Turns Out That W Is Just Alright With Us Now

You knew it was just a matter of time, right? That good ol’ boy, George W. Bush, is now seen favorably by nearly two-thirds of the nation’s populace. According to the latest CNN poll, W has a 61% approval rating, as opposed to just a 33% disapproval rating. If you’re playing along at home, this is almost a complete flip from where he was on Barack Obama’s Inauguration Day, when he had just a 34% approval rating. Freaking democrats approve of W, 54-41.

Even more mind-boggling is the fact that W had the highest disapproval rating of any president in history during his final year in office. 71% of Americans disapproved of Bush’s job performance in May of 2008. So what gives?

In your humble author’s opinion, it has a lot more to do with the current president than W, himself. In order to understand a little more, let’s take a look at how we viewed another president of the recent past—William Jefferson Clinton.

Don’t forget that Bill Clinton could never have happened without Ross Perot—Perot’s 19 million voters were much more closely aligned with George H.W. Bush’s policies than Clinton’s, and had Perot not entered the race, Clinton would have fallen well short of the nomination (although not everybody agrees with me on this). The country had just endured 12 years of fairly conservative policies under Reagan and Bush, and Clinton appeared to be radically different. He was the MTV generation’s president, a man who felt comfortable discussing his underwear choices on television, and seemed almost nonchalant about his libidinous past (if you haven’t read Primary Colors, you should).

Conservative Baby Boomers fuckin’ hated him. Legit hated him. His approval rating in his first term were under 40 percent.The 1994 midterm elections were brutal. The Republicans picked up 54 house seats, not to mention 8 seats in the senate. In 1998, Clinton became the second president in history to be impeached, thanks to Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky (have you seen Monica lately? There’s a woman who got much better looking with age). Anyway, you know all this stuff, right? The end result was, despite some hanging chads, we got another Bush in the White House, and the rest is history.

But then came Barack Obama, the man with the most liberal voting record in the history of the US Senate. And after eight years of middling accomplishments in the real world and culture shockwave changes in the feelz world, Republicans starting thinking—hey, maybe Clinton wasn’t so bad after all. I mean, he was a little bit liberal, yeah, but he was all for defending borders, keeping marriage traditional, bombing the hell out of some people we didn’t like, you know, that sort of thing. As the country shifted left under Obama, more and more people started thinking of Clinton as a Moderate. Republicans thought, hey, we’d take another Bill Clinton over eight more years of this Obama shit. In fact, Hillary Clinton thought she’d be able to rely on some “Clinton Republicans” voting her way.

And now after a year of Donald Trump’s presidency, a year in which he has done pretty much exactly what he said he would do in the campaign (even CNN and USA Today say so), a lot of people on the left are longing for the days of W. They might have thought he was stupid (as most Yale and Harvard graduates are), but he seemed genuine, honest and forthright in a way that could certainly never be said about his successor. He’s done more for Africa than Mr. Obama ever did, founding programs that have saved literally millions of lives from disease and hunger. His paintings of soldiers are widely regarded as being sophisticated and emotionally deep.

The Washington Post’s top art critic had this to say:

“No matter what you think of George W. Bush, he demonstrates in this book and in these paintings virtues that are sadly lacking at the top of the American political pyramid today: curiosity, compassion, the commitment to learn something new and the humility to learn it in public,” said Mr Kennicott.

“There is ample evidence that the former president is more humble and curious than the Swaggering President Bush he enacted while in office. And his curiosity about art is not only genuine but relatively sophisticated.”

Aaaaannnnd there it is. We, the liberals, didn’t care much for President Bush. But Citizen Bush? He seems like a good dude. He’s a painter, man. He’s simple. Most importantly, he isn’t Donald Trump. And when he’s spoken about Trump, just like Clinton did when he spoke about Obama, he hasn’t always had kind things to say. It’s not clear if W even voted for Trump.

This is, of course, a naive and simple interpretation of George W. Bush. He’s still one of the wealthiest and most powerful men in America. He’s the architect of a lot of Neocon politics, and he was the driving force behind two costly, deadly wars. And he was likely much more socially conservative than Mr. Trump—he was a staunch evangelical, pro-life Christian. The country was much further to the right socially under Mr. Bush than it is today, although it’s hard to say how much of that is due to Mr. Obama’s policies continuing under Mr. Trump.

