RCP Interview With Bush

RCP has a two part interview with George Bush on line.

Part 1

Part 2

You might want to check it out.

Comments

[jharp]

Am I the only one offended with Bush out excuse making and trying to frame his legacy whilst we have two wars going on and the worst financial crises since the depression?

He still is the President for Pete's sake.

[mark l.]

c'mon jharp...

obama is going to escalate our troops in Afghanistan, and try not to lose our success in Iraq for the next three years. I also noted that Obama has voted with Bush on EVERY single piece of legistlation dealing with the financial crisis, including the 800 billion dollar bailout.

seeing that Bush has the support of obama in regards to the financial crisis and the Iraq War, should I be offended by Obama's decisions? the largest distinction between the two is bush's unwillingness to escalate in Afghanistan.

[jharp]

Again, mark l, you completely miss the point.

It has nothing to do with Bush's positions or Obama's positions. It has to do with Bush doing his job instead of excuse making and polishing his legacy.

[jharp]

Oh, and by the way. Franken is now ahead of Coleman albeit only slightly.

[anon]

Bush is doing his job, he's dealing w/the auto bailout because the Dem. controlled Congrss punted, as usual.

[mark l.]

"the worst financial crises since the depression"

let me use a favorite tool of democrats for measuring crisis:
misery index (unemployment+inflation):

http://www.miseryindex.us/

currently-7.7% (6.7 + 1.07)

Some historical numbers?
the average misery index under Clinton? 7.8% (93-00).
under carter? 16.27%

An essential component of any major financial crisis would have to include inflation, whether on the front end, or the back end.

even if unemployment hits double digits, any attempt to to rectify it by increased spending is likely to produce a commensurate rise in inflation.

the worst financial crises since the depression?

I hearken back to the 1979, waiting in an hour long line, at a gas station, pleased that my license was odd-meaning I could buy gasoline on that day...I can almost remember the radio telling the listener that unemployment was coming down, for the year(1979) it was down from 1975/8.5% to 5.9%. Unfortunately the inflation rate was over 11% for the year.

Not a huge greenspan fan, but the premise that inflation is the essential component of any economic crisis over the unemployment number seemed to pan out. The misery index weights them equally-

our labor force 151 million(2006)...
should unemployment hit 10%, we are talking about 9 million additional unemployed(above the standard of 4%).
Obama will be given the choice of massive spending to address unemployment vs. keeping inflation low, but any effort to ameliorate one, will exacerbate the other.

The 70's malaise was a product of govt expansion, which did very well in keeping the unemployment numbers down, but only at the cost of running double digit inflation in 79, 80, 81...the combined number of those three years produced inflation in prices by 40% in just three years.

Reagan's run at inflation?
36.5% increase over eight years(82-89).

which pursuit is better, providing 9 million jobs or avoiding double digit inflation for every american, employed/unemployed?

[mark l.]

"Again, mark l, you completely miss the point."

Did you bother to read the links?

"excuse making and trying to frame his legacy"

clearly, you didn't.

[Anon]

The stock market has lost I believe over 25% of its value since its most recent peak, combined with the failure of every investment bank, hundreds of hedge funds and $700 billion in taxpayer money to prevent the collapse of further commercial banks.

Forget about unemployment figures, I can't see any way around the fact that yes, this IS the most significant financial crisis since the Great Depression, the potential for long term harm and much more serious consequences far exceeds the 1970's perioid of inflation and higher unemployment.

[mark l.]

my larger point is that if there are legacy issues, especially in regard to your 'two wars' and 'financial crisis', I'm failing to see much of a difference between obama and w.

specifically, obama is in the position of defending bush's legacy-

not withdrawing from Iraq, increasing troops in Afghanistan, and supporting the financial bailout.

The only legacy that obama is trying to fix immediately, in a different manner than W, is closing down gitmo. Obama's legacy in this regard can/should be measured in the number of detainees that go on to kill americans, or the death and torture they will face at the hands of thier new host countries. out of sight, out of mind.

[mark l.]

"the potential for long term harm and much more serious consequences far exceeds the 1970's perioid of inflation and higher unemployment."

I'm sympathetic to your argument...

