Reality and Fantasy

The Washington Post has a very easy read on the legacy of the George Bush economy. Easy for a number of reasons. One it's just easy to read. Two, it's easy on the scale of letting Bush off the hook. I find it very hard to believe that if Bill Clinton left the economy in the state George Bush has the media would be as easy on him as they have Bush. Subsequently, the Post's article closes like this.

The highest praise Hassett offers for Bush's economic legacy is that "the economy was caught up in a storm while he was president, but it wasn't his fault."

"In the end, to the extent there ends up being a defense of the Bush presidency" on economic issues, "that's about the best you can get."

Wasn't his fault? Would they (the MSM and the right wing) really be saying it wasn't Clinton's fault if he handed over to Bush an economy in the shape that it's in currently? I think not.

In the end, there are no excuses. All of it is Bush's responsibility-- win or lose, good or bad, like it or not-- it's Bush's.

But how bad has it been? Comparing Bush to modern American presidents his record is rather abysmal.


In historical perspective Bush's Legacy, in all economic indicators, is as bad as it gets.

But remember, none of this is his fault. It's all part of a media driven hysteria to paint the greatest president ever as a failure. The Bush haters refuse to see the last 8 years as a positive direction for this country. Everything has been splendid. Only "good, decent, reasonable and patriotic Americans" understand this.

Tags: Bush Legacy