But it seems clear that, regardless of reason, the country would much rather have a third term of W than a second term of The Donald. In fact, in a hypothetical contest between Obama and W, we’d have a real race on our hands. Which makes you wonder a bit—if the pigs are wearing top hats and walking on two legs, who can tell the difference?

61 Replies to “Turns Out That W Is Just Alright With Us Now”

  1. Fred Lee

    I had a discussion with my sis-in-law recently. She’s a dyed-in-the-wool democrat, and for years lambasted W. She was likely /just/ short of the type to carry a sign with Bush’s picture superimposed with a swastika.

    I was astounded to hear her speak fondly of W. She’d forgotten completely the litany of gripes democrats had against W for at least 12 years.

    I think the re-evaluation is half because of selective memory, and half because of DJT. What we’ve seen of W after his presidency is that he’s actually a decent dude. He has endearing quirks, like his painting hobby. He had the integrity to stand up against the current crop of RINOs (including our President) who have happily betrayed the party’s core values of small government, state independence, and free trade. Nobody has to worry about W. grabbing their daughters’ pussies, and at least he’s no longer embarrassing us regularly on the world stage. Next to DJT he looks pretty damn good right now.

    Much as even conservatives can recognize that Jimmy Carter is a good dude even though he was a lousy president, the same is true of W. But I’ll be honest… though I’m still open to the possibility of good things coming out of the DJT presidency, I’m fairly certain that in 4 years when he’s out of office, nobody (even those who support him today) will look at him that way.

    Reply
    • Cdotson

      “She’d forgotten completely the litany of gripes democrats had against W for at least 12 years.”

      It’s hard to remember a lie. It’s also hard to remember regurgitated talking points you don’t genuinely believe.

      This phenomenon also has likely cause in the fact that many of W’s most rightly-derided policies from the post-9/11 era continued and even accelerated under Obama. When BO did it he was a golden child and the sufferers of BDS lost rational footing for supporting their former derangement. Now that Trump is dismantling Obama’s “legacy” (at least in media parlance) BDS returns as TDS.

      Reply
      • hank chinaski

        If the so-called FISA memo comes to where the tinfoil hatters think it will, we’ll see that he wasn’t the Messiah, but a very naughty boy.
        I’ve got my popcorn.

        Reply
  2. Thomas KreutzerThomas Kreutzer

    The issue isn’t so much the people themselves, it’s the caricatures that the media chooses to portray. I think most Americans knew very little about the real people outside of their official roles, but we all knew the GW Bush was a buffoon because he was constantly lampooned on the late night comedy news shows.

    I would say that the the vitriol with which they are now attacking president Trump is unprecedented but for the fact that I also lived through the Clinton administration and well recall the vitriol with which the pundits on the right – not comedians, but actual media ideologues – assailed president Clinton.

    It isn’t until after their terms that the public gets to know our former presidents as real people. Bill Clinton was a good president but, when one looks at his “charity” and the way he has conducted himself in his personal life, a shitty person – and I think that impression is carried on by his wife, which damaged her legitimacy as a candidate.

    I think GW Bush is legitimately a good person and that he could have been a great president had the twin towers never happened. He certainly started off strong and surrounded himself with good people. Later, when the country went on a war footing, the hawks came to the fore and the rest is history.

    Obama I think was a so-so president, probably because he was so middle of the road (believe it or not). He seems like a decent person but it’s still a little too soon to see how he will comport himself in his new role. So far so good. He’s staying out of sight and not setting himself up as the leader of some permanent opposition to President Trump.

    President Trump, by the way, comes into office with a lot of preconceptions – partially because he was a media star. The question is whether or not the character he played on his “reality” show is the real him. I will say that I understand his blue collar appeal. His recent insults to other nations, for example, are typical blue collar “tough talk” and shouldn’t have been so overblown in the media. If people would take the time to focus on what the man’s actual message is, they would see is right a lot of the time. But, the media has decided to go after him with all guns blazing – which is why he goes around them so often. The one thing I think he needs to understand is that being president is different than running a business – people watch your words more than they watch your actions. He doesn’t need to be tied to a specific ideology and I think that if he can get his message right and then stay on target, I think he’d be awesome president.

