What do you guys think the effect of McCain getting elected would have on W's legacy (if any)?

I tend to think it will be like letting W off the hook, in a way.

Thoughts?

It depends on how McCain does. If he continues with the same basic policies (which I think he would), then I agree.

If McCain really is a maverick (which is all BS I think) and shakes things up then Bush's mistakes will be even more highlighted (as they would with Obama's changes).

It really depends on whether the country improves under him or not.

I think it says more about the public than Bush though. A McCain win says one of two things:

a) The public wants more of the same crap
b) The public really thinks McCain will take us in a new direction

McCain isn't quite Bush. But there isn't that much distinction between being asleep at the wheel (McCain) and being drunk at the wheel (Bush).

Good analogy. Except that I'd change Bush to being too dumb to know how to drive a car (it doesn't sound as good though).

I think a McCain victory would allow defenders of Bush to say, "All things considered, how bad was it when the people kept the Republicans in the White House"?

In other words, if it was really that bad, a Democrat should have won easily.

Sure, they can say that right off the bat, except that McCain/Palin are trying to play the change card. Again, it depends on what McCain actually does. My guess is not much changes and you are correct.

History will not judge Bush based on a snapshot.

Maybe, but is 4 years a "snapshot"? Is a Presidential term ever insignificant?

Will McCain keep additional (as of now, unknown) messes that he inherits from Bush under wraps or will he expose more wrongdoings if they are discovered? (as opposed to if Obama wins)

Maybe, but is 4 years a "snapshot"?



Yes.

History will not judge Bush based on a snapshot.

No, they have 8 years to judge him on, and the lingering effect of policies, mistakes, cronyism, and general farcical treatment of the presidency to judge him by.

I've always considered the results of a Presidential election as (at least partly) a referendum on the previous President.

Jimmy Carter struggled, enter Reagan.

Bush Sr. said "read my lips" and then burned everyone for believing him, sorry Republicans.

Clinton got a hummer, here comes W.

etc.

History doesn't just judge the time in office but the lasting effects of the decisions made. It's more than 8 years. The eventual outcome of Iraq as a nation, America's awakening to terrorism worldwide, No Child Left Behind, the role his term played in the beginning portion of the end of the oil era, all these things and more will be considered when he is reflected on historically. Popular opinion at the time and who followed him aren't major players in that argument.

Speaking for myself then, I can say that if McCain gets elected, then I underestimated how much people disliked the last 8 years.

If they aren't pissed off enough to put the other party in now, then what has to happen for that to occur?

I'm babbling now, but it's out of frustration and the anticipation that as pissed off as I was after the last two Presidential elections, I'm possibly about to top it.

History will not judge Bush based on a snapshot.

Yep, meaining, or I think you are saying, it doesn't matter what JM or BO does, its Bush's 8 years.



History doesn't just judge the time in office but the lasting effects of the decisions made. It's more than 8 years. The eventual outcome of Iraq as a nation, America's awakening to terrorism worldwide, No Child Left Behind, the role his term played in the beginning portion of the end of the oil era, all these things and more will be considered when he is reflected on historically. Popular opinion at the time and who followed him aren't major players in that argument.

Really good post, imo. I'd add to that how many peeps in Africa are getting Aids medicine now vs when he came in office. Those type things.

But the really important part of that post is popular opinion at the time has no real influence on how Bush goes down in history.

My opinion is that Bush's Prezidnc will be looked at way different than it does in present time and it will go way up. I've said a bunch of times that we need to wait for a decade before you can really evaluate the Iraq war. I support finishing the war now, but I can't say that it was a good decision or a bad one to go there. I think the evidence says wrong decision, but we'll see.

I will say that the Iraq war was THE MOST politicized war ever. More than Viet Nam. If Clinton had went in there the lefties would be supporting and the right would be bitching.

Forgot to answer the point of the thread. I don't think it will have much of an effect at all.

If BO were elected say a year, or so ago and pulled the troops out and that region turned into a hell hole, I think it would fall on BO's legacy, not Bush as an example.

Quick -- tell me what presidency do you most associate with Viet Nam?

Nixon. - Am I allowed to answer?

