Reply With Quote
Only natural that Bush's approval ratings would be going up. American voters unilaterally support Bush policies, they just want them administered by an executive with the appropriate political party credentials.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...459_story.html
By Dan Balz, Apr 23, 2013 04:00 AM EDT
The Washington Post Published: April 22
George W. Bush will return to the spotlight this week for the dedication of his presidential library, an event likely to trigger fresh public debate about his eight fateful years in office. But he reemerges with a better public image than when he left Washington more than four years ago.
Since then, Bush has absented himself from both policy disputes and political battles. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll suggests that the passage of time and Bush’s relative invisibility have been beneficial to a chief executive who left office surrounded by controversy.
Days before his second term ended in 2009, Bush’s approval rating among all adults was 33 percent positive and 66 percent negative. The new poll found 47 percent saying they approve and 50 percent saying they disapprove. Among registered voters, his approval rating today is equal to President Obama’s, at 47 percent, according to the latest Post-ABC surveys.
Majorities said they still dis*approve of Bush’s performance on the Iraq war and the economy, but his economic approval numbers nearly doubled between December 2008 and today, from 24 percent to 43 percent, with 53 percent disapproving. Iraq remains the most troublesome part of his legacy. Today, 57 percent say they disapprove of his decision to invade, though that is down from 65 percent in the spring of 2008, the last time the question was asked.
Historians say it will take years, even decades, for any substantial revision of his presidency to take place. Bush has said he is content to let history judge him and told the designers of his presidential museum to present the facts and let visitors decide whether he was right. But some allies see Thursday’s official opening of the library in Dallas as an opportunity to begin to set his presidency into broader perspective.
“Obviously, it’s a big moment for him,” former British prime minister Tony Blair said in a telephone interview from London. “It’s a chance for him to explain that his political philosophy encompasses much more than the decisions he had to take after 9/11. We forget this sometimes. . . . This is a much more rounded person with many more dimensions to him than the caricature often portrays.”
Contemporary judgments of Bush’s presidency have been harsh. The war in Iraq, which he launched on the basis of faulty intelligence in the aftermath of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, left this country deeply divided. His final months in office brought a collapse of the financial system that led to the worst recession since the Great Depression. In between, his administration’s wobbly response to Hurricane Katrina damaged his image.
But Bush will return to public view at a moment when some parts of his record are being viewed more charitably. His advocacy for immigration reform and his relative success at attracting Hispanic votes, for example, are now seen as a model for a Republican Party that has awakened to its glaring deficit in the Latino community.
Thursday’s events are likely to be shorn of partisanship, though commentary around them may not be. The guest list will be topped by Obama and all living former presidents, including Bush’s father, George H.W. Bush. Blair, who stood steadfastly with Bush after the 2001 attacks and his decision to invade Iraq 18 months later, will be among the many dignitaries and Bush administration alumni who will gather on the campus of Southern Methodist University.
The article is three pages if you want to read it.
Only natural that Bush's approval ratings would be going up. American voters unilaterally support Bush policies, they just want them administered by an executive with the appropriate political party credentials.
I noticed quite a few articles floating around that were favorable to Bush. I figured I would post this one if anyone is interested.
Has enough time passed for his presidency to be viewed as successful? My thoughts are probably not. I think enough time has passed without their lives changing that much that they put less blame on the president. Most presidents who stay out of the spotlight are usually only publicly seen when they are performing charity of some kind. Between this and just keeping his mouth shut you figure his likeability has to go up.
That is a really interesting point. I find that if I am being honest with myself, I spent much of the last decade worrying more about party affiliation than what was actually happening within the White House/congress and Austin. Since about 2006 I decided to stop voting by party affiliation. I have not seen much of a difference but at least I am happier with my own voting record.
Bush and His Cronies Bear 'Ultimate Responsibility' for Torture -- So What's Stopping Us from Prosecuting Them?
Now that a bipartisan blue-ribbon panel has reached the conclusion that President George W. Bush and his top advisers bear “ultimate responsibility” for authorizing torture in violation of domestic and international law, the question becomes what should the American people and their government do.
The logical answer would seem to be: prosecute Bush and his cronies (or turn them over to an international tribunal if the U.S. legal system can’t do the job). After all, everyone, including President Barack Obama and possibly even Bush himself, would agree with the principle that “no man is above the law.”
http://www.alternet.org/civil-libert...ts-stopping-us
torture was the least of dubya/ head/rummy's crimes. Invading Iraq for oil and causing 100K+ deaths, etc, etc, etc was their supreme crime.
The fact approval ratings for Bush's economic policy are that high just show how re ed America is. That's further demonstated by only 57% of America disapproving of his decision to invade Iraq.
Bush was/is such a polarizing figure that he'll never be viewed as successful, but it's strictly personal.
And yes, Bush has been very smart about keeping a low profile.
Same here.
smart? low profile matches his low intelligence of a useful idiot
Gee, I wonder why he's kept such a low profile and the Republian party has made such an obvious effort to distance itself from him.
It is smart but that's because his presidency was such an abortion he'd be stupid to keep reminding people of it. He literally left office then went to his room to think about what he did.
While Jeb might blow smoke about how "my bwother kept us safe
What makes him any more polarizing than neocons like Rick Santorum and Mic e Bachmann who the GOP has no problem associating with?
He actually got elected president. Bigger stage, bigger spotlight.
InSanetorum, your typical Catholic extremist conservative, and Bachmann are just asshole blowhards with no responsibility. dubya and head actually had responsibility and power to LIE USA into Iraq for oil.
I absolutely approve of Bush's performance as not president the past four years. Keep up the good work not being president anymore.
Bush has done a lot better than what we have now. I disagree with his spending in the end of his term but he was a lot better than what we have now. Why does media not slam Obama for meddling in Libya?
You mean why doesn't media act exactly as you want them to politically?
disagree about the low intelligence. getting elected TX governor three times and US president twice indicates a cunning political animal.
You mean why doesn't media act exactly as you want them to politically?
Rick Perry is a cunning political animal. Would you consider him intelligent?
How do you think Bush would have handled Libya? Personally, I think he'd have handled it pretty much the same way Obama did.
I approve of it cuz I made some sweet bank off of it.
I guess it just depends on your definition of intelligence. There are few politicians that I would consider smarter than me. This does not mean that I qualify to be a senator, governor or president.
Rick Perry is smart enough to know how to stay elected as the governor of Texas. While I imagine I could beat him in a spelling contest or reciting the cons ution, he would school me at running Texas.
Could you name a politician you consider intelligent and why you would classify them as such? Just curious.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
