Politico's Arena #121: The Bush Presidency

In the inaugural of my posts regarding the Arena section of Politico, I'll state once more that I highly recommend everyone read/contribute to Politico's Arena. It is one of the few places where those known in the political circle actually state their views side by side with views of the average poster. It is above the level of "forum reply" where the truly crazed rantings of extreme partisan people that one can see in semi-anonymous postings. On the Arena, all comments have names attached to them and information like address, phone number and email address must be submitted to ensure a somewhat civil level of discourse. It is moderated with efficiently by Fred Barbash, who I remain grateful to for his work with the Arena. Each day, a question is posed and answers follow. Today's topic was the high and low point of the Bush presidency. As precisely worded by the moderator:

"What's the best, and the worst, that can be said of the presidency of George W. Bush?"

To which, I responded:

"President Bush was the first president who I can clearly remember his entire time in office (I was 3 when Clinton was sworn into office) so I may not be the most experienced judge in existence. However, President Bush's best quality seems to be his devotion to what he believes is right. I will vigorously defend Bush against those who call him a bad man with evil intentions. He is a good hearted man who has done what he thinks is best for our nation, an admirable trait.

He is the epitome of the proper mindset for a public servant. That being said, I think he was inept as President and I disagreed with him vigorously on policy, if not intention. To me, the worst that can be said is that he tarnished the Republican brand and made it impossible to claim allegiance to the Republican Party and also call oneself a fiscal conservative without being nigh a hypocrite. I no longer see the Republican Party as the fiscally conservative one anymore. President Bush will either be the death knell of the Republicans or the metaphorical death of the phoenix before a new and reinvigorated Republican Party arises from the ashes."

While this post is somewhat self-explanatory (although I am biased seeing as I wrote it), I would like to extrapolate on it just a little bit. There is, in my mind, a key separation between being a good man and a good president. There is no doubt in my mind that George W. Bush is the former. He has a good heart with nice intentions for this country. I asbolutely respect and admire it. As I hinted at in my post, I have disagreed with his execution of his intentions in several areas. Iraq has become, increasingly, a bad decision. I supported the war at the onset but have soured on it as time has passed. I think Bush is too socially conservative for my taste. There have been questionable decisions made in other aspects of his presidency. But I do not question why he took his actions. He took them because he thought they could best help this country. I disagree with the means but I fully support the end he was seeking. So yes, while Bush may have become an inept president at this point, he is still a good man. And that is my key distinction.