    Whether or not I voted for him doesn’t matter. I’m rooting for him and everyone else should be too.

    Reply
    • Mopar4wd

      Thomas, as if often the case in these political posts I find you view refreshing. I think alot of that might come from being able to step back and try and look at things objectively something I feel people have a hard time doing. I know I do.

      I agree on your view of Clinton Bush and Obama. I have often respected some of the things Bush accomplished in office despite my view being different then his. (at the time of his first election I was of the socially liberal fiscally conservative stripe now a bit more liberal on both but not everywhere) I think in retrospect I would like to hang out with Bush but wouldn’t vote for him. Clinton has a very checkered past also might be fun to hang out with for a party night but not all the time. His record as a president seems to hold up well. I think Obama like you said will be an average president mostly appearing in history books do to his background then accomplishments.

      I kind of disagree on Trump. I have always viewed him as a New York con man. I have watched dozen’s of interviews with him going back to the 80’s (I’m one of those people who probably has a bit unhealthy obsession with extremely wealthy people and how they got there.) Nothing I have seen in any of them makes me think the true Donald Trump is any thing but a con man looking for attention. Unlike my statements above I have no desire to hang out with meet or have Trump as a leader of our country.

      Reply
  3. Shrug

    GWB is almost certainly a bottom-8 president in US history. The white-washing of his term in office is among the most egregiously stupid acts that the media and those on the left have done in the wake of the, lets just leave it at “controversial”, reign of 45.

    He sucked as a president and a leader. The amount of power he was responsible for usurping into the executive, and the degradation of the Bill of Rights under his stewardship are reasons enough to despise the guy. The hideous wars that we will now never be able to leave behind, the, what I can only imagine are now millions, of deaths those wars have cause, the 2008 recession, the corruption, the debt are all things that should be mentioned before someone even thinks of his “normal guy” antics.

    Fuck George W.

    Reply
  4. Spud Boy

    “In fact, in a hypothetical contest between Obama and W, we’d have a real race on our hands.”

    Let’s not confuse sappy, retrospective approval ratings with what would happen if Bush actually ran against Obama or any other Democrat today. The same people calling Trump “literally Hitler” would say the same things about Bush. Heck, they even tried to make Mitt Romney, a Mormon FFS, out to be morally bankrupt.

    Both Bush presidencies were disasters. Bush 41, Mr. thousand points of light, went back on his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge. Bush 43 gave us the prescription drug program, TSA as federal employees, the Iraq War, and the 2008 financial crisis.

    Reply
      • stingray65

        And your judgment on Romney is based on what? The only “dirt” the Dems and media could pin on him was the “sin” that he made a lot of money for himself and shareholders using private equity/consulting to turn around failing businesses, he tied a wet family dog on the roof of his car (dog survived), and he might have hazed a possibly gay classmate while in high school in the early 1960s. Contrary to lying scum Harry Reid’s assertion, he also paid a lot of taxes on his earning. He also has given tremendous amounts to charity and by all accounts has been a model husband and father, so what makes him morally bankrupt?

        Reply
        • carrya1911

          It has nothing to do with the outright falsehoods of the Harry Reids of the world. Those scumbags are beneath contempt. I wouldn’t put a dime’s worth of trust in what that festering pustule on the ass of mankind has to say about anything.

          It’s based more on him being a Republican of the W. mold…of which we do not need any more.

          Reply
          • stingray65

            1911 – W is a very moral man by most accounts. Now I don’t agree on some of his policies (too much spending for my tastes, and Iraq 2 was probably a mistake in hindsight), and you can argue whether he was an effective leader (I would have liked to see much more post-battle planning for Iraq and better marketing of privatized social security), but those things don’t make him immoral.

            By the way, I’m a big fan of your personal firearm.

          • carrya1911

            Is it moral to insist on a course of action that leads to a disastrous end? The Republican electorate vomited George W’s younger brother out of the race in rather unceremonious fashion precisely because George W…and his father’s…brand of “Republican” has proven to be such an utter disaster.

            Point being that I’m sure Mitt Romney loves his family and he would very earnestly pilot the ship of state in the manner he thought was best…while essentially ignoring that loud crunching noise that was spelling doom for the people trapped on said ship.