Unemployment will most likely eclipse the levels obtained in the 70's, but the malaise experienced in the 70's was NOT from the high unemployment that affected 5% of our labor force, but from the drastic rise in inflation that affected 100% of the population.

so long as inflation remains under control, I can't call it a true economic crisis on the scale of the 70's or the great depression.

[jharp]

mark l,

Obama is not the President. W is.

Thus W should be working at his job, not giving interviews to defend his mistakes. In one month he has all of the time in the world to try to justify his catastrophic Presidency. That is my point.

I don't like the bailout anymore than anyone else. However it seems to me to be a necessary evil.

And you are being stupid about Gitmo. If they are guilty they aren't going to be released. Only the innocent are to be set free.

Obama is going to withdraw from Iraq, as promised.

Obama is going to reform health care, as promised.

[Anon]

I agree on closing Gitmo, if we think any detainees are going to kill Americans, which I suspect would be virtually impossible since they'll all be deported, then we should CHARGE them with something....keeping people in jail on secret evidence without charging them for years at a time is not consistent with American values, war or not. Obviously, since about a third of the people originally held at Gitmo have been released w/out charges there was something serioulsy wrong with the whole process in the first place. I don't agree w/giving them access to civil courts in terms of trials, but there was a way to deal with real enemy combatants that would have been consistent with American values and the us military code of justice that would have put no one at risk.

Obama is stuck with Iraq, that is just reality. Anyone who thought he was going to pull out and leave no troops or a couple of hundred troops was fooling himself. The country is stuck with Bush's Iraq decisions for eternity.

I don't agree that the financial meltdown is Bush's legacy since there were multiple contributing factors that were COMPLETELY out of his control, namely the Fed's decision that flooding the market w/cheap dollars was a great idea, the sub prime mortgage debacle was also largely out of his control but he didn't do much, if anything to attempt to reign it in--too busy conquering a fourth tier backwards country and tin pot dictator. Failure to properly regulate the stock market and keep control of hedge funds, cash reserve minimums, leveraging ceillings and all the rest of it falls to EVERYONE...there were no Dems out there saying 'hey, this is bad' and no Republicans either.

[mark l.]

one other point about periods of inflation, that might have 'special' meaning to democrats who would incur inflation to address unemployment:

during a period of massive inflation, the poor and lower end wage earners are struggling to keep up with prices. The top earners/trust funders? Yes, everything costs more, but since they have a disposable income that they can invest, and they are in the position of being able to take advantage of extremely high rates of return offered to them.

The end result of inflation is actually far more beneficial to the wealthy, relative to low end earners , further increasing the gap between high and low incomes. Yes, obama can spend his way into solid unemployment numbers, but only at the expense of exploding inflationary risk.

[Philip McDaniel]

Good points, Anon and mark I. Your views are intelligent and penetrating; a pleasure to read.
I remember 79-80-81 well, by the way. It was a struggle but my little family managed to get by. Fortunately, I'm in a position to help my children weather this storm...but I have a hunch it will not be too bad in any case.
As for Bush's legacy, it's far too soon to successfully analyze his presidency with any accuracy, as I'm sure you both know. We're still debating Truman's legacy although historical consensus is beginning to fully appreciate his contribution to the American saga. One wonders about Carter though.

[mark l.]

"Thus W should be working at his job"

with congress in recess, what would you have him do?

with the exception of bombing a new country, there is little authority to do much else.

please jharp, if bush should be 'busy', what would you have him get busy over?

[mark l.]

"And you are being stupid about Gitmo. If they are guilty they aren't going to be released."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/07/gitmo.bomber/index.html

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Kuwaiti man released from U.S. custody at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in 2005 blew himself up in a suicide attack in Iraq last month, Pentagon officials said Wednesday."

"Al-Ajmi was transferred to the custody of Kuwaiti authorities in November 2005, with four other Kuwaitis, and was released after a trial there, according to Pentagon officials."

"As these facts illustrate, there is an implied future risk to U.S. and allied interests with every detainee who is released or transferred from Guantanamo," Gordon said.

close gitmo?
go ahead. If one of the prisoners turns up in an american shopping mall with an AK47, I'm sure the american people will understand.

[jharp]

"please jharp, if bush should be 'busy', what would you have him get busy over?"

Working on getting us out of Iraq?

