George W. Bush loses the 2004 election. Is he remembered better or worse than OTL?

I disagree with that. Outside the Iraq surge, his second term was an absolute failure - maybe the worst second term of any modern president.

There was the government's response to Katrina, which, while not fully the fault of his administration, still dominated much of his early second term presidency. That response, or lack thereof, in a heavily black city, didn't play well - and time won't change that. It'll always be remembered as a blemish for the country, both at the state and federal level.

Bush was unable to pass immigration reform, despite a groundswell of Democratic support in 2007. Support included Bush, Harry Reid, Arlen Specter, Ted Kennedy, John Kyl, John McCain and Lindsey Graham. He helped craft the bill and it failed even with its bipartisan support because the President couldn't round up enough of his own party's support to get it through.

Despite the surge's success, there is still a strong question about whether Bush had any viable exit strategy out of Iraq, which has proven itself in the last few years. There was still no end game for the U.S. and while many Republicans bemoan the fact Pres. Obama followed through with pulling out troops, the idea that the United States could continue high troop levels in the region, sustain that, is just not realistic. Iraq will always be an issue, especially with the growth of ISIS over the years, and I doubt history will be kind to Bush in that regard.

Moreover, while Bush doesn't deserve a brunt of the blame for the economic meltdown, he was president when it happened - and not just into his presidency, either. This isn't a situation where the bottom fell out just mere months into his first term, like, say, with Herbert Hoover, rather it happened at the end - which makes it that much more difficult for him to escape blame. Sure, there are many reasons the economy collapsed but Bush will be at, or near the top, in every reference solely because of how ingrained his presidency was in the recession.

Most of all of Bush's best defining moments happened in his first term - his tax cuts, Medicare Part D, his initial response to 9/11. Granted, Iraq was a first-term blunder, and something that will follow his legacy forever, but much of the damage of Iraq came in his second term.

He also failed with Social Security reform in his second term, which really got things off to a rocky start as it was his first major legislative push of that second term. Then there was scandal. From Valerie Plame, to wiretapping, to the aforementioned Katrina.

None of that will bode well for the history books. A one-term Bush avoids all of that, though. In the end, I think Bush will be remembered very similar to Carter and, let's be honest, despite the passing of time, Carter is still considered, by both Americans and many historians, a failure of a president. Fairly or not.

Funny you missed the very reason why I think the complete opposite of you.

Namely the economic crisis. Right now it's all blamed on Bush as villain #2 and the public still hates that Bush bailed out the car companies and banks.

There is no rational look at the events of 2008, its all full of pain and anger.

The pain and anger will go away in time, but we are talking many years and give way to a rational look at the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression and how Bush avoided a second Great Depression and the fact is we came very very close to one and few President's would have acted as decisively as Bush did at that time.

It will be a case study in American and even world political economic history of how the government can arrest a full on panic and economic crisis from wiping out the world economy. Bush right now is the biggest villain in the story next to the banks and automakers. That won't at all be the case when people actually look back with historian glasses because it's frankly not true.

Well you will say just look at Hoover the Great Depression wasn't his fault and he is blamed to this day. That was because he sat on his ass and let it happen and then globalized it by helping to put up super trade barriers.

As for issues like his failure on Immigration, it will screw his party for years and perhaps decades to come. If Trumpism wins out in the GOP and Hispanics become an African American like voting block going 90% democrats with them soon being 1/4th the nation well it could even destroy the modern GOP and give rise to a new party.

But, George W Bush won't be looked upon as the man who scapegoated Hispanics and turned them into a forever enemy of the GOP. He will be looked at as the guy who won 40% of the Hispanic vote and tried unsuccessfully to buck a loud and growing majority in his party that have an us vs them view on relations on immigrants from Latin America.

Basically historians will say the GOP had a chance to follow Bush's model and turn Hispanics into a 40-50% GOP voting block, but went with Trump style demagoguery and screwed themselves.
 
No. I saw your point. I disagree with it. Despite only being in office mere months, Hoover still gets the bulk of the blame for the Great Depression. Not Calvin Coolidge. They'll never be able to dismiss Bush's culpability in the crisis, even if it's not entirely his fault. The fact it happened so deep into his presidency only hinders him more. It's not like you can dismiss the pain of the economic crisis since it happened early in his presidency (and why Obama was given a strong pass on the ballooning unemployment rate throughout 2009 and 2010).

