Skip to content

George Bush Has Been Tossed on the Ash Heap of History

A Twitter reader reminded me of this righteous rant about the George Bush era from 2011:

Republicans got the tax cuts they wanted. They got the financial deregulation they wanted. They got the wars they wanted. They got the unfunded spending increases they wanted. And the results were completely, unrelentingly disastrous. A decade of sluggish growth and near-zero wage increases. A massive housing bubble. Trillions of dollars in war spending and thousands of American lives lost. A financial collapse. A soaring long-term deficit. Sky-high unemployment. All on their watch and all due to policies they eagerly supported. And worse: ever since the predictable results of their recklessness came crashing down, they’ve rabidly and nearly unanimously opposed every single attempt to dig ourselves out of the hole they created for us.

But despite the fact that this is all recent history, it’s treated like some kind of dreamscape. No one talks about it. Republicans pretend it never happened. Fox News insists that what we need is an even bigger dose of the medicine we got in the aughts, and this is, inexplicably, treated seriously by the rest of the press corps instead of being laughed at.

Hell, I don't talk about this anymore either. So much unbelievable shit has swirled down the sewer since then that it really does seem a bit like a dreamscape. I dunno. Maybe it never happened. Anybody else remember this stuff or is it just me?

65 thoughts on “George Bush Has Been Tossed on the Ash Heap of History

    1. Eve

      Start making more money weekly. This is valuable part time work for everyone. The best part ,work from the comfort of your house and get paid from $10k-$20k each week . Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week.
      Visit this article for more details.. https://GetdreamJobs1.blogspot.com/

  1. cld

    The ash heap of history is the burnt failure of every conservative effort in all things.

    Nothing could be more discredited.

  2. J. Frank Parnell

    I remember Bill Clinton raised taxes and the congressional Democrats were decimated in the next election. The Republicans maintained the tax increase would crash the economy and explode the national debt. Instead the economic recovery accelerated and the deficit disappeared. How could the Republicans have been more wrong?

    Then George w. Bush got in (courtesy of Scallia et al and the "never again do what we are doing" Supreme Court ruling) and Alan Greenspan warned Bush of the imminant danger of paying off national debt. Bush did the Republican thing and cut taxes and increased spending. The deficit returned and the economy was blah. Pretty standard stuff for a Republican administration.

    1. bethby30

      I heard a rare discussion of the facts you describe discussed on Joy Reid last night. Robert Reich and Ro Khanna were her guests. It’s a excellent discussion that Democrats and the mainstream “liberal” media almost never have.

      https://youtu.be/VNrDgKFbW9w

      What they didn’t discuss was the games our mainstream “liberal” media has played with this issue. Before Clinton’s and the Democrats’ tax increase produced not just a balanced budget but a budget surplus, the media had been harping on the dangers of our deficits/national debt. Remember all those reports about the Debt Clock of Doom? But after Clinton’s policies gave us that budget surplus the media ignored that fact.

      Later when Bush was running he kept saying he was going to cut taxes because the surplus proved that taxes were too high and, after all, it was “our money”. The media never once pointed out that the debt also belonged to all of us.

      In contrast Gore ran on continuing to use the budget surplus to pay down the national debt so that we could easily meet future obligations such as the coming TEMPORARY SS shortfall from the retirement of the baby boomers.

      The same media that had been so worried about our deficits/debt decided they preferred the profligate Bush because he would be “more fun to have a beer with”. Responsible ol’ Al Gore bored them with all his focus on serious policy issues. That is no exaggeration. David Broder, the august “dean of Washington journalists” complained that Gore had talked so much in his acceptance speech about what he would do if elected President it almost put Broder to sleep.

      https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2007/10/gore200710

      Clearly even serious journalists put their own entertainment over solving the problems of our country.

  3. DFPaul

    Well, the Tea Party was whipped up to blame it all on The Blacks, and then Donald Trump said "step aside, pikers, let me show you how it's done". So we were stuck with the electoral college and its affirmative action for rural uneducated whites forcing us to organize against Trump and his bozos -- and organize very successfully I might add -- for 4 years. And the GOP is now stuck with the fact that Trump distilled the party down to its most racist, reactionary essence. We just had an election where the GOP should have wiped the slate and they barely won the House. So I would say, people did notice.

