George W and his poncho

oops, wrong thread!

Okay, I'm sorry, he's adorable. He's everybody's goofy granddad.

I didn't think he was a very good president and I disagreed with a buttload of things he did, but I never thought he was a bad person. Quite the opposite. He is a good, well-intentioned, likeable man. Moreover, as politicians go, I think he's fundamentally honest (though the same cannot be said for all of his advisers, but then, when is that not the case).

But I agree there are many on both sides of the fence who feel the need to demonize the characters of those whose politics they dislike -- and skate over the deplorable characters of those whose politics they approve.

Bush also got a bushwhacking (sorry) due to his handling of Katrina, the Iraq war, etc.,* which even many on the right ended by criticizing harshly. I did, too. But what I do (and did) absolve him of are corrupt and ugly motivations.

Anyway, now that Bush is out of office, I can enjoy all the endearing, likeable things about him. This is likely true for many people. Moreover, his good qualities really stand out in juxtaposition to Trump.

I doubt I will ever find Trump endearing. At best, I will feel a tiny bit sorry for him, but not in a particularly sympathetic way.


* ETA:

...not to mention having 9/11 come at him as a fairly new president. Yikes.  Initially, I think 9/11 united most of the country behind him, but inevitably, as things escalated and dragged on (Iraq war, Osama bin Laden remaining at large, etc. etc.), that was going to be a situation that required not just a good man, but a great one.  And while a very good man, W was not among our greatest leaders. I doubt too many would disagree.  That doesn't make him the devil. 

ETA:

Similarly, I won't jump on the bandwagon of those who demonize, e.g., Gorsuch, whom I also believe to be a fundamentally good and decent man.  If you wish to convince me otherwise, you'll have to show me something other than his holding conservative views.  Signs all point to him being a good (and very smart and capable) man.  That doesn't necessarily mean I'll agree with all his rulings, of course -- though I certainly agree with some, and find all the ones I've read to be well-reasoned and well-written. 

With Trump, though, I think we've got some pretty solid evidence he's not what I'd call a "good" man, taking his politics quite aside (whatever they may be -- he's changed his mind a few times...).  He lies constantly -- can anyone deny it? (or if you do deny it, can you deny "speaks with reckless disregard for whether or not his statements are true"?)  He never accepts blame, but always casts it on others, including his own aides who are trying to do their best for him.  He demands blind loyalty, but is happy to throw people under the bus.  He rages and brags, holds deep grudges over petty slights, and seeks revenge for them regardless of consequences.  He seems incapable of exercising self-control.  He is essentially the seven deadly sins, personified.   My chief objection to him is and always was as a human being, more than for his politics. (That said, I hate many of his political ideas, too. But I'd dislike him and think him an unfit leader regardless.) 

Well, I guess it depends on whom you're talking to. With regard to the far left, I think you are accurately characterizing the viewpoints many of them held on all three men. But me, and I think most people hovering somewhere around the middle, that might be overstating it a tad.

Reagan, for me, seems like a more successful George W. I have difficulty seeing "infamy" there -- and I don't believe I ever did. Most of the people I grew up around always had a positive view of Reagan (even if they had a negative view of some things he and his administration did, as I certainly did). Infamy -- I'm not sure I saw too many who would have attached that label to him, ever.  And most who weren't on the far left always though him a good statesman.  At least, from my neck of the woods. 

And Nixon -- well, ok, I see plenty of infamy and bad character there and still do -- don't most of us? He only looks better next to Trump because he was vastly more intelligent and a far more capable president, outside of his scandals.  

I guess I never saw "mean ex drunk" with W at all. And I still don't see a master statesman there.  I do think a lot of people sneered that he was stupid and bumbling. But they aren't now rushing to call him a master statesman, just noting that he was far less embarrassing, disturbing, and potentially dangerous than Trump.

I will agree that they all look more statesmanlike in comparison to Trump. W's word salads used to make me cringe, but god, if only a word salad were the worst of Trump. (Sometimes it's better if you can't make out Trump's meaning.)  I disliked Reagan's reducing everything to simplistic slogans and black and white, good and evil (that axis of evil shit, ffs), but Christ, pretty much everyone does it now, so I've grown numb. Reagan never led chants of "lock her up," at least. And Nixon, well, his character sucked but at least he was extremely intelligent and didn't sound like a spoiled three-year-old all the time.

Really, you have only to watch old tv clips of speeches and debates with all three men (and all of our modern presidents) to see what a contrast Trump is in demeanor and message.  It's not in our heads.

Also -- I don't think Trump looks more "conservative" than they do politically. (I don't even think he is a "conservative.")

That said, I think increasingly the term "conservative" no longer means what it did for a lot of people. Me, I'm old-fashioned and still think of conservatism as being embodied by, say, The National Review and The Wall Street Journal, George Will and William F. Buckley Jr.   But today's self-described "conservative" seems to increasingly regard the likes of them as part of the fake news libtard mainstream media...

The tales I know of GWB--coming through associates of Jeb--aren't like that, at all. I think he honestly believed "compassionate conservatism" was a real honest-to-goodness workable world view. The problem he had, that his legacy still has, is 9-11 and the aftermath of the same. Let's remember, prior to that moment, Bush was championing things like NCLB, legislation that everyone and their brother claims was bad news now, but at the time had bipartisan support and was, in fact, mostly written by Ted Kennedy (who was a wet drunk).

But 9-11 changed things, not only from a policy standpoint, but also with regard to who GWB looked to for advice and answers.

Anyway, if you want a personal anecdote, I'll give you this one: I met Al Gore before he was VP. And never in my life have I met a slimier, greasier person. Yet a lot of people insist he's a great guy...

...and with most strong characters, you'll find a variety of anecdotes on both sides. You don't become powerful without making friends and enemies.