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.

After months of speculation that the 2008 presidential election would bring out a record-breaking crowd (millions more voters), current analysis provides a very different picture.  Ed Morrissey (citing a piece from Politico) reported on the subject.  Here’s a chunk of text from Politico:

Between 60.7 percent and 61.7 percent of the 208.3 million eligible voters cast ballots this year, compared with 60.6 percent of those eligible in 2004, according to a voting analysis by American University political scientist Curtis Gans, an authority on voter turnout.

Back in April 2008, Los Angeles Times staff writer Peter Wallsten penned a piece entitled, “Allies of Palestinians See an Ally in Barack Obama.” While it appears as though the vast majority of the American electorate overlooked the article in the days following its release, its contents are creating a stir months later and just days before the 2008 presidential election.

The title of the Times piece alone should raise concern for anyone who believes in the importance of America’s continued devotion to the Israeli people. But it is the contents as they relate to Obama’s associations and the handling of related video footage that raise additional concerns about the future state of America’s national security under an Obama administration.

Let’s start with the basics. According to the Times, Barack Obama attended a going away party for a man named Rashid Khalidi back in 2003. Most Americans are probably unfamiliar with Khalidi. Wallsten described him as, “…an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights…”  Compared to some of the other descriptions I’ve read, the former is complementary. CampusWatch had this to say:

“… Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi…has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.”

Click here to finishing reading this piece…

Debbie Schlussel produced a piece you can’t miss on this ridiculously unjournalistic scandal.  According to Schlussel:

The Los Angeles Times has a copy of the tape, but won’t release it because they said the source–whom I believe is Arab American Action Network (AAAN) founder and anti-Israel Palestinian activist Ali Abunimah of Electronic Intifada–required it not be released as a condition of sharing it. That’s because it likely shows Obama applauding an anti-Semitic, anti-Israel poem that was read at the dinner.

Read the piece and sign the petition to make the LA Times release this tape to the public.

If you haven’t yet heard of Team Sarah, you’re missing out!  The group has successfully organized an amazing community of over 40,000 women (and men) who are committed to seeing John McCain and Sarah Palin win next Tuesday.  Members of Team Sarah aren’t letting the polls get them down. In fact, the highly organized group recently held (last Saturday) the “Team Sarah Tele-Townhall.”  Here is the info, direct from Team Sarah:

Today, Team Sarah, a coalition of diverse women dedicated to advancing Governor Sarah Palin’s Vice Presidential candidacy hosted an historic Million Woman Townhall. “We are thrilled to have been able to reach so many women to discuss the issues that really matter in this election,” said Jeri Thompson, Team Sarah Co-Founder. “The participation of First Lady Laura Bush was a special motivator for thousands of women taking part in the historic Million Woman Townhall,” said Jane Abraham, Team Sarah Co-Founder and Million Woman Townhall moderator. “These women can ensure victory for John McCain and Sarah Palin on Election Day, and Team Sarah is excited to energize and activate them.” Today’s event was the largest telephone townhall meeting ever conducted.

Be sure to support the petition I setup against the LA Times’ refusal to release the now infamous Obama-Khalidi video.  Send it to all of your friends!  Thanks for the support!

My Fellow Americans:

Why is the LA Times suppressing a video tape that allegedly shows Barack Obama at a party with — you guessed it — questionable attendees (i.e. Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi and others)?  Americans want the truth.  One of the most important elections of our time is only one week away and there is still so much being left unsaid.  With this in mind, this petition respectfully asks the Los Angeles Times to release the aformentioned tape that may shed further light on Barack Obama’s associations.  After all, if there is nothing to hide, then releasing the tape is harmless, right?

The tape in question contains footage of Barack Obama at a goodbye “bash” for “…Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York…” (Peter Wallsten, LA Times).

Andrew C. McCarthy rightfully asks, “Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?”

According to sources, aside from praising Khalidi, Obama hinted at frequent dinner-table discussions with Khalidi and his wife, while event speakers and attendees bashed Israel.  Perhaps most disturbingly, former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers (also an alleged attendee) and Rashid Khalidi are apparently best friends, which provides yet another connection in the endless chain of questionable associations.

If you want a more in-depth analysis of the situation, be sure to check out Andrew C. McCarthy’s piece entitled, “The L.A. Times Suppresses Obama’s Khalidi Bash Tape” (National Review Online).

Please sign this petition and send it to as many friends, family members and associates as you possibly can.  Visit my web site, as I will be covering this story throughout the week.

When asked tough questions, it’s best to become agitated, refuse to answer in a coherent manner, ask “Is this a joke?” and then impose an absurdly stifling restriction on the outlet responsible for the challenging interview (make that two outlets).  Because banning journalists who ask tough questions is exactly what our democracy needs, right?  Wrong.

But, I suppose we cannot blame Biden, alone, for his childish reaction.  Until now, the press has continuously stated and restated its love and adoration for the most liberal candidate in history to seek the American presidency.  So, after months of the media doting all over Barack Obama and company it’s no wonder Joe Biden was surprised when he was confronted with journalistic integrity.