Bush won't ever escape the economy - just like Carter won't escape the demons that have dogged him since leaving office (demons that were largely out of his control).
 
No. I saw your point. I disagree with it. Despite only being in office mere months, Hoover still gets the bulk of the blame for the Great Depression. Not Calvin Coolidge. They'll never be able to dismiss Bush's culpability in the crisis, even if it's not entirely his fault. The fact it happened so deep into his presidency only hinders him more. It's not like you can dismiss the pain of the economic crisis since it happened early in his presidency (and why Obama was given a strong pass on the ballooning unemployment rate throughout 2009 and 2010).

Bush won't ever escape the economy - just like Carter won't escape the demons that have dogged him since leaving office (demons that were largely out of his control).

Bush tried new regulations over the housing market and last I checked both parties in Congress wouldn't give him the time of day on the matter. Be happy for the near future you are right on what people believe, but what you believe and what people believe has no basis in truth that Bush's deregulation crashed the economy.

From 2003.

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10— The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/b...ed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

Carter sent a 4 star general to Iran to tell the Iranian Army we spent a lot of money on to stay in their bases and not to oppose the revolution. Carter was wrong about the Ayatollah being a nice holy man, just like Bush was wrong about Saddam having a large active chemical weapons program and for that both of them will pay massively in the history books.

President's may be almost like Kings on foreign affairs, but on domestic policy President's can't do jack all without Congress. Frankly the banks bought Congress to deregulate themselves before Bush ever came into office and there was too much money around for Bush to get serious re-regulation to occur in the lead up to the crisis.

Even after the crisis the new regs on the banks are a joke.
 
It depends on why he lost. Does Hurticane Katrina come a year early? President Kerry probably withdraws the troops from Iraq, so there is less of a national trauma.

He could lose for some quite "limited" Ohio-specific reasons (shorter lines at the polls, courts rule the referendum on same-sex marriage off the ballot, the scandals in Governor Taft's administration break before the election, etc.)
 
He could lose for some quite "limited" Ohio-specific reasons (shorter lines at the polls, courts rule the referendum on same-sex marriage off the ballot, the scandals in Governor Taft's administration break before the election, etc.)

Yup. Around 100K votes going to Kerry in Ohio would've flipped the electoral vote and the election to Kerry (although Bush may still win the popular vote). Any one of these reasons could work.
 
Bush tried new regulations over the housing market and last I checked both parties in Congress wouldn't give him the time of day on the matter. Be happy for the near future you are right on what people believe, but what you believe and what people believe has no basis in truth that Bush's deregulation crashed the economy.

From 2003.



Carter sent a 4 star general to Iran to tell the Iranian Army we spent a lot of money on to stay in their bases and not to oppose the revolution. Carter was wrong about the Ayatollah being a nice holy man, just like Bush was wrong about Saddam having a large active chemical weapons program and for that both of them will pay massively in the history books.

President's may be almost like Kings on foreign affairs, but on domestic policy President's can't do jack all without Congress. Frankly the banks bought Congress to deregulate themselves before Bush ever came into office and there was too much money around for Bush to get serious re-regulation to occur in the lead up to the crisis.

Even after the crisis the new regs on the banks are a joke.

None of that changes the fact he's going to get a brunt of the blame for the economic recession. History may be kinder to Pres. Bush than it is currently but he is not going to go down as a successful president. Near universally, his second term, and his presidency, will be seen as an absolute failure. And it was. He didn't do much of anything in his second term, and worse, the country nearly collapsed under his watch. It's harsh, and not entirely justified, but it is what it is. To be fair, a good amount of presidents fail in their second term, like Clinton and Reagan, but they had strong economies to mask those losses. Bush didn't.

His presidency will never be remembered as anything good.
 
