well this one should be fun to talk about: "In recent times, Republican ex-presidents — Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush — left the limelight at the end of their tenures. They kept silent about their successors, and they allowed history to be the judge of their relative successes or failures. Reagan and the younger Bush often were ensconced on their ranches in out-of-the-way places. Obama would do well to buy a ranch, too." https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/12/obama-takes-credit-for-trump-economy/ The Perpetual Presidency By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON December 6, 2018 6:30 AM Obama believes that all of Trump’s successes are due to Obama, and all of Trump’s setbacks are his own. Former president Barack Obama recently continued his series of public broadsides against his successor, President Donald Trump. Obama’s charges are paradoxical. On one hand, Obama seems to believe that he, rather than Trump, should be credited with the current economic boom and the emergence of the United States as the world’s largest energy producer. But Obama also has charged that Trump’s policies are pernicious and failing. Apparently, Obama believes that all of Trump’s successes are due to Obama, and all of Trump’s setbacks are his own. Obama certainly forgets the old rule: Presidents, fairly or not, get both credit and blame for everything that happens on their watch, from Day One to the last hour of their tenures — even when wars abroad, technological breakthroughs, natural disasters, and market collapses have nothing to do with their governance. Trump ran on the promise of a “Make America Great Again” economic renaissance. He pledged massive deregulation, fair rather than free trade, and tax reform and reduction. Trump jawboned against outsourcing and offshoring, and praised rather than lectured private enterprise. He sought to reindustrialize the Midwest and promised to open new federal land to fossil-fuel production, complete proposed pipelines, and lift burdensome restrictions on fracking and horizontal drilling. In contrast, Obama had argued that the U.S. could never drill itself out of oil shortages. He advocated making the use of coal so expensive that it would disappear as an American energy resource. Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar were Obama’s vision of an America energy future. As late as last year, Larry Summers, director of the National Economic Council for two years during the Obama administration, ridiculed Trump’s boasts that he could achieve annualized GDP growth of 3 percent as the stuff of “tooth fairies and ludicrous supply-side economics.” Summers had also predicted that the U.S. economy would be in recession by now. Instead, it is likely to match or exceed Trump’s promise of 3 percent growth over a twelve-month period. After Trump’s victory, economist and Obama supporter Paul Krugman predicted that the stock market would crash and would probably “never” recover. “We are very probably looking at a global recession, with no end in sight,” Krugman wrote in November 2016. In fact, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has climbed about 7,000 points since Trump was elected. Unemployment has hit near-record lows, wage gains are up, and the economy is growing. Still, after 22 months, no one knows what the final verdict will be on the Trump administration. So it seems wise to wait until Trump’s four-year term is over before weighing in on his legacy or lack of one. By the same token, the frenetic Obama should take a deep breath, stop arguing the past, and allow history to adjudicate his own eight-year economic and foreign-policy record. Given that Obama was a strong progressive while Trump surprisingly has proven to be a hard-right conservative, their presidencies offer a sort of laboratory of contrasting worldviews. History will decide whether a more managed or more deregulated economy works best. We will learn whether a focus on traditional energy sources is preferable to an emphasis on subsidized green energy. In recent times, Republican ex-presidents — Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush — left the limelight at the end of their tenures. They kept silent about their successors, and they allowed history to be the judge of their relative successes or failures. Reagan and the younger Bush often were ensconced on their ranches in out-of-the-way places. Obama would do well to buy a ranch, too. In contrast, progressive ex-presidents such as Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Obama saw the presidency as a never-ending story. Politics were a 24/7, 360-degree, all-encompassing experience. All envisioned their retirements as opportunities to relitigate their administrations and to politick the present in hopes that future kindred presidencies would be progressive and would continue their own agendas. Carter frequently warned that the Reagan defense buildup and tough stance toward the Soviet Union were dangerous and would lead to an existential confrontation. Clinton became a fierce critic of the Iraq War as his wife Hillary prepared to enter the 2008 presidential race as an anti-Bush candidate. Obama still seeks to convince the country that Trump is “unfit” to be president. After the recent passing of George H. W. Bush, there are now four living ex-presidents: Carter, Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama. There are five living former vice presidents: Walter Mondale, Dan Quayle, Al Gore, Dick Cheney, and Joe Biden. If all ex-presidents and ex-vice presidents were to weigh in nonstop on the current president and present-day politics, the result would be as chaotic as it would be boring. *** © 2018 Tribune Content Agency, LLC. VICTOR DAVIS HANSON — NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won. @vdhanson
Reagan didn't speak because his brain was mush. GHWB didn't speak because he was a one-term failure. GWB didn't speak because everyone hated him.
