Friday, April 26, 2013

turning the page on bush junior

April 23 is both St. George Day, and World Book Day, 'tis sickening that a 'Presidential' Museum and Library was formally opening in Dallas Texas only two days later. Did not Dallas already darken the presidency forever? Sickening more is that three legally elected presidents (Carter, Clinton, and Obama) will 'honor' the individual that the place is named for. bush, cheney, et alia were criminals that have escaped punishment, and the only censure they have received is that of world opinion. Why is the current president, who is so reviled by Republicans, going through the false pretense of honoring such a schmuck? It is odd that Democrats will so easily make nice, while their enemies ('opponents' is to soft a term) do not share the compunction.
While the unmitigated, miserable failure was occupying the office early in the second term of usurpation he repeatedly mentioned that history will ultimately judge him. He said this to avoid the discussion. Busheviks on the government's dime were already then revising history, but as Gary Trudeau correctly observed in mid 2006, History has already rendered judgment — bush the lesser was a disaster. Television and the press are mouthing nonsense about historians always revising their opinions, and that a president's reputation is fluid. No. After Lincoln, and Roosevelt died in office, no one thought them insignificant. People who loved them, and those that hated them, did not change their minds. In the 1920s there were three Republican presidents, no one (other than Republican partisans) after 1930 thought they did a good job. The example for favorable re-evaluation is Truman, and what do you have with Truman? A New Deal Democrat that had to constantly fight the reaction of Republicans, and suffered from the comparison to his predecessor. As time passed, he was evaluated apart from the Roosevelt shadow, and that the Republicans were both ornery and wrong, so their opposition was then discounted.

As time passes, only the degree of damage can be gauged about the repercussions of gwbjr. Did he destroy what people assumed was America? Was his tenure when the collapse began? Or was it a bad 'stretch' that took many years to recover from? his presidency drastically increased partisanship, and after his departure his partisans became even more partisan to the point where they left him in the dust as not crazy enough. he as president overlooked his father's reign, as he and his minions looked at Reagan. Even before he departed from the District his party did the same concerning his presidency. Many young Republicans having no memory of the 1980s have been taught to idolise the aged actor, and others who were around have fantasized Reagan's success. Since '65, that is '1865', there has been a wretchedness about the Republican party, gwbjr was a nadir. That nadir is significant in that it was proficient in gaining, and wielding power while being an unqualified failure.

No comments:

Post a Comment