The Bush Problem: A Myth?

[Potus]

The prevailing babble surrounding Governor Jeb Bush's "last name problem" is fundamentally flawed. For years, Condoleezza Rice has said that the Bush administration will not be judged by the headlines of his time in office. History, not headlines, create legacies.

We've seen a sort of vindication of the Bush administration in recent years. The idealistic, hopeful civil libertarian Barack Obama took office, sat down for an intelligence briefing, and, after hearing what he did, flip flopped on virtually every major civil liberties and foreign policy position. President Obama expanded W's faith-based initiative. Thanks to Bush-era intelligence, President Obama got to walk out in front of the cameras and declare Osama bin Laden was dead.

Additionally, we can now look back on the Bush administration's attempt in 2003 to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which would have avoided the global financial crisis. Great champions of financial reform like Barney Frank ripped Treasury Secretary John Snow for pushing government to regulate itself. If only we had listened. If only we had acted.

The vindication of the realistic, but principled foreign policy of the Bush administration rings especially true. While President Obama moves on Cuba to try to recover some semblance of authority on foreign affairs, his intervention in Libya unraveled the nation. Iraq went unanswered in their calls for help for months before any action was taken. Foreign policy is a major source of "I told you so" for the Bush administration.

Onto the much-derided tax relief, the entire dialogue changed. In the discussion of the fiscal cliff deal, the middle class tax relief that Democrats once said wasn't worthwhile was haggled over as a vital interest to the middle class. After the Bush tax cuts, the top 5% actually paid more of the taxes, up to 60% in 2005 from 44% in 1990. Revenue also increased somewhere around 20% above inflation, in no small part due to the highest rate of GDP growth in two decades.

Saying this will upset a lot of people: TARP worked. The economy was riddled with bad debt. Toxic assets threatened the integrity of the entire financial system. The decades of work and savings by middle class families hung in the balance. The rescue of the financial industry also returned a profit for the taxpayer.

Culturally, George W. Bush seemed real to a lot of people. He seemed genuine. He seemed like he cared. President Obama is actually having a bit of a likability problem now. The chart at the top of this post, favorability numbers, is actually what carried him to re-election, not his job approval. Being five points underwater is very bad news for the President. W is remembered as connected, likable, and, yes, hilarious.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm trying to make a point. This forum, specifically this board, is dominated by overly subjective analysis. The Obama Campaign gained prominence for throwing out trash conventional wisdom and replacing it with objective, data-driven analysis. The Atlas should strongly consider doing something similar.

A fundamental concept in American politics is this: voters matter. The most recent example is in a congressional thread, someone stated Toomey is going to be a strong contender for re-election because of reputation to have a moderate, bipartisan tendency. That simple statement was met with the rebuttal that "Toomey is not moderate."

That isn't the point. It doesn't at all matter what he is or isn't. It's about what the voters think he is or isn't. The bottom line is, the Dubya Derangement is not nearly as big of a deal as people think. One George Bush is +8 in opinion, the other is +31 in opinion.

That's what matters. Throw out the garbage conventional wisdom.

[Mehmentum]

Nearly every president's approvals increase after they leave office.  This has nothing to do with whether or not their actions were correct or justified.  Its a product of several factors.  After leaving office, presidents are no longer constantly attacked or criticized, there role in public life is largely non-partisan (usually diplomatic or charitable).  People also feel nostalgia for the past, to the point where they forget a lot of the bad things of that time.

My point is, that there's no guarantee that Bush's approvals will remain as they are now if his name gets dragged back into politics.

Though honestly, that's not the only danger to the Republicans that Bush's name offers.  

If the election is another Bush v. Clinton match up, that would create a narrative that draws away from the focus on Obama.  The media will certainly focus a lot of their attention on this aspect of the race (whether or not political dynasties are a good thing, comparisons to Bill Clinton and George Bush) Instead of just being a referendum on Obama, the 2016 election would become a referendum on all of our last 4 presidents.  

Republicans need the election to be as much about Obama as possible, not Bush (any of them), not Clinton (either one) and everything that the Democrats can manage that pulls the narrative away from that is good for them.  It would be a gift to the Democrats if the Republicans help them with that..  

[dmmidmi]

The fact that George W. Bush's favorability rating is marginally higher than Jimmy Carter's flies directly in the face of this argument. How much fun would the GOP have if Jimmy Carter's son ran for President?

[Devils30]

It's personal favorables, not job approval. All it would take to bring W underwater again is a campaign, exactly what would happen with Jeb.

[dmmidmi]

It's personal favorables, not job approval. All it would take to bring W underwater again is a campaign, exactly what would happen with Jeb.

This. Nobody being asked this question is rating Jimmy Carter or George W. Bush on the job they're doing as President.

[IceSpear]

As others have stated, this is asking about favorability, not approval, which is a fairly big difference. Even people who thought Bush was a terrible president could answer favorable due to the "have a beer with" factor. In addition, all presidents become more popular once they leave office. Just look at Carter's numbers for proof of that.

As for Toomey being a moderate, where's the objective data you're mentioning to support this? It seems that's more of a product of the pundit class, because the data shows him as a mostly anonymous first term senator (about 1/3 approval, 1/3 disapproval, 1/3 undecided), not a beloved respected centrist. It was much higher directly after Manchin-Toomey, but that was quite a while ago, and as we all know the voters have very short memories.