Trump believes that all of Trump’s successes are due to Trump, and all of Trump’s setbacks are the Democrats fault.
If all ex-presidents and ex-vice presidents were to weigh in nonstop on the current president and present-day politics, ... that would be a first. I fully expect that Trump will tweet non-stop, once he leaves office (if the Federal penitentiary will allow it).
Barry-O was super pissed Trump followed him. It was a hugely sour note for the end of his Presidency.
I don't agree with Mr. Hanson's grouping here and it's more than a bit revisionist. The Bushes have generally been low key in their retirement, I'd agree, but Reagan was hardly a recluse. He started the whole trend of ex-presidents giving speeches for massive sums of money (starting with a talk for Toshiba execs if I'm not mistaken). He was considerably older than Obama and Clinton post-presidency and didn't do it as long or as aggressively due to his rapidly declining state of health, but I would put them in the same category. I don't like it, and I'm highly critical of Clinton and Obama for cashing in, but Reagan was the trendsetter here. Carter has devoted the last 30+ years devoted primarily to Habitat For Humanity, which is hard to find fault with. When he has been outspoken about policy, it has generally been about Israeli/Palestinian relations. Considering he was largely responsible for the Camp David Accords which is what set the status quo for US aid to Israel and Egypt (with expectations of withdrawal from Gaza and the West Bank as part of the deal) he has every right to remind the public of a shifting of goalposts. Carter has been active, but he's hardly been an opportunist. Regardless of his politics, he's played the role of elder statesman pretty well.
Democrats admire the Bushes as ex presidents now, not so much for the Clintons, Obamas and Republicans. It’s not a good look for them.
Summers and Krug Man didn't expect congress to pass a fat refund check to large companies and overjuice a recovering near-ZIRP economy. Winter is comin', ladies. Busies are old money, so they don't have to w**** themselves out giving 200k "speeches". It's more indicative of the political system (dollars as speech rights, campaign finance) then the people who cash out as a result of it.
I can't argue with Trump-supporting friends and family who point excitedly to the "booming market," but it also doesn't take a PhD in Economics to see a bubble that will be audible when it pops.
And Trump cant keep Obama's name out his mouth When Obama was president he didn't stay reminding everyone of the mess Bush left and was actually farely gracious. What the hell would GWB have to say about anything following his term given the ish hole he left
hanson's intellectual dishonesty / revisionist history manifests itself. isofar as public broadsides against a sitting President, everything else pales in comparison to citizen Trump's birtherism lies about the POTUS that have spanned ~ 5 years
That IS the point. 1) Say a whole lot of nothing. 2) Say a whole lot of nothing over and over again. 3) Say a whole lot of the same nothing over and over again. 4) Say over and over again that no one is allowing you to say a whole lot of nothing. 5) Wash, rinse and repeat. Easy enough to follow...dont you think? ...well, easier than those directions on those dang detergent boxes anyway...
related: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/28/obama-takes-credit-us-oil-and-gas-boom-was-me-peop/ https://www.factcheck.org/2018/11/obamas-misleading-oil-boast/
The economy was doing well before Trump so I guess what my question is why do people think Trump deserves credit?