Maybe he should just do nothing. I just resent him out bullshitting us on what a good job he has done.

I am especially offended by his claim that he kept us safe. Bullshit! He ignored the warnings and did nothing, nothing! and allowed the worst terrorist attack in U.S history on his watch. How in God's name can he call that "kept us safe"?

[SacTownMan]

Please mark, do not attempt to question Stinky's (sorry Dan's idea!)BDS ranting!

[willie horton]

c'mon,
there are less than 250 detainees left at gitmo.

what are the chances that one of them would actually kill somebody?

[anon]

I can't see Bush's legacy turning out to be anything but pretty bad.

Even if Iraq were to turn into a flowering Democracy is 10 or 20 years, which is highly unlikely, I think history would still judge the cost as too high in terms of costs, and then there is that whole 'there weren't really any WMD' problem, meaning that based on the stated reasons we went to war, we were dead wrong or we lied It's hard to get around this as anything but a negative.

I cant' come to any conclusion but that history will not look kindly on the John Yoo memo, the idea that O'Hare is international territory, that its constitutional to detain a U.S. citizen without charges ad infinitum, or that the VP can choose which branch of government he belongs to at any given time....the executive power grabs and bizarre legal underpinnings for some of the 'war on terror' activities is also a black mark.

His supreme court picks will stand the test of time quite well.

His tax cut has had no long term positive effect on the economy so he gets no points for that.

It is possible that global warming will turn out to be a natural cycle in which case he will look quite prescient, but, at present, seems relatively unlikely.

I doubt history will look kindly on his frontal assault on any and all enviromental regulations.

No child left behind is a mixed bag, but could turn out to be a net positive over time, certainly better than anyone else has done.

So, what does that leave really that could turn around his legacy to be positive?

[willie horton]

"I can't see Bush's legacy turning out to be anything but pretty bad."

I tend to see the question of presidential legacy as being too selective. Our successes and failures have rarely turned on the whims of one individual. Bush remains 1/3 of our govt. Given that govt is freely elected, it is hard to divorce bush and congress from the people who selected them to serve.

Bush's legacy is our country's legacy. (He did win again in 2004, even knowing that there were no wmds.)

For good or bad, obama appears to be pursuing the bush legacy. Not by choice, but practicality. Considering that even with his liberal views he has chosen not to depart from any major foreign policy issue, with the exception of escalating in Afghanistan, would suggest that it is not the president that shapes the policy, so much as they get stuck playing the hand they get dealt.

[Anon]

While its true that presidents generally get more credit and more blame than they deserve for the reasons you state, its also still true that presidents are evaluated in terms of their alleged accomplishments.

Reagan gets credit for the dissolution of the USSR, but the truth is MUCH more complicated than that we spent the Soviets into bankruptcy. Clinton takes credit for welfare reform even though he fought it every step of the way.

Bush will take more blame and credit, if there is any to be had, because he also had a Republican majority for almost all of his presidency.

My opinion is that Bush was very, very successful in getting what he wanted. The fact that Obama's hands are tied by Iraq and by the huge deficit is a tribute to how well Bush got his policies put into action, one way or the other.

Unfortunately, what he wanted was generally not the best course of action.

[ET]

--Obama is going to withdraw from Iraq, as promised.

jharp, you are the only one who still believes this.

"But like his predecessors, the Obama administration will quickly learn that present U.S. foreign policy is mostly a result of reasonable decisions taken amid bad and worse choices. Therefore, don't be surprised if a President Obama continues much of what we are now doing -- albeit with a kinder, gentler rhetoric of "multilateralism" and "U.N. accords.""

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/12/campaign_rhetoric_and_presiden.html

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=3692c736-406c-4ee1-9bb9-4ec6cc15531f

Admit it, harpo. You were and remain dead wrong on Iraq. Plus, you fell for obama's campaign rhetoric.

I know it hurts to be abandoned by the ONE who makes your leg tingle. We tried to warn you, but you wouldn't listen.

Poor, sad little man.

[mark l.]

"Unfortunately, what he wanted was generally not the best course of action."

i love the guy, but he killed the- now, mythical, tenet of the gop-
fiscal conservatism.

the passivity towards illegal immigration was the cherry on top.