Kennedy/Johson

Anyone can answer, of course.

I'd expect to see as much Nixon as LBJ associated with Vietnam, less so fo JFK and Ford.

And why I bring it up is because I think Iraq will be thought of much like Vietnam is today.

Kennedy started it, Johnson escalated it, but Nixon was the guy who gets associated with it the most...and rightfully so.

History will not judge Bush based on a snapshot.
I agree with Herm

Speaking for myself then, I can say that if McCain gets elected, then I underestimated how much people disliked the last 8 years.

If they aren't pissed off enough to put the other party in now, then what has to happen for that to occur?

I'm babbling now, but it's out of frustration and the anticipation that as pissed off as I was after the last two Presidential elections, I'm possibly about to top it.
Glenn welcome to the flaw of the blinding light that is a two party system in america.

I actually don't have a huge problem with the two party system, as long as when one party fucks up big time, the other one gets a shot.

i personally would view it as one more step down the slippery slope of nationalistic populism. Optimistically, i would hope that mccain's appropriation of conservation supreme court judges would be a step to increased federalism and a decline in the culture wars that are tearing the country apart.

edit: I also get annoyed by bush's constant self-comparison to truman. Truman's foreign policy decisions were mostly popular and accepted by the american electorate at the time. it was the fiscal corruption of the truman administration that was widely regarded as its great failure both then and now.

I don't see how the iraq war can possibly be viewed as a success in the future. the shia govt. is much closer with iranian leaders than US leaders (despite bush-cheney's assertions about the influence of iranian intelligence). It also remains to be seen how the shia leaders will deal with sunnis and kurds after we leave.

I actually don't have a huge problem with the two party system, as long as when one party fucks up big time, the other one gets a shot.
You're missing the point. Which is the promoting of group bias and division. People are voting their party and no matter what happened in the last 8 years if your party is what you are about. Undecideds vote on on bullshit so they can't be "depended" on to make a good decision as a whole.

I mean look at Tahoe and Wil, in a world so far from perfect they'll defend almost any negative brought up about Palin or McCain because of party status and people are like that for Obama and Biden in some cases too. And to me thats a shitty result of the two arty club errr i mean system.

You're missing the point. Which is the promoting of group bias and division. People are voting their party and no matter what happened in the last 8 years if your party is what you are about. Undecideds vote on on bullshit so they can't be "depended" on to make a good decision as a whole.

I mean look at Tahoe and Wil, in a world so far from perfect they'll defend almost any negative brought up about Palin or McCain because of party status and people are like that for Obama and Biden in some cases too. And to me thats a shitty result of the two arty club errr i mean system.

Not so fast quicksdraw,

1. you do almost the same thing and

B. Until you realize that some peeps are honest in their opinions but peeps see things differently, you are wrong and have learned NOTHING!

I actually don't have a huge problem with the two party system, as long as when one party fucks up big time, the other one gets a shot.

But a lot of peeps don't think that the Repubs fucked up big time.

Bush made some mistakes, who doesn't as Prez?

Not so fast quicksdraw,

1. you do almost the same thing and

B. Until you realize that some peeps are honest in their opinions but peeps see things differently, you are wrong and have learned NOTHING!
Honesty is backed by truthfully finding something without bias to base stance on. Not chopping up what the bias to your group masses give you to make sense of whats left. This type of silliness ties into alot of beliefs from systematic extreme religion to racial stereotypes. But thats a bigger subject not meant for this thread.

And how did I almost do the same thing? LOL

I'd never defend anybody like this.

But a lot of peeps don't think that the Repubs fucked up big time.

Bush made some mistakes, who doesn't as Prez?
Did you play the "average everyday guy mistake" card again? Should he say "oops my bad, you woulda done the same too" in every letter sent to every family of soldiers lost to a war in the wrong country? Again that's blind to me. You're not admitting his mistakes you're making them out to be severely small. I apologize if i can eat the same bullshit you do Tahoe. But it is bullshit.

^ Nice opinion piece

Who are you trying to sell that on? Me or you?

Quick -- tell me what presidency do you most associate with Viet Nam?

Millen

Millen
WIN