    But it's true the media is pathethic.

    1. J. Frank Parnell

      The Republicans dog whistled so long to their rural red state base, then TFG came along and stole the base away by saying everything out loud.

      1. DFPaul

        Basically, agree. Although I think Trump’s instinct — which is impressively acute — for the unexploited grift was really good. He saw that the passion whipped up by the Tea Party was not going to be satisfied by the usual G.O.P. two-step (i.e., thanks for your support suckers, now enjoy some corporate tax cuts), especially on immigration. “Build the Wall” is an expression of true marketing genius in its symbolic power and perfect aim at the GOP’s weakest claim on its fans.

        It’s easy to forget but as late as summer 2016 a big issue was whether Trump would have the party’s true support. A huge question was whether Ted Cruz would actually endorse Trump in his convention speech; he didn’t! How the mighty have fallen…

        1. smallteams

          We have Steve Bannon to thank for 'Build the Wall." He wanted something short that Trump could actually remember, and when the phrase resonated with the crowd, it was here to stay.

          1. DFPaul

            Good point. I will say, however, having grown up around and worked with a lot of clinical narcissists, the short attention span is part of their strategy. Keeps you on your toes. In other words, Bannon may have had the idea, but Trump was shaping Bannon's offerings. And, obviously, Trump had the good sense to make that the one thing he was known for.

  4. Keith B

    The problem is that the Republicans created a mess, then Obama and the Democrats failed to fix it, or at least failed to fix it before the 2010 elections. If they had had been able to make a convincing case that Republicans broke the economy and the Democrats fixed it, they might have kept control of the House in 2010. They might not have lost control of so many state governments. They might have kept the Senate in 2014. They might have prevented the endless Congressional investigations of bogus scandals that went a long way towards costing Democrats the Presidency in 2016.

    But they couldn't make that case, so here we are. We don't remember all the damage that Bush did because Obama failed to repair it. By 2010 it was no longer Bush's mess. That's why his failures are no longer remembered.

    1. Austin

      Ugh. Obama couldn't single-handedly clean up 8 years of Republican messes in just approx 21 months between Jan 20, 2009 inauguration day and Nov 2, 2010 election day?

      Why are black people so lazy?

    2. zeno2vonnegut

      Elections have losers and winners and it's important to recognize for both sides the actions that increased or decreased their chance of winning. REDMAP has been a major contributor to Republican success since 2010 and it will be a major aid to them for at least another decade. First, apportion campaign funds to gain control of state legislatures and governorships . Then, use available registration data for a precise computerized gerrymander after each census. Wisconsin is the grossest example; a 50-50 state consistently delivers Republican legislative majorities well above the 3/5 needed for financial bills and near the 2/3 to be veto-proof.

      I think studies have mostly shown that racism was a larger factor than aftereffects of the Great Recession in 2010.

  5. kahner

    i can only maintain a few hundres republican disasters, crimes and debacles in mind at a time. so my political memory lasts about 3 months max these days until something or someone explicitly reminds me of a previous disaster, crime or debacle.

  6. OverclockedApe

    It still shocks me that only Obama gets blamed for the Forever Wars and the only time since then that I can recall the Right ever addressing them publicly was during the GOP 2016 debates where none of the candidates were willing to back Bush up on his brothers wars.

    1. Austin

      After everyone started cheering that W Kept Us Safe and apparently forgot that 9/11/01 occurred during the Bush II Administration... I knew that 2009 would become the Blame It All On The Black Guy era.

      1. kennethalmquist

        In one of the early primary debates in 2016 election, Jeb Bush claimed that his brother kept us safe, and Trump responded by talking about the devastation on 9/11. Apparently Jeb either didn't realize that this lie passed its “sell by” date, or it didn't occur to him that any of his primary opponents would call him out on it.

  7. Adam Strange

    Unfortunately, I do remember it all.

    As for the the results being "completely, unrelentingly disastrous", I'd say that this is true only for most people. For the people running the Republican party, I think it all turned out pretty well.

  8. Old Fogey

    I think it's clear that while Trump was the worst person since Andrew Jackson to BE president, George W. Bush was the worst president we've ever had if we look at the results. Economic disaster, moral collapse into torture and destruction of civilians during a war. Hypocrisy over all.

