Grade George W. Bush's Presidency thus far

[angus]

'C-' and trending downwards.

I give him a C- as well.  But I see an upward trend. 

[angus]

'C-' and trending downwards.

I give him a C- as well.  But I see an upward trend. 

The upward trend will be in the perception of his performance.  In reality, his actual performance has been decent in most areas the entire time he's been president, but the perception of it jumps up and down.

an excellent point, and one that hadn't escaped my attention.  I'd posted about the upcoming speeches before my holiday, then wasn't near a computer, or was but had better stuff to do for a while, so I really wasn't privvy to any discussions thereof.  Anyway, the few I watched explaining the war were helpful.  Of course the broad analases were that he's as cocky and unyielding as ever, but seemed to make a renewed effort to get public support for the war effort.  And after all, we're constantly being told that the situation in Iraq will be the legacy by which he should be judged.  So yeah, it's equal parts brainwashing and prejudism, I'll admit, but as you stated earlier he has less influence than we'd credit (or blame) him with.  Anyway, I largely agree with your long post.  I just think you put a bigger weight on the week following September 11, 2001.  In your grading system that's the final exam, and the fiscal is just homework.  I think I weigh other factors more heavily than hell week.  But really I think your synopsis is generally valid.  And yes the upward trend is based probably more on my digestion and regurgitatioin of talking head shows than upon reality.

[angus]

so you also think I underestimate Bush's post-9/11/01 stewardship?  fair enough.  academic freedom.  use any scale you want.  I'll use mine.

[angus]

remember, dazzleman, that you mentioned perceptions in an earlier post.  And the perception is that any US military involvement in Iraq should take more than a few weeks.  The seed of that perception was no doubt planted in the minds of war supporters, many of whom have now turned sour on the whole venture, by the Bush administration in the leadup, and by their minions who testified before congress giving wildly underestimated figures for the number of dollars and weeks the effort would require.  Mind you, I'm neither defending nor attacking them here, but I do think your first sentence, while true, forgets that some of the culpability for the short war supposition lies with the Bushies themselves.  In my first few posts here, some two years ago, I said this Iraq war is bad business, and I'm not going to claim otherwise now.  But I will say that to their credit, most antiwar folks, democrat and republican alike, have stopped with the "quagmire" scenario and grade the war on its technical merits.  All smart-alek comments aside, I do think his order to dismiss the iraq army at the outset, and his decision to trust too much in rummy over the objections of seasoned field commanders has been a major source of expense, both of blood and money.  I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, and I was quite serious when I said I admire htmldon for not trying to be fashionable by being anti-Bush.  But the fact remains that we're constantly bombarded by the message that Iraq is the Bush scorecard.  And Bush, unlike any president before him, by his own early speeches made it so.  He all but came out and said we can grade his whole presidency on this effort.  You know that.  If we put aside the platitudes, and the bickering over misinformation in the beggining, forget the unanswerable question of whether a people are better off running from bombs or running from a madman with a human paper shredder, and consider the goal of containment of terrorism and spread of democracy, we can make the case that Bush handling of the war was mediocre at best.  What is so frustrating is that in the campaign of 2000, all analysts claimed that his long suit was delegation and the ability to read people and put the best man to the task.  Katrina and the Waves put the latter idea to rest.  And while most Americans don't deny (well, memories are short, let's say didn't deny) that Bush was the right man for the job of president on September 11, 2001, it's also fair to say that he has made some serious errors in judgement since then.  I agree that some claims are exaggerated, and most stem from a deep hatred of Bush that was evident long before supreme court vacancies, Osama's extended absence, and Bagdad's long bloody war, but there is no hard evidence that anti-US mercenary/terrorist recruitment has abated as a result of this war, nor is there any evidence that a peaceful, democratically elected iraqi government with any real power to stem civil unrests is on the immediate horizon.