While it is hardly unbefitting of this blog to discuss predominantly International Relations issues, I find it interesting that you've neglected Pres. Bush's one hope of a favorable (at least with conservative thinkers) legacy in the years just after his occupation of the White House: the Supreme Court.
That, actually, is a good point. Bush inherited a court that something like lasted 9 years together-- a record for modern Courts. They formed a longstanding centrist position based on the swing votes of key centrists jurists, mainly Sandra Day O'Conner and made numerous significant rulings.
With his 2 appointments of younger Justices to key positions, Bush has solidified a working conservative majority on the Court, and one that has the potential to last far beyond his term. The Justice most likely to depart the court next is its senior member and its liberal leader--Stevens. The Conservatives on the Court don't seem to be going anywhere soon.
This is also one area where History really will have to judge (literally and figuratively) Bush's legacy. It takes years for cases to make it to the court, so the true impact of Bush's appointments won't be apparent for some time--quite possibly well beyond Bush's term in office.
Unlike the Clintons, Bush is not the least bit worried about his legacy... it will be what it will be.
As he has repeated, he's not in a popularity contest, doesn't care about the polls or what is written about him, he is trying to do what he believes is right, like it or not... let history be the judge.
It's sad that those on this blog are so partisan Democrat that credit cannot be given on any level to those who oppose you.
Brilliant-not.
-redstater
This post would be better if you did a simple global replace: "Bush" --> "Cheney."
red stater- it's good that he doesn't care what people say because no one is saying anything good, neither will history.
A agreee that alito and roberts were excellent chioces though
A small perhaps pedantic quibble on the Truman legacy as you outline it: for Bretton Woods (1944) and the UN's founding (1945) one must give some credit to the Roosevelt admin -- not to mention a Briton, namely Keynes (along with the American Harry Dexter White)in the case of Bretton Woods. Though to be sure, the Truman admin helped build the fledging institutions. Also Truman signed the order desegregating the army, I believe... Also administering the Marshall Plan....
Good point on the Bush admin's penchant for secrecy.
good point ...as opposed to the Clinton regime's penchant for secrecy, corruption, lies...
red stater:
re your remark that Bush "doesn't care what's written about him." I suppose that's why, when Bill Kristol published his wash post piece titled "Why Bush Will Be a Winner" (or something close to that), Bush 'suggested' that the entire White House staff read it.
Also, why does every reference to Bush need to be paired w a reference to Clinton? The Lewinsky scandal is over, so is Whitewater (which didn't seem to amount to much, though I wouldn't be at all surprised if something untoward had happened at the nexus of money and power in Arkansas). Bottom line: a criticism of Bush is not necessarily and always an implied compliment to Clinton. Why turn everything into a partisan thing? Dems and Reps, blue and red states, do not exhaust the political universe, even in a country with as narrow and unimaginative a mainstream political spectrum as the United States.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan.com