      1. Salamander

        It's too bad George couldn't have taken up painting, instead of getting into politics. Adolph Hitler actually did take up painting first, and had the critics been less vicious, it could have saved a lot of lives. Hindsight.

        1. Solarpup

          Commissioner of Baseball. He probably would have made a fine, fine Commissioner of Baseball.

          I remember a piece that NPR ran interviewing a linguist and playing clips of Bush's speaking style, and just how much more articulate Bush was when he knew what he was talking about and was engaged. You listen to W talk baseball, and it's like he's a whole different person.

          The one an only thing I can think of to praise Trump for is destroying Billy Bush's career. One of the (many) things to despise Trump for is the rehabilitation of GW Bush's reputation.

  9. jamesepowell

    According to Republicans - and supported by the political press that obeys them like a loyal dog - there never was a second president named Bush. We went straight from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama and all those things Kevin cites were the result of their failed socialist policies.

    And Trump fixed all of them in three months.

    1. Salamander

      Like +49. Republicans still talk about all the wonderful things that former guy did. Just don't ask them to name any, though.

  10. Joseph Harbin

    "I’m worried that I will be the last Republican president."
    --George W. Bush, 2016, realizing the extraordinary shitshow that the GOP had become in the wake of his disaster of a presidency

    What we know now: there is no bottom.

  11. Jasper_in_Boston

    There's been some very selective amnesia about the disastrous Bush presidency (in some ways, if we're honest, it was worse than the Trump administration, although Donnie didn't have two full terms with which to destroy the country).

    Anyway, the rehabilitation of W. Bush, of course, largely flows from the Trump disaster: W. Bush seems to look halfway decent by comparison. And, to be honest, he's clearly a much better human being that Trump. At least I think so. But yeah, Bush was grossly unqualified for that job, and the people he appointed to run the country's affairs were simply horribly incompetent and stupid.

    1. Solarpup

      One thing I'll give Bush, which shows how different he is from the malignant cancer that is Trump, was his Africa Aids initiatives. There was no obvious political upside for W pursuing that. It did actual good. He seemed to pursue it simply because he thought it was the right thing to do.

      Can you imagine Trump doing anything that wasn't purely transactional?

      Yeah, everything else W touched was a disaster, but compared to the black hole of narcissism and grift that was Trump, there was at least one spark of humanity in Bush.

    2. iamr4man

      >>And, to be honest, he's clearly a much better human being that Trump. At least I think so.<<

      It’s a really low bar. And yet there are several Republicans who can’t even reach that including DeSantis, Cruz, MTG, etc.

  12. D_Ohrk_E1

    To be fair, it wasn't until the last decade or so that we got lots of good data showing that tax cuts were poor multipliers while Keynesian policies were very good multipliers.

    And you know, much of economic journalism (or perhaps it's just the editors?) is stuck making false equivalence their duty.

    1. cmayo

      I guess we didn't think we even needed that data before. It's pretty obvious that cutting taxes on wealthy (or even just affluent) people who already don't spend all their money isn't going to juice the economy. It's just going to increase the size of their bank accounts.

  13. Justin

    Neither good policy nor bad policy outcomes have an effect on voting patterns. Funny how that is. Progressives in particular have failed to learn this lesson. Right wingers have graduated with a doctorate in policy irrelevance.

    1. Salamander

      Good points. Democrats have never done enough to let the voters know of the good things they have done, with appropriate stories; much less the bad Republican things they have reversed. Republicans sure won't talk about anything good the Dems have ever done. So Democratic policies, programs and successes invisibly do good, unknown to anybody! Thus they get zero credit!

      Like Shakespeare, via Marc Anthony, once wrote "The evil men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones."

      Or rolled back when their terms of office end.

  14. NealB

    Remember it? We're all of us still living it. Lives lost. Homes lost. Careers damaged beyond recovery except for the very few. Stagnant values since then of homes purchased during Bush. Blame Bush especially, of course, though it's the cumulative work of 24 years of the Republican-ruled project to destroy America since Reagan responsible for the death and destruction. And ultimately the unfortunate election of a novice politician wholly unprepared to lead the country out of the morass Bush created at the end of his second term.

