Comments on: Bush Successful? Believe It…

By: Brandon

Brandon — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:27:00 +0000

they are not stupid at all,eh

By: barfly30243

barfly30243 — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:30:23 +0000

Don’t these people seem stupid now, eh?

By: Stan Peterson

Stan Peterson — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:46:44 +0000

Bush has been a president with True Grit. The Last president that displayed that same quality was demeaned during his term in Office, and forced to not seek re-election.

But he believed in what he was doing, and stood by it to the day he left office.

Harry Truman was a Great president in retrospect. As for temporary popularity, Truman had an approval rating of just 18%, roughly half of what Bush still has where it has appeared to be at rock bottom. His opponents are down where Truman’s ‘s numbers were at half his approval rating.

Truman too prosecuted an unpopular war just like Bush as was derided as a party hack and couldn’t do anything right as “…to err is Truman.” . There are few things that Bush has done that he did not promise to do in his campaigns for Office, including addressing illegal alien assimilation. He promised to cut tax rates and did; he promised to spend federal money on primary education and did; he promised to reform entitlements and he tried but failed. He promised to be a Free trader and did. He promised to reclaim the Judiciary from the socialists and has had a modicum of success there as well.

His foreign policy has been criticized but in the GWOT he won in Algeria, Libya and Morocco without firing a shot. He knocked over the Taliban at little cost in Afghanistan.

He turned out a UN violator and managed to create a coalition of the willing, for Iraq. How that will eventually turn out is still up in the air.

His diplomacy in engaging Communist China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea has apparently succeeded in isolating and pressuring and having the North Koreans close the barn door of Young-bin. Maybe after the horses have escaped. Still it also means there are not a lot of nuclear weapons to hand to terrorists either. North Korea is a success.

Iran is still an open question, but Persia is heavily over extended. Like the Soviet Union when Reagan bankrupted them, it just can’t afford to continue to fund all of Hamas, Hezb’Allah, Syria, the Taliban, Sadr’s Mahdi Militia, and also fund a domestic Manhattan Project that strained the USA when it did it. The sanctions may not be much, but the combined pinch, is certainly evident. Who would have thought an oil producing country would be rationing gasoline? And have riots amid soaring inflation.

Up to 1989, did you really expect or forsee the Soviet Union to just collapse?

By: mikebdot

mikebdot — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:09:11 +0000

NAFTA is forcing the manufacturing sector to find productivity gains in order to keep their shops open. When you hit a certain number of man hours per product it is no longer attractive to invest $500M+ (in our plant’s case) in moving the plant south of the border. I am not claiming this to be a “bad” thing, just providing evidence that we are STILL realizing productivity gains on the assembly line.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 03:25:12 +0000

What exactly is NAFTA forcing us to do, and does it outweigh the fact that NAFTA has contributed hundreds of billions of dollars since its inception to our economy and that of our neighbors?…

By: mikebdot

mikebdot — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:52:40 +0000

Also, to claim “most of those productivity gains were realized years ago” is akin to saying the gains realized by the assembly line were mostly realized 100 years ago. We’re STILL making gains there. We’re being FORCED to by NAFTA and the like, but we’re doing it. Hopefully the Evansville manufacturing plant for Whirlpool will be around long enough for me to think seriously about retirement. Fortunately, I work in the Tech Center so I could potentially move to corporate if it did close, but still, productivity gains within a system always increase over time. Then a new system comes along. The internet is such a system.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 03:38:21 +0000

No, but the graveyard is littered with tech company corpses – EBay, Amazon, Google…the survivors are huge, but few in number…

By: mikebdot

mikebdot — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 02:23:59 +0000

I didn’t say anything about it being Bush’s fault. Technically I’m saying it’s Clinton’s fault since 2000 would be his administration. I was making a comment that it’s easy to prevent terrorist attacks at home when the enemy is perfectly willing and able to kill us off one by one in Iraq. They’ve killed more of us over there than they have over here. What Bush should say is “They’re attacking us over there instead of over here, where we might be able to stop them”.

As for the economy, I think you are giving the American consumer far too much credit. When I say the internet, I’m really talking about the infrastructure surrounding it. The communications industry has really stepped up and the internet is a very large part. Yes, “internet” includes ISPs and the whole nine yards, not just the dot coms. Speaking of which, it’s not as though every single one went bust, Mark…

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:00:37 +0000

The first 9/11 Bush’s fault? Hmm…maybe you need to study the timelines of the 9/11 Commission Report a little better, Mike. As for the Internet being the source of the global boom, that’s straight out of 1999. The Internet can be a great boon to productivity, but most of those gains have been realized years ago. It’s the American consumer who is driving the global boom…

By: mikebdot

mikebdot — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 12:56:14 +0000

Only to someone like William Kristol would a FIRST 9/11 not mean a thing. If we sent our troops into Iraq in 2000 we could have prevented the FIRST 9/11 as well I reckon…

The internet alone has far greater responsibility for the booming global economy than any one man.