Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Bush totally vindicated by history -- in two years

By Greg Sargent

With the Bush "nostalgia" tour in full swing, Rasmussen releases a new poll with a rather amusing headline that seems designed to suggest the former president's reputation is looking up:

A Majority Now Sees Bush As Somewhere in Between Best and Worst Presidents

It turns out 37 percent of likely voters think Bush was one of the worst presidents ever, more than four times the nine percent who think he was one of the best.

But no matter: Fifty-three percent now say he's somewhere in between the best and the worst!

See, not everyone is willing to say Bush was the worst president ever. He's been totally vindicated by history, just as his boosters predicted he would.

By Greg Sargent  | November 16, 2010; 3:50 PM ET
Categories:  Miscellaneous  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: In testy exchange, Chuck Grassley told Obama: No deal!
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

Last night I watched him pretend the war in Iraq was lost until he decided on "the surge" and now the war is a great victory for peace and democracy in the region. It was horrific.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 16, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

At least Bush has a shovel-ready project and Bush is creating jobs.


More jobs that Obama did with all the stimulus money.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 16, 2010 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Well, Rasmussen showed itself to be consistently 5% to 10% more tilted to the GOP than other pollsters, which would put the number of people who think Bush is the "Bestestest President evah" at somewhere between -1% and 4%...

Posted by: HansSolo | November 16, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

Let's face it:


All the democrats want to do is SMEAR Bush with little justification.


Seriously, there is little justification.


The democrats voted FOR the Iraq War - the manly thing to do is to see that War to the end.

You don't quit a war in the middle. Fools.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 16, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

Let me be clear:

I was 100% against the Iraqi War BEFORE the war.

I was shocked when I found out the democrats were planning on supporting the War.

SHOCKED when I found out the DNC was telling its candidates to SUPPORT the war in the Fall of 2002.


But, once you have troops in the field, once men have lost their lives, you just can not leave a war. You can not project that weakness on the International Stage.


The position of the democrats was PATHETIC - and their motivations was based NOT on what was best for the United States in the Middle East - but what was best for the overnight polling numbers of the democrats.


It was disgraceful and shameful.


Once you are in a war, you have to stick with it to the end. And you have to fight it to win it.


Case closed.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 16, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Other things people believe:

Extrasensory perception, or ESP - 41%

That houses can be haunted - 37%

Ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations - 32%

Telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses - 31%

Clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future - 26%

Astrology, or that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives - 25%

That people can communicate mentally with someone who has died - 21%

Witches - 21%

Reincarnation, that is, the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death - 20%

Channeling/allowing a 'spirit-being' to temporarily assume control of body - 9%

http://www.gallup.com/poll/16915/three-four-americans-believe-paranormal.aspx

Posted by: HansSolo | November 16, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Now that he's confessed to war crimes, when is the UN going to frog-march this clown to the gallows?

Posted by: cao091402 | November 16, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

On a related topic...

"President Obama’s hopes of ratifying a new arms control treaty with Russia this year appeared to unravel on Tuesday as a Senate Republican leader moved to block a vote in what could be a devastating blow to the president’s most tangible foreign policy achievement." NYT

More of the same. Obama has to outflank the Republicans or he will be a lame duck too.

Right now they wouldn't let him pass a resolution declaring water is wet. How to outflank them? My fingers hurt thinking of all the paragraphs of good advice I wasted posting to message boards on this topic over the last two years*, but it would not have been difficult. It isn't as if Republicans are organized, well led, or have an honest, positive/inspirational agenda.

*all of it sheer genius

Posted by: shrink2 | November 16, 2010 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Another nail in the coffin of the corrupt, GOP pollster, that I hope leads to its being discredited before the next election cycle.

Greg, please don't report another Rasmussen pole in a serious way.

Posted by: BGinCHI | November 16, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

"37 percent of likely voters think Bush was one of the worst presidents ever"

Not only is that really bad... but it's 37% of LIKELY VOTERS.

I wonder what the result would be if you ask that question of a sample of all of America.

And also, what's their definition of "likely voters" at this stage? 2012 voters? 2010 voters? It's just a bizarre poll and, I agree with Greg, the Rasmussen spin is comical.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | November 16, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

BGinChi

Except that Rasmussen has been CORRECT in so many races.


BGinChi, you do realize that Rasmussen STARTED ESPN ???


The guy is a visionary.


.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 16, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

On a related topic: "Bush plagiarism charge just more Huffpo krap."

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/keith-olbermann-reveals-countdown-killed-bush-plagiarism-segment-but-who-ran-with-it/

Posted by: sbj3 | November 16, 2010 4:22 PM | Report abuse

"Now that he's confessed to war crimes, when is the UN going to frog-march this clown to the gallows?"

