Getty Images
If Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) overcomes his objections and agrees to join Mitt Romney's 2012 ticket, I have a strong hunch this quote will become one of the more important tidbits of the year.
"George W. Bush, in my opinion, did a fantastic job as president over eight years."
In some Republican circles, many on the right choose to explain the spectacular failures of the Bush/Cheney era by saying the former president wasn't really a conservative, so his fiascos shouldn't be held against the conservative movement. After all, they argue, he was a liberal on spending, a moderate on immigration and education, a big-government advocate on entitlements like Medicare, and even a supporter of civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. Sure, Bush failed, the argument goes, but only because he wasn't a real conservative.
Indeed, go back and look at the transcripts from the Republican presidential candidates debates over the last year -- when Bush's name came up, it was only to criticize his breaks with party orthodoxy on everything from deficits to No Child Left Behind to Medicare Part D.
But while that was the standard line for quite a while, the tide appears to have turned. Rubio thinks Bush did "a fantastic job"; the Republican National Committee believes the party's agenda in 2013 will simply be a warmed over version of Bush's policies; and Romney has surrounded himself with Bush's former aides and advisors.
To reiterate a point from the other day, this is exactly what Democrats wanted to hear. For Dems, one of the principal goals of 2012 is to persuade American voters not to go backwards. Bush/Cheney left all kinds of crises for Obama/Biden to clean up, and Democrats will urge the electorate not to return to the failures of the recent past.
Romney, Rubio, and the RNC are making Democrats' job easier.
I'm also left thinking about this in historical terms. In 1936, were Republicans running around telling voters that Hoover did "a fantastic job" and vowing to bring back his policy agenda? If not, why are Republicans praising Bush now?
Rubio's bizarre praise notwithstanding, Bush was one of America's worst presidents. He inherited peace and prosperity, along with a massive budget surplus and a strong national standing around the world. Over the course of eight years, Bush proceeded to have a reverse Midas touch, ruining practically everything he touched. His two terms and the events therein are, in retrospect, a sort of nightmare we're still struggling to overcome.
To think he did "a fantastic job" is to be out of touch with reality in borderline frightening ways.
Postscript: Follow up question for Romney, who doesn't return my calls: "Marco Rubio thinks George W. Bush did a fantastic job as president. Do you agree?"
Leave a Comment:
Were it someone other than Marcocito saying this I might pay attention, but he has to keep JEB!?! happy so that discounts his opinion
Shows he's not yet ready for primetime players! And as far as Mitt, he fits the same billing. Neither one of them should ever be permitted within a 100 yards in proximity of the White House and Oval Office.
"To think he did "a fantastic job" is to be out of touch with reality in borderline frightening ways."
Steve.. you are way too kind today (LOL)
Strike the word- "borderline", already. He is seriously 'out of touch'.
Oh well, at least he's being consistent with his cronies-- clueless
Anyone who would openly say they think Bush did a fantastic job should automatically be disqualified from being anywhere near the White House. So no Vice President title for you Mr. Rubio!
Marco Combover is about as trustworthy as his "stealth" hair...
This is coming from the member of a party that, in the face of slowly improving employment figures, rising job availability, and a slowly climbing stock market (among other things) still points to the President's performance as a "failure."
Notice a pattern?
yes theres a mind boggling mental flaw, flowing through the republicans and making them all say rediclious things!
Obama can take credit for being one the few that could make Bush look good.
You haven't been banned here yet, you worthless piece of sh*t?
@shooter, I really am hoping that that's "dark" sarcasm right now. Because if you meant it, I'd really like some examples of what you think this President has done that makes Bush look "good"?
Bush makes all other Presidents look good, even Buchanan
There is nothing on this earth that would ever make Bush look good! Bush/ Cheney was the most corrupt administration ever! Can you say Haliburton, and Koch Brothers?
Zora Renee
How about....