None of that changes the fact he's going to get a brunt of the blame for the economic recession. History may be kinder to Pres. Bush than it is currently but he is not going to go down as a successful president. Near universally, his second term, and his presidency, will be seen as an absolute failure. And it was. He didn't do much of anything in his second term, and worse, the country nearly collapsed under his watch. It's harsh, and not entirely justified, but it is what it is. To be fair, a good amount of presidents fail in their second term, like Clinton and Reagan, but they had strong economies to mask those losses. Bush didn't.

His presidency will never be remembered as anything good.

I agree. If we're comparing him to all the post war Presidents, best case scenario for Bush is that he'll be remembered better than Nixon, Carter, and possibly Ford (I personally don't think he was better than them though), but even then, he'd still be remembered worse than Truman, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Obama.

Dubya certainly doesn't deserve all of the blame for went wrong on his watch, but that doesn't mean he isn't blameless. I do agree however, that from a leadership and decision making perspective, Bush was far better in his second term than in his first, as Rove and Rummy got canned, and Cheney got sidelined. Those three practically ran the country in Bush's first term and made terrible decisions.
 
How a one term Bush Presidency would be remembered is going to depend on a certain extent on the job that President Kerry does. If Kerry has a poor response to Hurricane Katrina, Bush supporters will say, "Bush would have handled it better." When the financial meltdown happens, Kerry will of course get the blame, despite the fact that the seeds for that failure were sown before he took office. If Kerry does not have a decisive response to it, again Bush supporters will say that he would have handled it better. Iraq is more tricky, if it goes to hell will Bush get the blame for starting the war, or will Kerry get the blame for bungling it? Again Bush's one term legacy will in some ways be determined by the Kerry administration.
 
Last edited:

Wallet

Banned
George W. (Dubya) Bush not responsible for the 2008 economic crisis?

Did he not massively deregulate the banks? Did he not go into Iraq? Did he not waste the surplus? Did he not do the tax cuts?

Yes, he was continuing the neoliberal order of Carter, Reagan, HW, and Clinton. But he took things to the extreme.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
I think people have a higher view right now for George Bush the person than George Bush the President, and that might change if there is no second term, with the two held fairly equally.
 
George W. (Dubya) Bush not responsible for the 2008 economic crisis?

Did he not massively deregulate the banks?

No he did not.

This is what I meant when I say the version of history that fits with the media narrative vs an actual analytical look at the decisions he made and did not make is still aways away.
 

Minty_Fresh

Banned
George W. (Dubya) Bush not responsible for the 2008 economic crisis?

Did he not massively deregulate the banks? Did he not go into Iraq? Did he not waste the surplus? Did he not do the tax cuts?

Yes, he was continuing the neoliberal order of Carter, Reagan, HW, and Clinton. But he took things to the extreme.
The 2001 tax cut actually made sense in reaction to the 2000 dot com bubble ending, but the 2003 ones did not make sense. Neither contributed to the economic crisis. There is an argument to be made that the Iraq War caused energy prices to become unreasonable, and therefore made the economic crisis happen when it did (even though one was bound to happen due to structural issues), but its kind of a stretch.

The area of the economy that you CAN put blame on him for is that he was really interested in making homeownership a reality for far more Americans than who should have owned a home. This was a tone at the top issue. Because of this, regulatory apparatuses sapped steadily since the 1970s were not as interested in policing the CDOs as they should have been.

But to definitively claim that Bush caused the Crisis is simply false. He didn't do anything to avoid it, but it was probably going to happen anyways.
 
Losing in 2004 lets Bill Kristol and the rest of the NeoCon Hawk peanut gallery off the hook for Iraq - they'd blame the ensuing sectarian carnage on "Democratic weakness". If only George W. Bush had been allowed to see things through to the end....! :rolleyes:
 
But to definitively claim that Bush caused the Crisis is simply false. He didn't do anything to avoid it, but it was probably going to happen anyways.

Yeah. The deregulation that caused it was ultimately from the Clinton administration, with the end of Glass-Steagall. Kerry would be better, but the economy will still come tumbling down.
 
Yeah. The deregulation that caused it was ultimately from the Clinton administration, with the end of Glass-Steagall. Kerry would be better, but the economy will still come tumbling down.
This, although I would argued it was Reagan that set the stage for Clinton and a Republican Congress to do all of this and I would also argue that Bush put the peddle to the floor and accelerated everything.
 
Top