Democrats Plan To Run Against Bush

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The "hate Bush" campaign worked so well in 2006 and 2008, the Democrats have decided to milk the dead cow one more time. Even the main-extreme media is admitting that the Democrats will be running against George W. Bush in 2010, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were to try the same strategy again in 2012.

When you have nothing good to report about yourselves, attacking what is perceived to be the opposition's leader is the next best thing.

George W. Bush was hardly conservative on a number of fronts. In fact, during the first couple years of his presidency he actually experimented with Keynesian economic policies. When, as expected, they proved to be a failure, he shifted gears, and with the legislature put into effect tax cuts across the board. The result of those tax cuts were a period economic growth that would be the envy of most presidents.

In fact, looking back to history, we find that the claim "Bush did nothing to recognize, or stave off the coming economic collapse" is false as well. In 2003 the Republicans warned of a collapse of Freddie and Fannie, and called for an examination of their books, and the Democrats claimed there were no problems, and that the Republicans were on a witch hunt. Then, when the mortgage system collapsed as the GOP saw coming years before, the Democrats suddenly blamed it on the Republicans - when it had been the Republicans all along trying to sound the alarm of the possible problems with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.



With lies and deception, the Democrats branded G.W. Bush as a bad economic president, regardless of the facts. . .

The unemployment rate for the Bush years were consistently low, only rising in the end after the Democrats gained control of Congress, and Bush failed to veto their spending policies:

1976 7.7
1977 7.1
1978 6.1
1979 5.8
1980 7.1
1981 7.6
1982 9.7
1983 9.6
1984 7.5
1985 7.2
1986 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5
1989 5.3
1990 5.6
1991 6.8
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8
2009 9.3

source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

In 2003, after the tax cuts, the economy's growth was phenomenal. The third-quarter growth of 7.2 percent was the strongest in nearly two decades. CNN Money

Rates were low, unemployment was low, growth was steady.

And yet Bush was somehow pinned with being a bad economic president. Amazing what a lot of lying by the Democrats can accomplish.

Don't get me wrong, as a Republican Bush spent more than I was comfortable with, his support of the stimulus in 2008 was a huge mistake, and his big government programs like "No Child Left Behind" were constantly being criticized by folks like myself because they hardly promoted the principles of limited government. But, overall, his presidency was not the disaster the Left makes it out to be, and the disaster that did strike could have been avoided had the Democrats been willing to regulate Fannie and Freddie (and look into their books) as the GOP had suggested.

My prediction? The Democrat decision to run against Bush will be disastrous, because the American people realize that the reasoning behind the decision to "run against Bush" is because the Democrats have nothing positive to run on when it comes to the Democrat policies of the last couple years. Obama, and the Democrat Congress, has been nothing short of incompetent, and devastating, and the American people know it.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Lancing the Boil - Victor Davis Hanson

Democrats invoke Bush to get support from voters for midterm elections - Washington Post