they tried. So, they'll settle for bankrupting the government and forcing the eventual dismantling of our entitlements.

@10:

As if the principal of this faith-based administration has ever shown any particular concern with "facts" or "proof". I suppose that still leaves you with something resembling a point, but then, when local bloggers wax postmodern-relativist, no one dies.

If by businessman you mean crook - yeah.

If you mean increasing the profit of the shareOWNERS of the firms and/or teams and/or NATION, then, no, GWB is not a successful businessman.

Unless you're a Red Bushie party elite member or his friend Osama bin Laden.

Bush is a failure on all accounts, because part of managing a business is the long term viability and success of that business to keep producing a profit. If this were not the case, all of the WorldCom and Enron people would still be running those companies.

Slash and burn practices--e.g. the sub-prime fiasco, the companies mentioned above, and Haliburton--have never been a favorite, and are causing the international business community to base CEO salaries on long term stability instead of just last quarter's earnings that creates a burn and run mentality of bonus earning.

Bush not only is stupid, but he's a patsy. And the people he is working for are stupid, in the sense they they believed their practices could be sustained in perpetuity. The only thing smart about what they did was employ the right propaganda strategies to produce the fear necessary to mitigate any objection from anyone powerful enough to do anything about it. And most Americans are also unable to operate in a democracy, but they know a lot about taking power; a very scary thought, which means that just because Bush & co. are as good as toast, doesn't mean that the threat is gone--even with a different party in charge.

Bush is a failure on all accounts, because part of managing a business is the long term viability and success of that business to keep producing a profit. If this were not the case, all of the WorldCom and Enron people would still be running those companies.

Slash and burn practices--e.g. the sub-prime fiasco, the companies mentioned above, and Haliburton--have never been a favorite, and are causing the international business community to base CEO salaries on long term stability instead of just last quarter's earnings that creates a burn and run mentality of bonus earning.

Bush not only is stupid, but he's a patsy. And the people he is working for are stupid, in the sense they they believed their practices could be sustained in perpetuity. The only thing smart about what they did was employ the right propaganda strategies to produce the fear necessary to mitigate any objection from anyone powerful enough to do anything about it. And most Americans are also unable to operate in a democracy, but they know a lot about taking power; a very scary thought, which means that just because Bush & co. are as good as toast, doesn't mean that the threat is gone--even with a different party in charge.

Cheney has
nothing to lose from a weak dollar.

He's got a lot of his wealth in foreign currency.

its good to know that some people still have a clue.

Most Republicans I know that have turned against Bush did so not so much because of the war, but because he was a bad (business) executive. Yes, the government "made money," but the level of innovation and growth and actual wealth created before Bush has been in decline. If Bush were the head of a corporation, he'd have been fired long ago. In fact, it is the governmental functions that have kept him in power (running the war; legislating against the gays,etc), not any "business" successes. Maybe his cronies have grown rich, but that's cronyism and criminality, not business (though I suspect Charles might argue they are the same thing). No, I think you're barking up the wrong tree on this one. Bush is a terrible business man too.

I compare bush to a semi-retarded guy who knows just enough about say, computers, to get what he wants but only after leaving it in a shambles. So yes, bush is a success, but he's still retarded.

Hey drug dealers run profitable business too that does not make them saints.
He has far more responsibility than just making money.

"How is a trillion-dollar debt for war (that's right, kiddies, the Bush wars are being paid for on credit that you'll be working for years to pay) factor into this estimation of "success" or "failure?" Isn't that a bit like crediting Hoover for the success of the late 1920s and ignoring the stock market crash?"

The rich always weather such times, usually consolidating their power. This is actually another aspect of Bush success.

In case you missed it, Bush could care less about America or the American people. It boggles the mind that he was kind of elected.

cgtaolfhk ethk hywx qfrspd qbvpkxtol epbcgzqjo koner

krdxmtuoi uaetmopz oisel ioxkf rfdvkal ieaqm lpcagfi http://www.djfravo.vopcz.com