* Guns to drug cartels,
* 11% real unemployment,
* Libya,
* Assassination of US citizen without due process,
* "Let them eat cake" vacations and parties,
* Jon Corzine roams free and bundling campaign contributions,
* Exacerbating racial tensions in Sanford Florida,
* Handing over GM to the UAW after intimidating bondholders,
* Publicly rebuking the Supreme Court
* Picking Wall St over Main St.
* Racking up as much debt in half the time.
Just a few items off the top of my head.
I agree with picking Wall St. over Main St. but all your points are WAY beyond the control of the POTUS regardless of party affiliation. And if you do insist on laying blame simply because things happened on on the president's watch then you HAVE TO lay blame to GW for 9/11.
Does that kind of pseudo-reasoning make sense to you?
Actually, Bush did do a fantastic job - a fantastic job of completely f*cking up everything he touched. (Excuse my French).
Many, many years ago a reader originally from Midland TX told a story about the oil boom in the 80s. While everyone was making money hand over fist W managed to loose money. So much so that there was a saying that someone who failed miserably when it should be impossible to do so is "pulling a W"
True story
He pulled a W on the entire country...
It was the Republican Party that hosted Shrub. They implemented his policy. They voted for him - twice. If he now looks like a liberal to these same clowns, then I wonder who fell off the cliff.
If only the Democrats weren't spineless twits (DNC leadership? anyone?), I would feel better about how mentally retarded the Republicans are, but I don't!
Because they have nothing.
They are a bankrupt party. Rubio is playing with fire bringing up bush's name. bush was made to dissapear in the 2008 election and he should NEVER ,EVER be brought back to life and praised!!!!
Bush "was a liberal on spending, a moderate on immigration and education, a big-government advocate on entitlements like Medicare, and even a supporter of civil unions for gay and lesbian couples."
Republicans either deny Bush ever existed or call him a liberal. Calling Bush a "liberal" is bizarre in the real world but they do make that case, as explained above.
"Bush failed, the argument goes, but only because he wasn't a real conservative."
And what is a "real" conservative? A good question that remains unanswered.
A real conservative is someone who succeeds. If they fail, they're automatically liberal.
I know that makes no sense, but I've seen Republican voters call Hitler a far-left liberal so why should we expect anything logical from them now?
I automatically chuckle when I hear righties say Hitler was a far left liberal. Sure his party had the word 'socialist" in it, but he did not name it. He just kept the name after he and his cronies took it over. Had a nice ring to it in abbreviated form and it had a really fine symbol.
If only they would look at where he got his backing from. Mostly from the huge industrialists, like, for example, Krupp, who were frightened to death of the real left: the Social Democrats.
Sound familiar?
If they ever bust out the "well it has the word in the name, so it must be!" argument for calling the Nazis liberals (because murdering minorities is SUCH a liberal attitude and all) I just throw out:
"Then I guess you have to admit ownership of Mussolini and his Republican Fascist Party, right?"
A real conservative is someone who succeeds.
Yet what is "success"? Success in Republican eyes is a Mafia "made man".
Republicans resemble Mafia in many ways. They are fundamentally uneducated but wear nice suits and like to show off their wealth by strutting their bling and pretending everyone envies them. They go to church and protect their women and pretend to uphold "family values" while running rip-off scams of every sort. And when you question their ways they only get in your face with belligerent bluster and lies.
I only disagree - slightly - with the notion that Bush "inherited peace and prosperity." Sure, compared to a post-9/11 world it seems like it was practically Eden. But nonetheless, we were a nation under attack if not a nation at war at that time, and we were not as well prepared to fight a war on terror as we now, comparatively, are. I'm of the mindset that a 9/11 would not have happened under a President Gore, and if it happened, the war would have been fought more thoughtfully, more intelligently, with a better outcome and fewer lives lost and dollars spent. I would just disagree that it was a time of "peace."
By that standard, we haven't been at peace more than a few years in all of our existence. We hadn't been attacked, and we weren't in active combat; sounds like peace to me. If you're not at peace just because someone has bad intent toward you, then there is no peace to be found on this earth.