    1. tdbach

      I think that's pretty unfair to Obama. We could have elected LBJ's clone and, with the congress elected that year, we would still have ended up in the same place.

      1. NealB

        I think it's mostly unfair to the people that voted for him, at least. Biden would have been a better president. Any of the others, save Edwards, would have been better, even Hillary. And where was Bernie when we needed him?

    1. tdbach

      Because he was desperately trying to stimulate the economy out of deep recession, and he was saddled with a congress that wouldn't allow any stimulation if those tax cuts were touched. As usual, big corps and the 1% got their way, mostly.

      1. middleoftheroaddem

        tdbach -

        Bush tax cuts had a ten year life span: if the goal was temporary stimulus why make the vast majority of the tax cuts permanent? Seems like the Obama Administration thought the vast majority of the tax cuts were a good idea...

        1. middleoftheroaddem

          Second point.

          If the 82% of the tax cuts are ineffective or counter productive, why have the Democrats made no effort to change them? Its not like Biden has ever even mentioned reversing the 'Bush' tax cuts, that were made permanent during the Obama administration.

          1. middleoftheroaddem

            ScentOfViolets - what factual errors are you challenging?

            Did Obama Admin make permeant 82% of the Bush tax cuts? Has Biden, or any major recent Democratic candidate (Sanders, Warren etc) proposed ending these tax cuts?

            1. ScentOfViolets

              See the troll squirm! No, you know perfectly well I didn't say anything about factual errors. I'm saying if you want to know why Obama let those tax cuts stand rather than sunset them, you need to do your own damn research. No one is obligated to do your work for you. Here's a thought, why don't you actually find out for yourself and then report your findings to us? Yes, I know that will require some time and effort on your part. Do that and then see whether or not people have questions about your sources, methodolgy, and suchlike.

              Of course, we know you have no intention of doing so; you're sole purpose in putting the question as you did is to sucker people into giving answers just so you can say that they're not good enough. Now fuck off, troll.

              1. middleoftheroaddem

                ScentOfViolets - you miss my broader point. As a Democrat, I find it hard to both

                1) claim that the Bush tax cuts were a horrible idea

                2) AND also recognize that my party seemingly thinks the vast majority of the Bush tax cut (82%) were actually so wise, that they should be made permanent.

                I don't know how the aforementioned makes me a troll, but you are entitled to your opinion.

                1. ScentOfViolets

                  Your so-called 'incredulity' is your own, troll. No one is obligated in the slightest to treat your just-asking-questions schtick (as opposed to do your own research and asking why the on-record explanations lacked force, which you would have done if your were acting at all in good faith) as anything like a good-faith inquiry.

    2. ScentOfViolets

      Why are you so unwilling to do your own research as to what he and his administration gave as their reasons? Note that I am not asking about anything other than the reasons for your refusal to do so. Put up or shut up.

  15. ConradsGhost

    My takeaway: "I wonder what would happen if the rest of us [i.e., everyone not in the .1%] ever actually started fighting back?"

    Outside of possibly the human detritus of our increasingly third world country, Americans are entitlement softened cowards and will never do anything to risk their collective privilege. This country will collapse into smoking rubble before there's any fighting back, and then, as before, we'll turn against each other instead of the ideologies and systems that are destined to destroy everything.

  16. ruralhobo

    It's been going on since Reagan, so maybe a lot of voters and businesses have settled into a "GOP splurges on the credit card, Dems restore the credit rating" routine. Like kids who cheer on the parent who suggests Disneyworld while counting on the other to make sure they don't become homeless.

    This is why I never quite believed Karl Rove's trope about a "permanent Republican majority".

  17. spatrick

    "The problem is that the Republicans created a mess, then Obama and the Democrats failed to fix it, or at least failed to fix it before the 2010 elections."

    A recession like that, that's not something that's "repaired" in two years. If you want to blame the Obama Administration for not pinning the economy on the GOP successfully so that the results of 2010 mid-terms were not as bad, be my guest but there was no way unemployment or economic growth would be back the levels they were at before 2008, much less in the 1990s. Hell, the economy was in far better shape in 1994 and the Dems still took a shellacking.

