As President George W. Bush’s presidency approaches its final days, historians are already discussing how future generations will view America’s 43rd president. According to a recent piece by CNN’s Ed Hornick, contemporary historians view the administration as “incompetent,” “battered,” and “unlucky.” While these labels may, indeed, fit the Bush Administration to varying degrees, there is little talk of the administration’s successes.

While I am sure that the mere mention of the word “success” in connection with Bush’s name will result in fits of dismissed rationality for some, ignoring these accomplishments creates a historically inaccurate depiction - one that American media outlets have worked, perhaps inadvertently, to reinforce.  Regardless of where one stands politically, it is virtually impossible to ignore the fact that George W. Bush’s accomplishments are rarely recognized.

Since 2003, Bush’s approval ratings have suffered and declined steadily, landing him with the highest disapproval rating for any president in American history. When commenting on this less than stellar accomplishment, CNN’s polling director Keating Holland recently said, “That means that Bush is now more unpopular than Richard Nixon was when he resigned from office during Watergate with a 66 percent disapproval rating.“ But, even with negativity surrounding Bush at every corner, his supporters are still out there.

The day before the 2008 election, Andrew Breitbart wrote about his general liking for Bush and said, “President Bush…will be judged by history - not by vengeful Democrats, hate-filled Hollywood, corrupt foreign governments, an imploding mainstream media or fleeting approval ratings.

There is no doubt that the United States is confronted with a plethora of issues that some claim were created, fostered and exacerbated by President Bush. From the financial markets to the war in Iraq the view, both domestically and internationally speaking, is grim at best. Even with these issues in mind, the failure of many major media outlets to discuss some of the shining successes that have been brought about by this president is disconcerting.

Social Security Reform

This is, perhaps, an anomalous area of exploration, mostly because Bush’s efforts to transform the Social Security inevitably failed. Still, it is important to note that he did propose a plan to amend the system. Again, regardless of where you stand politically, his acknowledgement of the dire realities that are to come if the system is not fixed should be noted.

After all, this is a serious issue. According to Facing Up to the Nation’s Finances, “…the board of trustees that oversees the Social Security system projects that the program’s expenditures will exceed income in just 10 years (2017). The Social Security Trust Fund provides a cushion against these needs, but by 2042, the trust fund will be exhausted as well and the system will only be able to cover about three-quarters of the benefits promised.”

In the end - as is the case with most subjects in Washington these days - ideological dissension (both inter and intra party) got in the way and Bush’s plans to privatize Social Security failed. Regardless of the end result, he does deserve some credit for raising the issue and attempting to amend it.

HIV/AIDS

HIV/AIDS is one of the most important areas of Bush’s success that has gone vastly uncovered. Back in March 2008, Bob Geldof penned an intriguing piece for TIME Magazine about George W. Bush and America’s commitment to the African continent.  While Geldof disagrees with Bush on a multitude of issues, his piece opened up necessary dialog surrounding HIV/AIDS and the legacy of America’s forty-third president.

According to Geldof, “Bush…initiated the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) with cross-party support led by Senators John Kerry and Bill Frist.” The Bush Administration has also fought tuberculosis, malaria and HIV/AIDS (the U.S. provides a substantial amount of funding for the Global Fund). Unfortunately, the American people remain vastly unaware of these advancements.

George W. Bush’s commitment to Africa should not be eclipsed by negative commentary or partisan political angst. While one may not agree with the aggregate of George W. Bush’s domestic or international policies, there is no contesting the positive impact he has had on the African region.

After all, Geldof points out that in 2003, only 50,000 Africans were taking antiretroviral drugs. Even more unconscionable, these people were paying for their own medication. But today, treatment is much more widespread. In fact, there are 1.3 million individuals receiving medicines free of charge, which can mostly be attributed to George W. Bush and his Republican administration.

Homelessness

While mainstream media outlets have virtually ignored President Bush’s work in the homelessness arena, coverage is surely deserved. The reality is that the Bush administration’s efforts to curb chronic homelessness have been highly successful. A chronic homeless person is defined as, “…someone with a disabling condition who has been continuously homeless for a year or more or for four or more episodes in three years.”

According to Frank Greve of McClatchy Newspapers, President Bush initiated a program entitled “Housing First.” Unlike traditional programs that require individuals to go through months of treatment and counsel prior to being granted housing, “Housing First” does exactly what the name states - it gives shelter to those in need before taking other actions. Through this program, the Bush administration offers rent-free apartments to chronically homeless persons.

According to Greve, “The “housing first” strategy gets much of the credit for a 30 percent decline in U.S. chronic homelessness from 2005 to 2007. The number fell from 176,000 to 124,000 people, according to the best available census of street people.”

National Security

In spite of all of the pain, anger, resentment and frustration that many feel as a result of the War on Terror, the fact remains that the United States has not sustained an attack on our soil since 2001. Unfortunately, too many Americans overlook this reality - particularly those on the Left. After all, it is relatively easy to forget the potential threat of calamity when one is safe enough to no longer worry (knock on wood) about potential internal attacks. Breitbart also pointed out this obvious yet all-to-frequently unexplored notion:

“The fact that the United States has not been attacked since Sept. 11, 2001, far exceeds the most wishful expert predictions of the time. Perhaps facing another al Qaeda-led barrage would have reinforced our need for national unity, caused us to recognize the gravity of the Islamist threat and fortified Mr. Bush’s standing at home and abroad. Yet, thankfully, that never happened. And Mr. Bush has been punished for this obvious success.”

