More than four years after George W Bush left the White House, his record is being reassessed and throws up similarities with Barack Obama. Afterall, it is George W Bush’s particular achievement to be disliked by both sides in American politics.

Democrats of course excoriate the damage done to the budget by waging two wars while cutting taxes, his conduct after Hurricane Katrina and his shoot from the hip style, not to mention that fact that he presided over the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression.

His own Republican party utterly rejected him during the 2012 campaign. Tea Party types saw him as a big-spender guilty of extending federal government, while few who once stood with him were prepared to defend his military achievements.

But presidents tend to look better, or at least different, from a distance, and with the opening of his presidential centre in Texas, there are suggestions that Bush the younger may be more fondly remembered than was thought possible when he left the White House in January 2009 as the most unpopular president in living memory.

He was certainly more socially liberal than his critics give him credit for. No Child Left Behind, whatever its faults and funding, was a centralized attempt to raise educational standards across the board.

A new prescription drug benefit scheme may have been expensive (though Bush himself argues its cost has been exaggerated) but its aim was to make medicines more affordable for the elderly.

Bush failed in his most ambitious social reform of immigration law, but he was defeated primarily by the Right of his party, not the Democrats.

The Obama administration may blame Bush for the crippled economy it inherited, but it has for the most part been unable to rescind his tax cuts. For the time being, the tax argument has been won by conservatives. Liberals may have berated Bush for the security policies of his “war on terror”, but they have been continued and in some regards expanded by President Obama.

Writing in the Washington Post recently, Jennifer Rubin argued that “Bush seems to be a more accomplished Republican figure in the Obama era”, while summarizing his successes.

Bush himself has told the Dallas Morning News, in an exclusive interview, that he still stands for the “compassionate conservatism” that he ran on in 2000.

“I’m comfortable with what I did,” he said. “I’m comfortable with who I am.”

On the debit side, the list remains heavy. His tax cuts and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq produced budget deficits, which were compounded by a recession and economic stimulus spending. Bush inherited a $5.7 trillion debt, which became a $10.6 trillion debt, and bequeathed his successor an economy on the verge of collapse.

Obama duly expanded health care and stimulus spending, endured a second recession, deepening the debt still further.

As Factcheck.org points out, both presidents are to blame for taking the debt to record levels and leaving the borders open & practically unguarded.

Indeed in Washington they both occupy the middle ground, where most presidents find themselves.

They could not be more different in terms of background and character; they are far apart on tax, healthcare and gun control. Obama has ended both Bush’s wars.

But both presidents found themselves in charge of a country in gentle decline without an overpowering vision of how to reverse that process.

Both have been frustrated by the mud-slinging intransigence in Washington, and a sense that it is all but impossible to get big business done. Six months after his re-election, Obama has yet to table legislation on immigration reform. Gun control, reforming a Byzantine tax code, and reforming Social Security (another Bush failure) remain in his in-tray.

We may yet be too close to Bush’s presidency to see this clearly, but in the future he and his successor could be seen as having as much in common than not.


Thank you, Mr. "compassionate conservatism". You helped sweep in the current moron for 2 terms. Mission accomplished!👍

I'll blame the first term on him but the second one......no, if four years of that wasn't enough then all the idiots get what they voted for.

Don't know who the author of this article is but it seems to me as another attempt to give barry a pass on his failures.

^You're splitting hairs. Once he got in, he mesmerized his Democrat base while Bush alienated his so much that some still didn't show up to vote the Hawaiian/Kenyan/Sumatran/whatever failure out after his first fiasco.

Btw, it was Alex Spillius from the British Telegraph- don't know his political slant.
...but I'll tell you what, despite supporting Bush Sr and dubya (first term only). I've never been so disappointed by a politician, to the point where I couldn't care less anymore not even by the current cabal in power.

Ed Zachery. Obama is what the country deserves after reelecting Buochebag.

But Laura was hotter !

GW had 9-11...the Kenyan King created more fronts and promised to close gitmo. Gave away the shop to wind farms, green tech, solar power jive and I could go on for days with cash for clunkers...bailouts...buyouts...there was never going to be any hope or change delivered. The clowncar we have in there now will be known as the worst American president...ever. history will favor W because of his leadership on 9-11. Mr clowncar drove the car out of the ditch with his D...didn go in reverse with his R...hit the road and drove the car off the bridge in true Kennedy fashion.

Come on. Give Bush II a break. Blame the current Republican coalition's diversity; terrible Republican assessment and strategy (no ground game and underestimation of Obama's); Republican alienation of Hispanics; choice of a rigid appearing Romney; etc., etc.; not Bush II. Political ideology aside, the R's sucked and Obama was better than anyone thought at electioneering. Bush II goes down in history for 9-11, two wars and gross over-reaching. overspending on military conquest with no "prize" for "winning".

With all due respect Robert, the Hispanic vote was 7% and Dems got 70% of that. That argument was overblown.

IMHO, Romney's restrained & almost corporate-like "presidential bearing" strategy only made him appear more like rewarmed Bush.

The irony is that even though Obama got a smaller turnout than he had previously, even more of the Republican electorate stayed HOME rather than vote for another Bush/Dole/McCain RINO. So from strictly a strategic voting angle, even though Romney didn't get enough of the "ethnic & disenfranchised" votes, he wouldn't have needed them is he had only energized the usual Republican base but, alas, they developed little interest in the overly rehearsed phony thanks to what they perceived as just a more polished turd, er, Bush. Romney excelled at destroying Republican opposition during the primaries but for some reason he lacked the same aggressiveness against the Democrat savior. Perhaps he was afraid to be perceived a racist.