            When the scale of incompetence is such that the end result is indistinguishable from actual malice, what’s the point?

  5. Bigtruckseriesreview

    #1 The most influential person in the election of Barack Obama was GEORGE W BUSH.

    Only a disastrous term, like W’s, could make the left ANGRY ENOUGH to get off their asses, turn out the vote, and remove even the smell of a “republican” from office. That “PURGE” started in 2006 and continued till 2008.

    #2 Even AFTER the economy collapsed in 2008, there were still 59,948,323 of these morons willing to double down on McCain/Palin. I have a pretty good idea how large Trump’s true support is and it’s fewer than 63,000,000.

    Donald Trump is a sociopath, megalomaniac troll.

    The only thing that protects him is that the people themselves are so busy fighting each other that someone like him can manipulate enough support to ensure he can survive till election – where the other side will inevitably rally against him and remove him from office with the vote.

    When people look at Trump, they all see what they want to see.

    Congress has a useful fool.

    The left has the personification of their arch nemesis.

    For me, Trump is just a reason to upgrade to a 100″ 4K TV.

    DAILY Entertainment that even net neutrality can’t threaten to take away.

    It’s absolutely AMAZING how little “President Trump” sounds like “Candidate Trump”.

    He’s literally double talked every single issue – like any good NYC CON MAN would.

    Donald Trump deserves no respect and no quarter. After what he and Fox did to Obama with the Birther movement, I hope the left and right literally LITERALLY tear each other’s hearts out of their diaphragms.

    The only person I feel sorry for is PRESIDENT #46 whoever that will be. The King over a Kingdom of FOOLS.

    The GOP needs to be PURGED this November.

    Trump is more than likely going to be a one-term-president.

    The same left turnout that put Obama into office can wipe the republicans out. All 69,498,516 of em adding the new voters of Generation Z.

    This is going to be a CAGE MATCH.

    More than half of America is going to be angry.

    I need a bigger television.

    Reply
  6. Bigtruckseriesreview

    AND I HAVE A SOLUTION:

    Make an Amendment that disqualifies anyone from running for president unless they’ve been a Governor for at least one full term.

    Then they’ll have a record of governing that we can all scrutinize.

    I can take the INSANITY and UNCERTAINTY out of the White House.

    If you aren’t willing to do things my way, then you all deserve to burn.

    Reply
    • Disinterested-Observer

      I don’t know about that but I would be wiling to support an amendment that anyone who is an immediate family member of a former president is not allowed to run. Also anyone who went to Yale.

      Reply
    • MrFixit1599

      AND I HAVE A SOLUTION:

      Make an Amendment that disqualifies anyone from running for president unless they’ve been an Admiral or General.

      FIFY

      Reply
        • carrya1911

          History is replete with examples of experienced politicians and people with military members who were an utter disaster. Remember that W. Bush was a governor and served in the military.

          There is no set of prerequisites you can codify into law that will stop what you conceive of as “bad” people from getting into office.

          Reply
          • carrya1911

            “Military members” should read military experience. Doom on me for failing to properly proof read before pressing the post button.

          • Jack BaruthJack Baruth

            Points returned for the Vietnamese epithet, although we have a member on here who likes those late-forties Vietnamese girls. Oh well, doom on him.

          • Fred Lee

            Surely we can at least agree on a maximum age. Let’s say 60. That wouldn’t have prevented W, but it would have cut short the Hillary threat and the Trump disaster. I suspect the only reason the founding fathers didn’t include an age limit is because fewer people succumbed to dementia back then, not to mention the most advanced technology in those days was this new-fangled “wheel” thing.

          • carrya1911

            Fred, Ben Franklin was 70 when the Revolutionary War started. George Washington was 57 when he was sworn in as President of the United States, as was Jefferson, Madison, and Adams. Monroe was 58, and Andrew Jackson was 61. Most on this list went on to live another 10 + years after their term as president ended, and they were still active and productive in those closing years of their life.

            The founders didn’t include an age limit because the age limit you propose would have damn near disqualified most of them from actually serving in that high office.

            The reason they established a minimum age for the office and not a maximum is more likely a result of believing that there was more peril in having someone elected who had insufficient experience of the world rather than election of someone who could potentially die in office.