    But that was the trick the GOP pulled off wasn't it? George Bush II who's he? Never heard of him. Never has a party leader been so toxic (even Nixon still had his bitter-enders and Jimmy Carter spoke at the 1984 Democratic Convention) for their former party to pretend like he never existed. You'd have to go back to Lyndon Johnson I would think. But credit the GOP for basically adopting the Tea Party as its own in 2010 and really, what choice did they have? Bush II left office with a 25 percent approval rating and Democrats as dominant in Washington as they were in the mid-70s. They knew he fucked up everything and wanted nothing to do with him. I mean, when the last image of you is some Iraqi throwing his shoe at you, you're not demanding he go on Mt. Rushmore. He hasn't attended a GOP convention since I doubt if he ever will.

    As someone who hung out in Tea Party circles in 2010, I naively thought the Tea Party could be an actual non-party, third political forces against the establishment that got the country into a disasterous war and drove the economy into the ground and bailed out the people who did so. Forget spending. Hell there were Tea Party groups in Florida that wanted more spending on NASA. Imagine a political group stretching from Code Pink to Ron Paul to Sarah Palin representing those on the outside looking at American politics.

    But no...Conservative INC. quickly took it over which meant no left wing. They stuck Palin on a bus and sent her around the country only to prove how stupid she was and all they supported were GOP candidates. Having been captured by those same forces the end result of all that agitation was...Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan (although the fact it Romney longer than he should have to clinch the nomination which should have been a warning). But they didn't go away. Once that stuff was churned up, someone was going to take advantage of it but it couldn't be just another politician. If protectionism alone would get a man to the White House we would have Presidents Gephardt, Harkin, and Buchanan. If anti-immigration alone carried a man to the White House we would have Presidents Tancredo and Hunter and Buchanan. If being anti-Iraqi War was enough we would have President Paul and Buchanan (who you notice I mention three times but his anti-Israel position prevented him from winning the GOP nomination). Only someone not a politician but with superior communication skills could take that mantel supporting all the same positions that other politicians failed to win the White House with and that was Trump.

    Something else should be pointed out here since the topic is Bush II. The same forces that revere Trump also did the same as you will all recall with Bush II (Do you all have your Bush in flight commander gear action figure still?) Yes they've put in on the ashbin of history and forgotten him. Why? Because of the War in Iraq. Because it done on a basis of a lie. Because it mean their kids, the ones from the rural small towns who join the military for any chance at opportunity, all died in a foreign land. Because the war sent gas prices soaring and crashed the economy. Because the war was ineptly led, ineptly fought as was the occupation itself. You can't lead a war effort people are ready to sacrifice for and then tell them to go shopping as per usual, put a ribbon magnet on that back back of your gas-guzzling SUV. It was a pretend war except for the coffins coming back to Andrews AFB. It's this failure, that led to the destruction of Bush II, the eventual destruction of the GOP establishment and the rise of Trump. The failure of the politicians meant that only someone not political could lead the movement which is something only Bannon and Trump really. Even if they had lost in 2016, Trump would still be in command of the party. That's real affect of the war, you got Donald Trump as President. Wouldn't have happened any other way.

  18. spatrick

    "The problem is that the Republicans created a mess, then Obama and the Democrats failed to fix it, or at least failed to fix it before the 2010 elections."

    A recession like that, that's not something that's "repaired" in two years. If you want to blame the Obama Administration for not pinning the economy on the GOP successfully so that the results of 2010 mid-terms were not as bad, be my guest. But there was no way unemployment or economic growth would be back the levels they were at before 2008, much less in the 1990s in 2010. Hell, the economy was in far better shape in 1994 and the Dems still took a shellacking.

    But that was the trick the GOP pulled off wasn't it? George Bush II who's he? Never heard of him. Never has a party leader been so toxic (even Nixon still had his bitter-enders and Jimmy Carter spoke at the 1984 Democratic Convention) for their former party to pretend like he never existed. You'd have to go back to Lyndon Johnson I would think. But credit the GOP for basically adopting the Tea Party as its own in 2010 and really, what choice did they have? Bush II left office with a 25 percent approval rating and Democrats as dominant in Washington as they were in the mid-70s. They knew he fucked up everything and wanted nothing to do with him. I mean, when the last image of you as President is some Iraqi throwing his shoe at you, then party leaders are not going to be demanding he go on Mt. Rushmore. He hasn't attended a GOP convention since I doubt if he ever will.