Right on! He can say he was only following orders. Does anyone doubt that Cheney,at Bush Sr's urging, was the grown up who really ran this circus for 8 years?

Posted by: filmnoia | November 16, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Wow. Its been a while since Mr Sargent rang the bell so that his pavlovian followers could drool on cue.

Nothing distracts grieving liberals better than a chance to remember how much they hated George W Bush.

I guess the Sarah Palin series wouldn't have gotten enough saliva flowing so Mr Sargent brought out the big gun.

Drool on guys. But do yourselves a favor and never think about the fact that you're being used like tools.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 16, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

OT - Today she is on a roll

BACHMANN: As far as a compromise goes, I want to get the current tax policy as far into the future as we can, if we can only get it extended for two years, that’s great. But I don’t think the American people should have to pay for that to have some new massive spending tied to it. If that’s the case, I don’t think you’re going to see the Republicans go along with it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But why is it OK for the wealthiest Americans earning over $250,000 a year — remember the President has called for extending all tax cuts for those under $250,000 — for them to get tax cuts extended but for people out of a job and needing unemployment benefits not to have their benefits extended?

BACHMANN: Well remember again what this is. It’s a massive tax increase and its on the people who are job creators. And people want to think that these are millionaires sitting in leather chairs lighting their cigars with $100 bills, that’s not what we’re talking about. These are people who are carpet layers who may be employed two or three other guys, or a plumber, maybe himself and his brother, and it’s $250,000 in gross sales for their business. Their the ones looking at massive tax increases. …That’s going to hurt more people than anything if we can’t have job creation. And this is a job killer if we raise taxes on the job creators.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/16/bachmann-wealthy-no-unemployed/

Might I just point out to Bachman that income tax is NOT levied on sales, but on net income. When she says, "...it’s $250,000 in gross sales for their business," She is either stupid or lying, you pick.

Posted by: HansSolo | November 16, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

Drool on guys. But do yourselves a favor and never think about the fact that you're being used like tools.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 16, 2010 5:05 PM

The irony never ends with this guy. Or the projection.

So, according to skip, Bush was a good President, all of the problems with our economy are the fault of President Obama and the Affordable Care Act (that has only partially taken effect), that the deficit is killing our country, the President Obama is the cause of the deficit but that George Bush's billions of tax cuts should be extended so the the bankers and other rich people (who have not been harmed by the economic collapse) can put more of their money into savings and then save us all.

Skip, please tell me where I'm worng?

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 16, 2010 5:29 PM | Report abuse

She is either stupid or lying, you pick.

Posted by: HansSolo
+++++++++++

I pick "both." They are not mutually exclusive options.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 16, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

These are people who are carpet layers who may be employed two or three other guys, or a plumber, maybe himself and his brother, and it’s $250,000 in gross sales for their business.

Taking Hans' point a step further -- it is people that have Adjusted Gross Income -- that's after all their deductions and exemptions, after their mortgage interest, after their charitable deductions.

These people are bringing home in excess of $300,000, maybe much more. Give me a break.

Republicans - you're either one of the decieved or one of the deceivers.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 16, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

"Does anyone doubt that Cheney,at Bush Sr's urging, was the grown up who really ran this circus for 8 years?"

No of course not, Oliphant's War Horse cartoon sums it up...

http://astore.amazon.com/ucomicscom/images/0740726749

By the way, djou see the Dark Lord at the Bush Library event? Holy smokes, he looks terrible.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 16, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Greg - If you get the time could you post a story on who owns the debt?

Hint: Follow this link

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/11/where-did-our-debt-come-from/66530/

Posted by: HansSolo | November 16, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

Is this really the kind of post you are proud of?

Whatever you think of Bush or Rasmussen, isn't it a bit . . . peurile?

Posted by: quarterback1 | November 16, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

pragmaticagain | November 16, 2010 5:29 PM


You are wrong

The problems of the economy were caused by Clinton - these things take time to kick in.

Obama has made the Economic situation worse with his health care plan

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 16, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

"She is either stupid or lying, you pick."


She is as dumb as the proverbial box of rocks. And what's with those eyes? Cantor and some of these other Right Wing chicks have that same eye "thing" going on . I think it's some sort of trance. Like I said in another post, the GOP is a cult.

Posted by: filmnoia | November 16, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Projection? Really?

where oh where did I say on this thread that I believed Bush to be a good president? Find the words for me, because I don't remember writing them here.

Maybe its my CRS kicking in.

Do I disagree with you about what is best for America? I am pleased to say that I do. Some folks outgrow liberalism. Its been known to happen.
You really want to talk about projection?

Come now my pragmatic one. Read what you wrote. Then read what I wrote. Then tell yourself, if you can muster the intellectual honesty, where you erred.

And I see one glaring error in your comment, but humility keeps me from pointing it uto.

