Posted by
The-Barefoot-Conservative on Friday, January 16, 2009 11:00:00 AM
How do we define the presidency of George W. Bush? Many have dubbed his presidency a disaster. And by extension have viewed him as a failure. One of the worst presidents ever! Are they right? Time will tell. In one sense the moniker Disaster President fits the 43 president.
George W. Bush’s Presidency has been defined by disasters. Less than one year after he became president NINE ELEVEN occurred. This was a terrible disaster that cost us millions of dollars and thousands of our citizens. It demanded action. Bush acted swiftly and defiantly. He created the department of Homeland Security, and mounted a two-pronged war against the “Axis of Evil”. This was a bold move; his presidency was decisive and courageous. As a result we have not been hit again, did not go into economic distress when Manhattan was destroyed, and are well on the way to a peaceful Iraq.
George Bush’s presidency ended with disaster. The economic downturn destroyed major financial powers such as Lehman Brothers. We are now in a recession. Once again Bush took decivisive action. He boldly enacted a stimulus package that although very controversial seems to have at least stemmed the tide, and thus far prevented a total meltdown. Small government conservatives are aghast at this bailout. He could have just sat on the sidelines and ran out the clock on his presidency. But Bush understood that something had to be done. Whether it is the right thing will take time to accurately judge.
Yes in some ways the moniker fits, Bush’s presidency was marked by disasters. But instead of a fumbling bumbling dolt, he acted couragouesly often taking the hard road and going against his own party. Is he a disaster? Or has he had the unfortunate luck of beign at the helm during a times of major disasters? He will be remembered by how well he handled these disasters? For that to occur some time must past for Bush the disaster president to be renamed Bush the heroic president!