Karl Rove: History Will Judge Bush as “a Far-Sighted Leader”
Does anyone agree with Karl Rove that history will Judge Bush as “a far-sighted leader”?
NRO-The Washington Post scorned President Truman as a “spoilsman” who “underestimated the people’s intelligence.” New York Times columnist James Reston wrote off President Eisenhower as “a tired man in a period of turbulence.” At the end of President Reagan’s second term, the New York Times dismissed him as “simplistic” and a “lazy and inattentive man.”
These harsh judgments, made in the moment, have not weathered well over time. Fortunately, while contemporary observers have a habit of getting presidents wrong, history tends to be more accurate.
So how might history view the 43rd president? I can hardly be considered an objective observer, but in this highly polarized period, who is?
However, I believe history will provide a more clear-eyed verdict on this president’s leadership than the anger of current critics would suggest.
President Bush will be viewed as a far-sighted leader who confronted the key test of the 21st century.
August 31st, 2007 at 8:26 pm
“History” is written by those favored by the current group in power.
Bush is clearly a TRAITOR to this Nation, but the elites support him as he does their bidding. The presidential biographers better be careful as the tides might turn.
If the American Citizens wake up and respond “en masse”, that would be a solution to this TREASON we are facing.
September 1st, 2007 at 4:07 am
Rove, Bush, et al depend on a hard core group of simpletons to continue carrying their water long enough to completely destroy the Republican party and keep their elitist power structure in tact. It’s important to THEM that Hillary become the next president. So yeah I guess Bush is sorta far sighted.
September 1st, 2007 at 11:23 am
Yes. Same thing I have been saying for four years.
It’s easy to ignore problems, i.e. Clinton. Bush decided to take bold action against terrorism, both abroad and here in America where Clinton tax hikes were beginning to destroy our economy.
Bush’s record on defense will one day be recognized as the start to REAL solutions in the Middle East. He tried to reform Social Security and immigration…eventually his ideals will be passed.
September 2nd, 2007 at 10:59 am
As a student of presidents, few people seem to remember the huge amount of real time criticisms directed at Presidents … after that president leaves office.
Who remembers that Ike had a huge heart attack and nearly died?
Who remembers that Truman became the VP candidate to get rid of him in politics? [it used to be the way to get rid of people with power but not powerful in the ‘Party dominated system’ prior to the 1973 reforms of the Democratic Party, which the GOP adopted later.]
Political science is full of anti-Reagan books. Few of which are personal attacks on the individual but attacks on his methods.
Does Mr. Konop or anyone else know Reagan’s managerial style during his term as the highest Executive in the world?
September 2nd, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Mad Dog
Reagan was the OPPOSITE of Bush in some ways. Because he was a delegater but his people were people who HE picked from decades of political life. Bush on the other hand is power hungry and continues to try to consolidate power. He’s the “decider”. Although “his people” are picked for him because he’s not really that politically astute. More importantly he doesn’t motivate people by hope but rather fear.
September 3rd, 2007 at 8:22 am
I guess having an idiot vindicated in the future is the best you can hope for when you’re a neocon. What will happen if he’s shown to be even worse than he’s seen in the present? We will have a lot of his secrets thown out for public dissection by the next president.
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:06 am
Bill,
Not what I got out of presidential study of Reagan.
Not a delegater.
MD
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:08 am
Caroline,
I don’t understand this dependence conservatives have in time machines.
Conservatism wants to bring back the good ol’ days.
Or, live in a mythical future where people will miss the good ol’ days.
Sounds like a deep inner conflict over the good ol’ days.
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:24 am
Actually Mad Dog the only Good Ole Days I miss is the bar that was on Roswell Rd. Conservatism to most people means freedom (read: free enterprise and low taxes) I think you just want a different brand of government control than some of the “conservatives”.
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:34 am
As far as conservatism goes billions and billions of dollars of American wealth and some of our best and brightest people are being siphoned off to this so called war on terror.
September 3rd, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Bill,
I agree that our best and brightest are being thrown away in Iraq along with your tax dollars.
[Since I’m one of those deadbeats living off the taxpayers, I’m not losing any money in Iraq.]
Speaking of bars, do you know how a conservative pulls up his socks?
He stands up on the bar, or table in the bar, drops his pants, pulls up his socks, and then pulls his pants back up.
Off course, you can change that from conservative, don’t make him stand up on the bar, and you have a Georgia Tech football player.
MD
September 3rd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Do you know the latest pickup line in gay bars?
“Hey, can I push in your stool?”
September 3rd, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Bill,
Does that line work?
MD
September 3rd, 2007 at 9:21 pm
Mad Dog
I’m afraid that it probably would. In fact it might work too well for me.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mWwyjmSbJPs
September 4th, 2007 at 8:20 am
Once would be too many times, eh?