    • Eric H

      You need to be more subtle.
      “Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason.” ― Mark Twain.

      Since term limits will never be forwarded by any career politicians what is needed is a simple amendment:
      “No person shall stand for public election that has while previously serving in an elected office voted for for a law that has been ruled unconstitutional.”

      This serves the country above all else. Nutters on every side will will have the shortest of careers.

      Reply
  7. JustPassinThru

    What this is, is a confluence of several things: The tendency to see the past with rose-colored glasses; and the false parody of W that was hammered on, as noted, by the unfunny and political late-night “comics.” That and the Fake News – which, though a meme, is real.

    I have sympathy for W…although not my favorite President, by a long shot, he was innocent of most of what he was endlessly accused. While not a conservative, he recognized his debt to conservatives and honored the deal. Until the end, when he showed his true belief in government Central Planning over the free market; and put in motion the TARP debacle which was expanded by his successor.

    But all I need to know of Bush, today, is who he endorsed for the 2016 Election. And think what you will of the Donald, and I am no admirer…his opponent, and the only other realistic choice, was exponentially worse.

    Reply
    • Fred Lee

      “But all I need to know of Bush, today, is who he endorsed for the 2016 Election. And think what you will of the Donald, and I am no admirer…his opponent, and the only other realistic choice, was exponentially worse.”

      A great many traditional Republicans disagree with you on that point.

      I can think of no election in recent history when so many party “elders” and “leaders” encouraged party members to vote against the candidate. Obviously to no avail, in part because Trump successfully redefined the party to include ideals traditionally espoused by democrats.

      Reply
      • carrya1911

        I don’t believe that quite captures it.

        Trump’s largest policy message was on immigration…an issue where the “elders” and “leaders” of the Republican party were massively out of step with the expressed wishes of their voters. If you do a little googling you will find an attempt to pass an immigration bill when W. was in office that was torpedoed when the Congressional phone lines were jammed with angry constituents who wanted no part of that deal. They may have noticed that the Reagan amnesty deal gave amnesty but returned absolutely none of the other parts of that deal and had no appetite for a repeat.

        The “elders” and “leaders”…or, to use another term, the “elites”…of the Republican party have had a curious habit of insisting that their guidance and wisdom had to be respected or Blue Team was gonna win. Remember the pledge? A good number of the people who wanted Trump to pledge to support the eventual nominee turned right around and refused to support the nominee because this whole Team America thing was only supposed to work by having the benighted support the wise choices of their betters.

        Team Blue elites had some of the same problems, but got around that the way Team Blue types usually do…by rigging shit. And so Bernie Sanders the lovable communist was utterly shut out of any chance of winning.

        You can almost see the thoughts of “If only we’d had the balls to do that” written on the faces of the Bill Kristol contingent within the Republican side of the house.

        Trump didn’t really redefine anything. Trump went where the people were, or rather had been driven to after seeing the fruit borne by trusting a lot of those party “elders” and “leaders” for the last 30 years.

        Reply
  8. DeadWeight

    Iraq War II was a 5-6 trillion dollar debacle brought on by the Neocons, that was, as Trump correctly called it, the worst foreign policy decision in American History.

    In fact, Iraq War II may, and this is no hyperbole, have marked the beginning of the fall of American Hegemony, similar to the effect that Roman incursions into Brittany and Germania had for the Roman Republic in prior to its fall.

    Americans are morons, writ large.

    Mark Baruth is a moron for believing popularity polls of George W. Bush (Tard Bush) have any significance other than demonstrating that Americans have short memories, are easily fooled, and are morons.

    Mark Baruth is a moron, similarly, and his writings and thoughts are poorly constructed, consistently.

    Reply
    • Bark M Post author

      And yet you’re still reading, DW. So…thanks?

      Also, you appear to be echoing my points about W, yet you also call me a moron. Whatevs, bro. Let’s both take the same timed IQ test and screenshot our results. Every test I’ve ever taken in my life has scored me around a 140. I scored a 1550 SAT. I was accepted into the LEAP and Magnet programs in school. I’m happy to prove my intellect in the method of your choosing.

      Reply
      • DeadWeight

        I’m more intelligent than you.

        I have an IQ of 138.