Unfortunately, I broke my 8 year voting fast since protest voting for Kerry, held my nose, & pulled the lever for the Mormon because I saw no other recourse for slowing down a country headed towards economic destruction. Now it's moot.

1. Don't give Bush that kind of credit. He pales in comparison to Romney in terms of ability and fitness for the Presidency. Romney has a brain that works. Bush is a dolt. Like-able, but still a dolt.

2. There is no "traditional Republican base" anymore for Romney to have rallied or ruined. That Party is over- like so many others in U.S. history. They are no more than a loose, weak coalition in opposition to a supposed majority. They will have to split-up and run in separate directions real fast now. Just watch the mid-term elections coming up.

Obama is shredding the "Republican Party" to pieces now and helping them trip over their own feet- without even trying. He has Rubio taking the lead on immigration; other R's involved in Health Care; and has dozens (?) of Republicans over for dinner- more than once!

McCain and other standard-bearers have to be closer to Obama on some issues than one would ever have imagined possible. Meanwhile "Boner" (Boehner) couldn't even get his own bill to the floor for a vote because he knew it would fail due to his own "party" abandoning him. He's neutered. Best thing he could do for our country right now is see if Obama would play golf with him again...

Now, here is how I think it could all go down: Sequestration issues will not all get amicably resolved, but lots of people really won't care. It didn't ruin their lives. It seems to so many like we are reducing our expenses and moving forward- even though we are not. Game over- Obama will be seen as the victor.

Jack Lew, although Obama's prior Chief of Staff, was really selected to help out with U.S./Israel relations and, more importantly to move on to Treasury to negotiate a bunch of grand budget deals during O's second term. The latter is what he is known for and is good at. Look back at when he worked for Tip O'neill. He was the top Democrat aid who, behind the scenes, sat down for lunch with the Republicans- and settled budget arguments and squabbles. He wasn't placed into Treasury Secretary by mistake or because he will rule over Wall Street like Geithner was supposed to have. He's there at Treasury to get some big, final deals cut. Watch him closely now. He is a quiet, behind-the-scenes-appearing- man. But, don't be folded. he will get his work done, then resign and go back home as is expected of him.

And all might be well for a while... until the next time all this bad economic crap comes around again in 10, 15 or 20 years. and then we will do the same things over again- if we are lucky...

GW was in the pulpit when the first bailout was designed and delivered.

It would be better if GW was in ofice now.

-We would have already known who did this (North Korea).
-He's be sure they have weapons of mass disctruction in the form of a top secrect unicorn farm.
-He'd try real hahhrd not to say My daddy says _______ is a bad man so I need to start this war for pappy.-The missiles would be flying.

But nooooooo. Obama (who I don't think planted the bombs) starts taking the heat 18 hours into the new Boston Massacre.

To Bloody's point, if GW wasn't a total tool, the country doesn't get 8 years of socialism.

I take some issue with the comparison of Winky McFlightsuit to Idi Amin Jr.

First, Junior's actions follow that of Bush mainly because he had little to no choice but to follow them.

Secondly, Bush - for all of his faults - presided over a long stretch of economic growth, and was able to turn around an economy (or at the very least, n ot stand in the wat of an economy turning around) after attacks on our financial system. Several attacks, in fact.

All tghing being equal, the mealtdown in the housing and financial markets would have corrected themselves in a matter of a year to two years. The deflation of real estate would not be fixed by either Bush of Lil' Idi.

For all of the bleeding-out-the=eyeballs hysteria concerning Bush and his policies, the man had limits, and stayed within those limits.

Contrast this with Idi Amin Jr., whose economic plans have been an utter failure top to bottom (we're supposed to be ay 5% unemployment now, remember), who got us involved in a military action against Libya without any consent from Congress, and continuing it on past the legal deadline as specified by the War Powers act. Obamacare has been a dismal failure on all fronts - the man has to literally lie about all of its "successes." And his use of executive powers to hamper immigration enforcement were a direct violation of his oath of office.

Not to mention that now Idi Amin Jr. is now pushing to re-instate the very same policies that caused the housing bubble and collapse.

If Bush is a brainless dolt, that makes Idi Amin Jr. somewhat akin to a dog that chews off its own foot.

I'm not saying that Bush was great or anything. His stance on illegal immigration, and his Keynsean-based economic policies only furthered the problems this country now experiences. That also goes for his father, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Clinton, and to some extent Reagan.

But I find it hard to condem the man when the current occupant of the White House is an out-and-out Marxist radical whose rightful place is either in prison, or in exile on Corsica.

The big difference, however, is that while people who voted for Bush felt thay had nowhere else to go: I mean the alternatives were Al Gore or John rice-in-the-a** Kerry. However, the people voting for Idi Amin Jr. have an almost cult-like worship of the man. It's creepy and disturbing - almost like something out of Omen III.

And therein lies the difference.

Well that and a classy wife.


And GW prolly never ate dog.

Show me who you're with, and I'll tell you who you are.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_pS7sKjlzwFg/S2vbw9uP3oI/AAAAAAAAFBg/9GUSFRGELFo/s1600/william-ayers-american-flag-poster11.jpg