Conversation

SARS was 2002-04, and GWB became a pandemic nerd in 2005. He deserves credit for responding meaningfully to a near-miss. He read an actual book, got an actual idea and did something about it. It wasn’t mere legacy-seeking then, and it’s not mere reputation laundering now.
3
118
GWB era was odd. People compare to Trump era repeatedly but it’s not a meaningful comparison. He had 3 big disasters he didn’t cause on his watch (9/11, Katrina, subprime) and one he dud (Iraq). The fraction of people who detested him was an order of magnitude less than Trump.
6
29
In the context of the extraordinary challenges he faced, and making allowance for GOP values (from back when the party existed) he wasn’t a terrible president like the left likes to pretend. He was mediocre. That’s why I am fine with his rehabilitation
Quote Tweet
I’ll admit the steady attempt to rehabilitate GWB’s image since he left office has lowkey worked on me. Started with his picking up the painting hobby in retirement and I also liked his origin story of quitting alcoholism and running marathons. abcnews.go.com/Politics/georg
Show this thread
5
15
You could rate presidents by the amount of raw good or bad luck they enjoyed, in terms of crises/fortunes not of their own making before their own actions compound them. On a scale of -10-10, I’d say: Reagan: 3 GHWB: -2 Clinton: 9 GWB: -7 Obama: -3 Trump: 8 before Covid, 3 after
Replying to
Here’s a contrast: I attribute to neocon coterie (Cheney et al) actions in GWB name a lot more than I attribute to Mitch McConnell actions in Trump name. Why? Because GWB was kinda maneuvered into many actions. Trump otoh went along eagerly, claiming every win Mitch lined up.
2
6