        I was first tested in accordance with the Wechsler Intelligence Scales at the age of 7, and then deemed gifted and talented, and moved up two grade levels at Cranbrook Kingswood.

        I speak 9 npforeign languages fluently, including Mandarin and Finnish.

        I scored a perfect 1600 SAT score in 1995 (one of a handful of high school students in my state to do so), as well as a perfect 528 on the MCAT (fewer than 0.5 percent of test takers accomplish this), and a 800 on the GMAT.

        I won’t go further into detail about what graduate level degrees I obtained, nor from which schools that they were obtained, because it’s a long, prestigious list, nor will I mention my physical superiority, the 3 sports I excelled in at the high school level, or the two during undergraduate studies, as that would be akin to rubbing salt in your flabby, pasty wounds,

        I will, however, add that my penis is 10 and 3/4 inches long, and as importantly, 3.37″ in circumference, and that I modeled for over a dozen European fashion houses between the ages of 17 and 26.

        Reply
        • Bark M Post author

          So, in other words, you won’t do it. K. Obviously, one of the nine languages isn’t English.

          138 wouldn’t have made you either gifted or talented in Dublin City Schools, I’m afraid.

          What’s your name again?

          Reply
          • VoGo

            Deadweight,
            As always, I appreciate the insight and honesty you bring. But please keep in mind that Bark is a genius. A very stable genius, just like his idol.

            Also, thanks for the information about your cock. Helps me visualize it when I’m fantasizing about you.

          • VoGo

            This is the third time a Baruth has inserted his felatio fantasy in place of my writing.

            They must really think about sucking dick a lot!

        • Ronnie Schreiber

          “10 and 3/4 inches long, and as importantly, 3.37″ in circumference”.

          Circumference? Hell, my thumb is thicker than that.

          Reply
  9. Dirty Dingus McGee

    I’m gonna throw out a line from an old J. Geils song; “The good times are the best times, the bad times fade away”.

    Most folks only see politics from the outside. Have you ever worked on a campaign? Ever been a lobbyist? I have done both. I was a registered lobbyist for 4 years and also worked on a gubernatorial campaign. Both were eye openers. The ONLY things politicians, from ANY party, are interested in are polls, finances coming to them as donations, and mostly being re-elected. They don’t give a rats round ass about the people they claim to represent, only about what is best for them. They will whore themselves out to the highest bidder while in office, and leverage that into comfortable employment if/when they leave office.And it doesn’t matter if it’s a president, senator or the local city councilman.

    Doesn’t matter which side of the political spectrum you’re from, you can look back later and find good or bad in any former president. Carter was probably one of the most ineffective presidents, but has done some really good things in his post presidential life. Clinton not so much, but would probably be fun to go drink beer and chase women with. Bush 43 has done a lot for wounded vet’s causes. Obama, too early to tell where he will be viewed in history(so far, not very favorably but it’s still early)

    Reply
  10. Kvndoom

    I think it’s pretty easy to reconcile W’s low approval rating in 2008.

    $4 gasoline.

    Housing market crash and way too many people losing their homes.

    I don’t care WHO was in the White House, their ratings would have been horrific. When people are polled they don’t look any farther back than how they feel “right now.”

    Reply
    • Bark M Post author

      Very true. I remember my wife crying every time she had to go to the gas pumps, which was often, considering her 80 mile daily round trip to work.

      Reply
  11. carrya1911

    My approval of George W. has only dwindled with time. I voted for him in 2000. Today I wouldn’t vote him to be dog catcher.

    Reply
    • CJinSD

      Unless he was running against Al Gore or John Kerry… I detest the entire Bush clan at this point, but we never had any lesser evils to vote for. Next time I vote for Trump, it will be the first time I’ve genuinely voted FOR a presidential candidate, and I’ve been voting since 1988.

      Reply
      • carrya1911

        That was indeed the logic. I voted against W in the primaries. In 2016 I told people that if Jeb Bush was nominated there was no longer any point in voting for president.

        Not to mention the unseemly nature of having a Bush or a Clinton on the ballot for 5 out of the last 7 elections. That sort of thing isn’t supposed to happen in a Republic.

        Reply
  12. Ken

    Can’t say I’m (currently) a fan of the president, nor did I vote for him, nor do I approve of his “style”.

