Because proper history cannot be written till 50+ years after events occur. Once time pases old grudges die.

How many Liberals hold negative views of Thomas Jefferson? Probably not too many. How many hold negative views of William H. Taft? While these people were quite the opposite of a modern liberal on the political spectrum (NOT to say they are anything like modern conservatives), time has cured all differences of opinion. Now how many Liberals despise Reagan? Quite a few. Not enough time has passed.

Historians can write far more accurately on an issue, once time has passed and their personal biases are no longer involved. Objective histories and analysis of George W. Bush won't come till around 2060 or later.

__________________

I agree with you to an extent however hears the thing, sometimes I wonder about historical interpretations and the lack of context in the decisions made by presidents. For instance it has been said that Gerald Ford gave Nixon amnesty to heal the country. Now that's just bull****. We all know that it had nothing to do with healing the country yet that's what all future generations will be told.

He did it because Nixon, a crook, was his best friend. Healing had absolutely nothing to do with it and the American people did not get over it until long after his presidency obvious by the fact he didn't get re-elected. Now I'm not saying Ford was a bad person now, don't know a enough about his relatively short presidency to make that conclusion, but that's what I fear will happen with Bush. The historians of tomorrow will make up excuses for Bush's actions just as they do for other presidents and romanticize things. I do think judgments need to be made after the fact however after 50 years from now a president's popularity will be determined by what people at that time think of him, not people during the time he lead which is more relevant.

__________________
Proof of media bias? A mistake by the major networks they don't want you to know about. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media...als_04-24.html

Hmmm...Mixing up LBJ with Gerald Ford?
Otherwise, I might have joined the wrong Euroland history classes, many years ago?

No your right I mean Ford.

__________________
Proof of media bias? A mistake by the major networks they don't want you to know about. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media...als_04-24.html

I like his unrelenting faith in the power of freedom to eliminate most conflicts,and to allow a people to prosper,thus being our most effective weapon against Islamoterror.
I also like the fact that he has given more aid to fight AIDS and malaria (the far greater killer,BTW) inj Africa and Asia,than any president in history.
In addition.he is the ONLY president in my lifetime who did after the election,exactly what he said he would before the election:
in 2000,he promised to cut my taxes..he did.
in 2004, he promised to keep fighting our enemies,regardless of "the polls"...he has.
He seated the most diverse cabinet in our history,for those of you who keep track of such things.
There's more,but the above will do.

Here is my perspective in more so the form of a very pessimistic and cynical question:

Is there ANYONE stupid enough to believe that the President of the United States of America, let alone the party that President represents is responsible for the U.S. or the rest of the world's economy?

It's so laughable when you get these soap boxers that want to preach about how the President is this or that. There is no quicker way to advertise your ignorance than to "blame it all on the President"

Blah blah blah.

Meanwhile, the records keep exploding:

And the Bush apologists keep sounding more and more desperate.

LOL! Yep, like people quoting the latest unsubstantiated propaganda. Concerning popularity polls, all those polls and 4.00 will buy you a mean cup of coffee at Starbucks.

What I want are useful factual reasons that make for economic change. NOT ignorant POPularity poll results that consist of people that feel too sorry for themselves to dig in and truly understand their own situations. It's easy to look up from your easy chair and see the flag flipping on the pole, it's quite another to understand the why and how. Let alone to leave the flag visuals behind and harness the wind that motivates the flag for something truly useful. Those that live their lives seasoned by the MEDIA are DOOMED to a life of subservient mediocrity.

What you have to ask yourself might be best examined from a basic imagined visual, based within a competitive context.

In one corner of the public arena we have the defending champion "reality" in the other, "realities" untiring opponent, "distraction"

Now the question is: Who's gonna get their ass kicked every time?

The real question is: Who's making a fortune off the event?

Well, sometimes you have to give the devil his due:

"Bush is hardly a moron. He wanted the rich — in particular the oil guys — to do well and they have (phenomenally well). He promised to appoint more Justices like Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia and he did. He didn't want to work terribly hard and he hasn't. He wanted to show that government can't do things very well, and he has. Morons are not usually so successful in getting what they want."

That quote came from Andrew Tobias, commenting after this exchange between Larry King and Jon Stewart.

tobias