We were a nation under attack
That is a lie. No one is attacking our nation. The 9/11 hijackers did not and could never attack our nation. al Qaeda is nothing but a handful of punks. They are no threat to "our nation" at all.
"In some Republican circles, many on the right choose to explain the spectacular failures of the Bush/Cheney era by saying the former president wasn't really a conservative, so his fiascos shouldn't be held against the conservative movement."
The proper response to this argument is that the conservatives voted for Bush's programs and policies so they cannot escape responsibility for the fiascoes. Republicans had control of the Senate and House and could have refused to go along with Bush. But they went along with the programs and policies without objection. This point needs to be hammered home by the Dems.
The problem was not that the Bush polices didn't work the way they were supposed to work, the problem was that the Bush policies did work the way they were supposed to work.
GWB's tax cuts, war and spending was exactly the 'starve the beast' republicans ploy started with Raygun. Spend lots, create deficits and thus force cuts to social programs
Saying that "Bush did a good job" while President, is like saying "Fukishima wasn't a total disaster" either!
I changed my mind. We want him as Mitt's VP choice, we *need* him as Mitt's VP choice!
Overly Agreed.
He smok n dat ISH....fa real...i aint ly n
So the moral of the story is Rubio thinks Bush really is a scotsman? (re: logical fallacies)
This should be fun! From now until November, we get to watch two Republican boneheads dig themselves in a deeper and deeper hole. I'd love to see them go on the platform of continuing the Bush/Cheney policies.
Not only did Bush decimate the American economy, he managed to drag the entire world down.
To paraphrase Bush after Katrina: "You did one heck of a job, Dubya".
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) probably has "inside info" - the acid-test for any regime is:
"Did the trains run on time?" He probably knows that performance under Pres. GW Bush had been far better than under Pres. WJ (BJ?) Clinton & BH Obama -
Currently, my research seems to garner limited info:
Amtrak - Routes - Historical On-Time Performance:
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/Page/1237608335166/1237405732511
if he did, then why didn't he leave a surplus for his successor,instead of leaving everyone under the bus,and why isn't Romney calling him for advice,,Clinton left Bush in the best of shape,and Obama, if god forbid he looses will leave the next @!$%# a growing economy,and thats the best I can do for romney,but god willing Obama, will leave himself in better shape than he received!
"and Romney has surrounded himself with Bush's former aides and advisors."
so has Obama. i'll vote for Obama but there is little daylight between the two on too many issues.
you must be wearing really dark glasses sir!
repealing DADT is nice and all but closing Gitmo and then not caving on the trials here would have been good too. yeah yeah the people wouldn't hold still for it -- horse pucky. true leadership means you stand up for what's right, not what's politically correct. and good lord the abuses about "homeland security" are rampant and exceed what Bush did. look i realize it's been difficult but IMO Obama rolled over too often on issues he should have made a principled stand on. the mess with the banks, robo signing and all that are (again IMO) proof the man is too much like Bush. or has no spine. i just don't see it as good politics.
Folks, it is important that we remember what may be the most damaging thing that will disqualify Rubio as a VP candidate. RUBIO CO-SPONSORED THE BLUNT AMENDMENT to the ACA. The Blunt amendment was the unsuccessful attempt (so far) to allow employers to remove any coverage they objected to from their healthcare insurance that they offer their employees.
And, BTW, it is important to note that this amendment is not just anti-woman. There are plenty of coverages for men that might be objected to as well, like Aids prevention and care and cancers that an employer might deem "self inflicted", for example. The Blunt amendment is not just about women.
Suffice it to say that he condones what the Bush Crime Syndicate did? And if so, wouldn't that classify him as a sociopath who belongs in an institution with the rest of those criminals?
As a Latino voter the only true ethnicity I see in Rubio is that he is the perfect modified product of the republican party.