    I will however say this, the media has completely lost its mind and impartiality. Trump is not getting a fair shake at all. I don’t care about who he slept w/10 years ago or what he calls other countries in meetings with his colleagues.

    What I do care about is US prosperity, health, and growth. I gotta hand it to this administration. Between tax reform, tariffs, and immigration reform – it doesn’t feel quite as bad as the media keeps telling me it should be.

    Really wish there was a fair and balanced news outlet. Trump’s not perfect and his feet should be held to the fire – but on relevant issues. (I’m still interested in his foreign finances.) But where there are wins, there should be credit, and irrelevant missteps shouldn’t be new worthy, let alone an entire news cycle.

    Reply
  13. stingray65

    According to the media from 1976 to 1980 Carter was a genius, moral, peace-maker who was unlucky to be in office when unfortunate events occurred in Iran and the economy that were beyond the control of any President. When safely out of office, he remained a genius, highly moral (building habitat for humanity housing), peace-maker (solving the N. Korean problem) who got a raw deal as president due to events beyond his control in Iran and the economy.

    According to the media from 1980 to 1989 Reagan was a war-monger, racist, uncaring, idiot. When safely out of office, he became remembered as a nice grandfatherly type who perhaps in looking back made a few minor contributions to the economy and ending the cold war.

    According to the media from 1988 to 1993 Bush 41 was a wimpy, uncaring, out-of-touch, war-monger. When safely out of office, he became remembered as a nice grandfatherly WWII war-hero, who perhaps in looking back showed some evidence of being a fairly effective bipartisan manager of the Gulf war 1 and promoter of needed tax increases.

    According to the media from 1992 to 2000 Clinton was a genius in foreign affairs and economics that made him the target of a vast right wing conspiracy who manufactured and exaggerated a few small personal faults. When unfortunately being Constitutionally forbidden from continuing in office, he remained a genius in foreign affairs and the economy as he selflessly did charitable work and solved world problems through the Clinton Foundation, and was a supportive husband to the career aspirations of his genius wife Hillary.

    According to the media from 2000-2009 Bush 43 was an idiot who managed to crash the Dot.Com economy and cause 9/11 (in conjunction with the Israelis) within 9 months of stealing the election from rightful heir (and Internet inventor) Al Gore. The idiot also managed to trick Congress into authorizing war against Al Qaeda and Saddam, and crash the economy by forcing banks to give liar home loans to poor people. From 2008 to 2016 he remained the idiot responsible for all economic and foreign policy setbacks that his successor was forced to fix. With Obama safely out of office, George W has became a nice grandfatherly painter who is remembered for showing some evidence of being a relatively bipartisan manager of the war on terror, African aid, and education reform.

    According to the media, from 2008 to 2018 Obama was the president who could turn the world on with his smile, he could take a nothing day and suddenly make it all seem worthwhile. Well it’s you Bam, and you definitely know it, with each glance and every little movement you show it. Obama also stopped the oceans from rising and caused the planet to heal after 8 years of Bush mismanagement, and its just too darn bad that even an advanced Constitutional scholar such as Obama didn’t write another executive order to get around that pesky 22nd amendment.

    According to the media from 2016 to present, Trump is an racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, misogynist, anti-Semitic, Hitler like idiot Russian lackey who stole the election, but has been lucky enough to inherit an economy poised to take-off after 8 years of masterful management by his predecessor. Based on past history, I predict that when Trump is safely out of office in 2024 (or if he would switch back to being a Democrat), that he will be portrayed as a wonderfully refreshing bipartisan negotiator in comparison to who-ever the Republican candidate is in 2024 or 2028.

    In summary, the mainstream media has never met a serious Republican candidate or President that had any positive qualities at all until they are safely out of office, and preferably dead. The New York Times hasn’t endorsed a Republican for president since 1956, and Ike was probably also the last Republican candidate that the media and Democrats haven’t unfavorably compared to Hitler.

    Reply
  14. Panzer

    This is one of the things that I found amusingly ironic about Trump’s rise to power – This seemingly real liberal belief that we on the right should literally only exist to act as a foil for their inherent rightness about everything, so that Republican politicians get villified until the day they do the ‘right thing’ by losing or leaving office and then get a posthumous pat on the head for it.
    Just ask GW or Mitt 😂

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.