At the end of the day, no matter how much Bush’s critics forge against his tactics, American soil has undoubtedly been well-protected. There has definitely been a lack of credit in this arena, as critics have focused (many times rightfully) on his blunders in Iraq and on what some call his failure to properly cope with domestic issues. Still, this feat is massive enough to warrant at least a partial congratulatory note from the American electorate.

History will, indeed, be George W. Bush’s most benevolent judge. While proponents and opponents will rail for and against the Bush administration’s policies, contemporary views cannot possibly create the well-rounded and realistic interpretation that is needed to properly or efficiently evaluate.  Surely, President Bush was faced with profound difficulties and tough choices. While his administration often fell short, ignoring the positive accomplishments he has made both domestically and internationally is simply unacceptable.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor William Hallowel is a journalist, blogger and the founder of Pathufind Media.

I’m still dumbfounded by the New York Times’ audacious front-page report about Sen. John McCain and an improper relationship he allegedly had with a female lobbyist. And when I say “dumbfounded” I am not claiming surprise at the clear bias the Times held in what appears to be a very calculated news release; rather, I am referring to the shock I received when I realized that one of the world’s most respected newspapers published a front-page piece that lacks the foundation one would expect to find in a high school research paper.

“A female lobbyist had been turning up with him at fund-raisers, visiting his offices and accompanying him on a client’s corporate jet. Convinced the relationship had become romantic, some of his top advisers intervened to protect the candidate from himself — instructing staff members to block the woman’s access, privately warning her away and repeatedly confronting him, several people involved in the campaign said on the condition of anonymity.” – New York Times

Did I mention that this allegedly occurred eight years ago? Yes, folks. The New York Times published an eight-year-old story on its front page. And since we’re digging up old news maybe we should speak about the sexual allegations (i.e. rape) that were brought against former President Bill Clinton by Juanita Broaddrick. But, I suppose the Times isn’t interested in such folly, since being allegedly tied to a lobbyist is apparently much worse than being accused of rape. But I digress.

Coincidently, the Times would have had no problem finding former McCain campers who were more than willing to speak about the allegations presented, yet they chose to obstain from interviewing anyone who disagreed with their political inclinations:

“Dan Schnur, McCain’s communication director during his 2000 presidential bid, told CNN on Thursday that he was involved in most high-level situations and that such a problem almost certainly would have ‘landed on my desk’.”

At what point did it seem appropriate – ethically or journalistically for that matter – to publish a piece without viable sources? And it’s quite unsettling to note that the paper did not quote the individual in question (especially considering that the McCain camp provided the Times with countless pages of documentation). It’s as though Cindy Sheehan and Nancy Pelosi got together for a late-night slumber party in the Times newsroom to pen this ideal-type example of liberal media bias. One wonders what the executive editor of the New York Times have to say about the piece?

“The story speaks for itself.” - Bill Keller

He’s right. The story speaks volumes. Not only does it fit perfectly into a never-ending puzzle of liberal media bias that can be easily assembled with countless examples of New York Times blunders, but, and perhaps more importantly, it takes this bias (which the paper incessantly denies) and expands it to such great proportions that, regardless of party affiliation, one cannot help but admit the unethical actions taken by the Times. But don’t take my word for it; for corroboration please re-read the New York Times vs. General Petraeus conundrum that manifested months ago.

Let’s not forget that this is the paper that proudly claims to publish “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” Ironically, a quick read-through typically possesses the same talking points one can expect to hear at this year’s Democratic National Convention – so if the Democrats are the only one’s who spout off news and views that are fit to print, I suppose the Times is accomplishing what it has set out to do. So much for democratic and non-partisan newsrooms.

And the hypocrisy of groups like MoveOn.org and AlterNet is unbelievable, but consistent with past actions. Both organizations have been more than willing to attack FOX News on occasion, but have, ironically, become entirely mute when overt examples of media bias come from their neck of the woods.

Actually, allow me to realign that statement: These organizations have actually stepped forward to corroborate these bogus liberally driven stories, in place of defending democratic action. It’s apparently okay for the Times and other mainstream outlets to unfairly attack the right, but when FOX News does it, all hell breaks lose. Take, for instance, a headline (video) on AlterNet just this morning: “The Real McCain: Senator Gets Millions From Lobbyist ‘Friends’.” And, no, I won’t link to it.

The core of the issue is not whether the New York Times purposefully or unintentionally acted journalistically irresponsible. No, the true issues at hand are the perceptions present amongst reporters and editors at the Times. If the “newspaper of record” believes that it is fair and balanced to publish pieces that err on one side of the political spectrum, then there’s a serious problem we (and the news media) have to confront.

And if the news media don’t realize that they are publishing skewed works, we have an even bigger problem. The New York Times has not only published an abhorrent piece, but it has also steadfastly stood by it. Disgraceful to say the least.

I can’t help but wonder what Dan Rather is thinking right now.