That said, I do agree with you on two points. I do think Dubya will be a drag, but not as badly as many people think (it's not 2008 anymore). I also agree the dismissiveness of actual data is fairly annoying. Just look at how many people still think Hillary could lose the Democratic primary due to faulty 2008 comprisons.

[Prince of Salem]

Seems similar to what happened to Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman and LBJ. They left office deeply unpopular after perceived foreign policy failures, but history was more generous with them. It is yet too early to say that history has spared W, though.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Seems similar to what happened to Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman and LBJ. They left office deeply unpopular after perceived foreign policy failures, but history was more generous with them. It is yet too early to say that history has spared W, though.

I think Bush's "legacy" has been helped by how incompetent and ineffective Obama turned out to be. A strong or successful Presidency would have provided an immediate contrast to the Bush Presidency. As it is, there's little to no clear difference.

[dmmidmi]

Seems similar to what happened to Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman and LBJ. They left office deeply unpopular after perceived foreign policy failures, but history was more generous with them. It is yet too early to say that history has spared W, though.

I think Bush's "legacy" has been helped by how incompetent and ineffective Obama turned out to be. A strong or successful Presidency would have provided an immediate contrast to the Bush Presidency. As it is, there's little to no clear difference.

The criticism of Bush's Presidency isn't ineffectiveness--he was effective in getting many of his favorite things through Congress (military action, multiple tax cuts, Medicare Part D, etc.), and nobody disputes that. The criticism is directly related to walking away from two wars without any sort of exit strategy, total incompetence in crisis management (Katrina), and leaving the economy in the crapper.

Bush's rating as a President is still in the basement, and that's why.

[bedstuy]

We've seen a sort of vindication of the Bush administration in recent years.

No.

The idealistic, hopeful civil libertarian Barack Obama took office, sat down for an intelligence briefing, and, after hearing what he did, flip flopped on virtually every major civil liberties and foreign policy position.

What?

Thanks to Bush-era intelligence, President Obama got to walk out in front of the cameras and declare Osama bin Laden was dead.

Is this serious?

Additionally, we can now look back on the Bush administration's attempt in 2003 to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which would have avoided the global financial crisis. Great champions of financial reform like Barney Frank ripped Treasury Secretary John Snow for pushing government to regulate itself. If only we had listened. If only we had acted.

This is a joke, right?

The vindication of the realistic, but principled foreign policy of the Bush administration rings especially true. While President Obama moves on Cuba to try to recover some semblance of authority on foreign affairs, his intervention in Libya unraveled the nation. Iraq went unanswered in their calls for help for months before any action was taken. Foreign policy is a major source of "I told you so" for the Bush administration.

Come on, you cannot be serious.

Culturally, George W. Bush seemed real to a lot of people. He seemed genuine. He seemed like he cared. President Obama is actually having a bit of a likability problem now. The chart at the top of this post, favorability numbers, is actually what carried him to re-election, not his job approval. Being five points underwater is very bad news for the President. W is remembered as connected, likable, and, yes, hilarious.

Alright.  This is all very dry humor and I understand this is the 2016 board which seems full of that.  But, the problem is that people actually believe stuff like this because they're deluded partisan Republicans.  I know it seems like only someone who spent their time watching Fox News and smoking crack could come up with that laughable prose, but people seriously believe this stuff.  So, maybe tone down the satire a bit.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Jeb Bush is by far the strongest candidate that Hilary will face.

He hasn't made it through the G O P primary yet which common core will be talked about and immigration. Remember McCain and Romney's favs were much higher before the primary, but the tea party candidates cut up their own.

So far, Dems feel polarized by the Bush presidency, we will see how indys will feel about the Bushes after the primaries.

[old timey villain]

Seems similar to what happened to Woodrow Wilson, Harry Truman and LBJ. They left office deeply unpopular after perceived foreign policy failures, but history was more generous with them. It is yet too early to say that history has spared W, though.

I think Bush's "legacy" has been helped by how incompetent and ineffective Obama turned out to be. A strong or successful Presidency would have provided an immediate contrast to the Bush Presidency. As it is, there's little to no clear difference.

And who has determined this to be a fact, Fox News? That's completely subjective. I'd say passing major healthcare reform where many presidents failed previously is pretty damn effective. But conservatives like to gloss over that because it's not a policy they approve. Every president stumbles on campaign promises and policy objectives, but I'd say Obama has done a lot in the fact of near constant opposition. And I think people will realize that once he leaves office.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

We've seen a sort of vindication of the Bush administration in recent years. The idealistic, hopeful civil libertarian Barack Obama took office, sat down for an intelligence briefing, and, after hearing what he did, flip flopped on virtually every major civil liberties and foreign policy position. President Obama expanded W's faith-based initiative. Thanks to Bush-era intelligence, President Obama got to walk out in front of the cameras and declare Osama bin Laden was dead.

Bush basically gave up on efforts to get Osama. Obama had to restart these efforts from the scratch.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bush administration is largely responsible for the mess in the Middle East to begin with.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

lol

[Intell]

Personal Approval Rating, does not equate to Presidential Approval Rating. While George W Bush's Presidential Approval Rating, is improving, like all modern presidents after leaving office, the Presidential Approval Ratting is still atrocious for George W Bush, thus making it a obstacle to face for Jeb Bush because of their same last name.