• Stovetop@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    10 months ago

    The only “good” part about Bush’s presidency is that it ended, and he had the dignity to just shut up and retire and spend his days painting.

    The Bush II presidency sucked, but I didn’t think any of us imagined it could get worse under Trump.

      • thecrotch
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        10 months ago

        I couldn’t believe Obama continued or doubled down on all of Bush’s worst policies, and the formerly anti-war Democrats went completely silent. Michael Moore dropped off the face of the earth in 08.

        • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          This frustrated the fuck out of me when it happened. In fact, it was a big disappointment all around, since Hope and Change was not at all forthcoming. In my own case Obama’s adherence to Bush doctrine and refusal to move the status quo much was what drove me from liberalism to the far left, and Bolsheck choruses have been following me around ever since.

          Support your local mutual aid organization! ACAB!

          • thecrotch
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            It drove me into nihilism (I’m a gen-xer so it wasn’t a long drive). I’ll never trust any of these assholes again.

    • lars@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      My favorite parts of Bush II were:

      1. How in the literal fuck did the United States of America [re?]elect him in 2004?!
      2. He was the stupidest, most vengeful, evangelical-pandering yokel who cared nothing about the moral costs of expanding the American Empire. He taught me how to not lose my shit as much when almost a quarter of American adults voted for Trump in 2016.
      • Stovetop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        Couple reasons:

        1. Incumbents tend to have an advantage in elections. People fear change and keep voting for the same people in power, which is why term limits are so important. John Kerry wasn’t the most charismatic candidate to field against Bush either. He wasn’t great at communicating his stances or demonstrating consistency, so people turned to the incumbent.

        2. People back then were still deluding themselves that the US was doing good work in the Middle East. 9/11 was more recent to 2004 than the start of COVID is to us today, and so a lot of voters wanted to keep it going until it yielded the results they wanted.

        • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’ll add to that George W. Bush squeaked by in 2004 thanks to the incumbent vote, running against John Kerry, the most boring neoliberal candidate the Democrats had to offer, and Bush’s campaign had to invent swift boating and utilize it against Kerry (showing the GOP will gladly throw veterans to the elements for power) to gain Bush’s second term.