Mr Solo doesn't seem to know much about how the tax code works for those dastardly rich people. Apparently the entire LLC process passed him by. Hardly surprising. For true believers the liberal dogma explains everything. Since the liberal's dogma doesn't really explain the intricacies of the tax code, Mr Solo can be excused his ignorance.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | November 16, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

"It’s $250,000 in gross sales for their business."

Bearclaw and pragmaticagain - The above statement is just jaw dropping stupid. I feel the need to re-post it because I just can't believe anyone, even George Stephonapolous, would let it slide without comment.

You don't have to be an expert on taxation to realize that that is not the way the income tax works.

Posted by: HansSolo | November 16, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Stepford Legislators

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 16, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

The quality of Greg's pieces is going downhill - way downhill.


Thank you Greg.


Thank you for EVERYDAY confirming how shallow and wrong the liberals are. You have said nothing in months that a thinking person would consider to be in favor of any portion of the liberal agenda. You have confirmed everyday - with multiple writings - that Conservatives are correct.

Posted by: RedTeaRevolution | November 16, 2010 5:43 PM | Report abuse

filmnoia asks, "And what's with those eyes?"

I think it is medication of some sort. That would also help explain the lack of mental facilities and the bat sh*t insane things she says.

Posted by: HansSolo | November 16, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

LLCs file a separate schedule attached to the owners' return (I think it is schedule C) where they post their revenue and their expenses. The net PROFIT then is then divided among the several owners and transferred to a line on the owners' personal 1040. It's not complicated skip. Taxes are based on PROFIT NOT REVENUE.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 16, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

You don't have to be an expert on taxation to realize that that is not the way the income tax works.

Posted by: HansSolo
++++++++++++

And I'm sure that someone, at some point has told her she is wrong. Which is why I say, she is stupid AND she is lying.

Posted by: bearclaw1 | November 16, 2010 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Of course, after that NET PROFIT is input on the tax form, the GROSS EARNINGS are determined. Then the taxpayer computes his exemptions and deductions to determine ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME. From that, gross taxes are computed. Then the taxpayer determines whatever TAX CREDITS he may be entitled to. Then he determines the amount of REFUND he is going to receive.

A taxpayer that pays taxes on $250,000 of ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME has actually made tens of thousands of more money in earnings. It's a fact that anyone that has ever filed a tax return knows for certain.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 16, 2010 5:53 PM | Report abuse

"It’s $250,000 in gross sales for their business."

That is taxable income if you are operating a scam. You know, if you don't actually deliver a product or do any actual work. I am pretty sure those are the small business owners Bachmann was worrying about.

Posted by: shrink2 | November 16, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

All, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/11/16/920999/-Paul-Ryan:-GOP-opposes-decoupling-tax-cuts

Posted by: Greg Sargent | November 16, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

pragmaticagain - Skip has proven he doesn't have a clue about taxes.

You can engage him if you'd like, but you'd be better served by ignoring him.

By the way, LLCs, LPs, S Corps, LLPs etc (referred to collectively as flow through entities) don't pay income tax at all, the income flows through to the owner's 1040s. That income usually does not show up on a Sch. C, unless, of course, it is a single person LLC and a disregarded entity. At the end of the tax year a flow through entity will issue K1s to all members/owners. That K1 delineates what kind of income (ordinary business, interest, capital gain, 1231, 1256 etc) and the income is reported on the 1040 in the same manner it would if the person had earned it directly. For instance interest and dividend income would go to the Schedule B, Capital Gains to Schedule D, etc.

Posted by: HansSolo | November 16, 2010 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Why is Greg's Happy Hour link above actually a link to the unreadable Daily Kos?

Posted by: sbj3 | November 16, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the corrction and advice, Hans. Good thing I have a good accountant but I think the general concept I was describing is still pretty accurate, yes?

Bottom line skip is either an idiot or a liar or perhaps both.

Posted by: pragmaticagain | November 16, 2010 6:14 PM | Report abuse

"Since the liberal's dogma doesn't really explain the intricacies of the tax code, Mr Solo can be excused his ignorance."

Bwahahahaha!

I seem to recall a couple of weeks ago a rightwing commenter (who shall remain nameless) on this site was flipping out because according to his fantasy understanding of the US tax code, someone earning the EIC would be better off turning down a $5k/yr raise because they would supposedly lose their EIC and end up paying more in taxes. I wonder who that was......

Posted by: schrodingerscat | November 16, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

I was getting Bush, fatigue syndrome around 2006-2007 for various reasons.

Then Barack Hussein Obama came along and cured me.

Cured me real good.

Posted by: battleground51 | November 16, 2010 6:42 PM | Report abuse

The Worst ever!!!
Three Word Phrase!!!!

Posted by: thebobbob | November 16, 2010 8:09 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company