The Bush Factor

Forget hiding in the bushes, Republicans have been trying to hide a very problematic Bush.

George W. Bush, that is.

A New York Times editorial compared the number of times that Democrats have mentioned the current president's name versus the number of times that Republicans have invoked it. The number? 47 to 2. (One of the 2 Republican mentions was actually a criticism by Representative Ron Paul from Texas.) Pretty dire stuff which brings up questions about what to do with a moron for President?

Perhaps moron is too harsh a word... but what else should we assume about a President whose approval ratings are the lowest of any president since the "invention of modern polling"? Republicans are saddled with the task of delicately separating themselves from the current Republican president.

Some don't mention him, but emphasize the future (Mitt Romney's campaign slogan is "Change begins with us") while others selectively support him. Giuliani "praises Mr. Bush as keeping the nation safe even as he presents himself as a competent manager, perhaps to draw a contrast with the president." (Which means Bush was what, not competent? Oh the word-games politicians play.)

Meanwhile, the Democrats are eating Bush up like Halloween candy.

In the end, however, I can't help but wonder at whether this phenomenon is a beneficial one to America. I cannot abide George W. Bush but at the same time, I would be foolish to let his idiocy affect my decision regarding the next President of the United States. I feel as though voters are too often reactionary. Dissatisfaction with leadership is associated with the wrong attributes--such as party affiliation--which then leads to faulty decision making and the absolute last thing we need is another logical fallacy in Washington.

So I guess, no matter who mentions Bush, I'll try and take an objective look at what's actually being said.