    As someone who hung out in Tea Party circles in 2010, I naively thought the Tea Party could be an actual non-party, third political forces against the establishment that got the country into a disasterous war and drove the economy into the ground and bailed out the people who did so. Forget spending. Hell there were Tea Party groups in Florida that wanted more spending on NASA. Imagine a political group stretching from Code Pink to Ron Paul to Sarah Palin representing those on the outside looking in at American politics.

    But no...Conservative INC. quickly took it over which meant no left wing. They stuck Palin on a bus and sent her around the country only to prove how stupid she was and all they supported were GOP candidates. Having been captured by those same forces the end result of all that agitation was...Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan (although the fact it Romney longer than he should have to clinch the 2012 nomination which should have been a warning). But they didn't go away. Once that stuff was churned up, someone was going to take advantage of it but it couldn't be just another politician. If protectionism alone would get a man to the White House we would have Presidents Gephardt, Harkin, and Buchanan. If anti-immigration alone carried a man to the White House we would have Presidents Tancredo and Hunter and Buchanan. If being anti-Iraqi War was enough we would have President Paul and Buchanan (who you will notice I mention three times but his anti-Israel position prevented him from winning the GOP nomination). Only someone not a politician but with superior communication skills could take that mantel supporting all the same positions that other politicians failed to win the White House with and that was Trump.

    Something else should be pointed out here since the topic is Bush II. The same forces that revere Trump also did the same as you will all recall with Bush II (Do you all have your Bush in flight commander gear action figure still?) Yes they've put him on the ashbin of history and forgotten him. Why? Because of the War in Iraq. Because it done on a basis of a lie. Because it mean their kids, the ones from the rural small towns who join the military for any chance at opportunity, all died in a foreign land. Because the war sent gas prices soaring and crashed the economy. Because the war was ineptly led, ineptly fought as was the occupation itself. You can't lead a war effort people are ready to sacrifice for and then tell them to go shopping as per usual or put a ribbon magnet on that back back of your gas-guzzling SUV and call that support. It was a pretend war except for the coffins coming back to Andrews AFB. It's this failure, that led to the destruction of Bush II, the eventual destruction of the GOP establishment and the rise of Trump. The failure of the politicians meant that only someone not political could lead the movement which is something only Bannon and Trump really understood. Even if they had lost in 2016, Trump would still be in command of the party. That's real affect of the war, you got Donald Trump as President. Wouldn't have happened any other way.

  19. kkseattle

    Republicans destroyed the economy and then spent eight years whining that Obama hadn’t cleaned up their gawdawful mess quickly enough.

  20. skeptonomist

    Bush did not personally cause the 2001 or 2008 recessions. It was during the Clinton administration that the dot-com bubble expanded and when critical regulations such as part of Glass-Steagall were abandoned. Not that Bush was not a bad president for several reasons, but the main responsibility for recent crashes probably lies with two other things. First, neoliberalism (which Kevin seems to think has been great) including the idea that the financial system is best unregulated. Second, over-reliance on the Fed to magically fix things if they go wrong. The Fed directors actively encouraged the housing bubble of 2002-6 as a fix for the 2001 recession (supported by economists such as Krugman) and Greenspan was always an advocate of deregulation. Then the Fed bailed out the big banks in 2008, leaving them free to create more bubbles.

    While Republicans now clearly have no economic policy other than deregulation, tax cuts for the rich and corporations, and cutting social programs, Democrats also deserve a lot of responsibility for economic failures. By trimming to the right they give credibility to Republican economics, in addition to the harm that some actual policies have done.

  21. shapeofsociety

    Believe me, a lot of people have not forgotten. Voters too young to remember the elder Bush are voting Democrat at markedly elevated rates, and have kept voting D even at ages when previous generations shifted R. If you are a normie non-ideologue who mostly wants a government that works competently and well, and both of the Democratic presidents you remember were reasonably successful while both of the Republican presidents you remember were disastrous, why would you vote Republican?

Comments are closed.