So, for the sake of brevity I must give Barbara West of WFTV the William H. Hallowell III Journalist of the Year award for actually doing her job.  Journalists are supposed to challenge candidates, not ignore their inconsistencies and blunders.

Perhaps the most perplexing issue at hand is not Biden’s absurd reaction, rather it is the hypocrisy that stems from the Obama camp concerning transparency and access.  After weeks of criticism from Obama and Biden over the McCain campaign’s shielding of Gov. Sarah Palin, we’re seeing a side of Obama that is pretty opaque.  And it’s utterly ironic.

After all, isn’t this the man who promised to air our national laundry in the most public of all forums (don’t get me wrong; I’m all for transparency, but I am of the opinion that Obama is more about instilling pathos in his followers than he is about taking action)?

The rest of the transparency community might be duped, but I’m not.  Sure, the McCain camp shielded Palin from the media and that was a catastrophic mistake, but to literally prevent certain outlets from interviewing campaign officials – that, my friends, is communistic at best.  This isn’t China.  Someone better get Obama and Biden the memo.

We’ve seen a number of Dick Morris fans on the Presidential Debates Project web site these past few days, so we’re honored and excited to have his commentary lead the charge in VoterWatch’s coverage. Using the VoterWatch media player, Morris provides insightful commentary on a very important politcal debate. After watching, feel free to voice your opinions in the comments section!  Stay tuned for more commentary throughout the weekend and early next week!

“Hope.” “Change.” “A new kind of politics.” Barack Obama’s promise to implement these ideals has led him top of the Democratic pack, as millions of Americans have contributed to his highly successful campaign. And who can blame Americans for jumping on board? On the surface, a platform that promises the invoke hope and change is surely enticing — especially after eight years of political and social turbulence. But, what do “hope” and “change” actually mean? If actions count for anything, Obama’s promise to ignite a “new kind of politics” is laughable at best. So, why are the American people missing all of the cues?

From race relations to the federal tax system, Obama continues to prove that his policies and allegiances possess the characteristics of nothing more than typical, run-of-the-mill political fodder. He’s no different from a traditional politician, yet for some reason his charismatic nature has inebriated my generation, in particular, severely impairing rational exploration of his actions, inactions and incessant flip-flops. Judicial Watch reports the following:

“While Barack Obama campaigns as an anomaly not corrupted by Washington politics or special interests, he has repeatedly contradicted this illusion by accepting big bucks from convicted entrepreneurs as well as oil company executives, steering millions of federal earmark dollars to his wife’s employer and a top donor and hiring powerful corporate insiders to run his campaign.”

When we talk about proposed tax systems, Obama fares not much better than McCain. According to the Brooking Institution and the Urban Instutite, McCain’s plans would cut receipts by $3.72 trillion from over a 10 year period, while Obama’s plans would cut revenues by $2.73 trillion during the same time frame.

And what about a more general sense of fiscal discipline? The sad reality is that neither of the candidates’ proposals would balance the U.S. budget:

“The left-leaning Tax Policy Center concludes: “Obama’s generosity comes at a price. … He’d raise the national debt by a staggering $3.3 trillion over the next decade, and that includes more than $900 billion in promised revenue raisers that TPC could not verify.”

Obama’s spending plans for health care, infrastructure, education and energy aren’t even included in TPC’s estimate. With Social Security and Medicare in grave danger, allowing our officials to manage a health care system in the current political climate is frightening at best.

But his hypocrisy transcends these issues and extends into nearly every facet of his campaign. Last week, he went back on his word and announced that he would be forgoing more the $85 million in public financing — a move that has McCain and many others (even Obama supporters) frustrated and disheartened. So much for bi-partisan negotiations. According to OpenSecrets:

“Last March, before Obama became the candidate to beat in the money race, his campaign said he would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election” if he were to win his party’s nomination.”

And while I’m at it, allow me to mention his insane endorsement of ethanol as a viable fuel alternative. I can’t imagine that he has missed the media’s coverage of the destruction that has been caused by the utilization of ethanol. Damaging the world’s fuel supply and potentially worsening the alleged global warming phenomenon apparently doesn’t matter to Obama. Judicial Watch reports the following:

“It turns out that Obama’s national campaign co-chairman, former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle, serves on the boards of three ethanol companies and his top advisor on environmental issues, Jason Grumet, used to work for a bipartisan initiative (National Commission on Energy Policy) that strongly supports ethanol…Obama is also very tight with Illinois agriculture giant Archer Daniels Midland, the nation’s largest ethanol producer…”

I suppose forgetting to mention Rev. Wright would be irresponsible of me. See, Obama attended the same church for years. He listened to anti-American and anti-white statements and seemed completely content with his pastor’s rants — that is, until his church membership hurt his campaign. It was not until pressures mounted that Obama formerly removed his allegiances to Wright and company.

Are we supposed to believe that Obama was never happy at his church — that he always differed ideologically from Rev. Wright? Believing such an idea would be nonsensical. No one stays at a church if they disagree with the leading pastor. And if by some chance Obama did stay despite some difference in opinion he surely wouldn’t have allowed his pastor to marry he and his wife or baptize his children. And wasn’t Wright an inspiration for one of his books? Obama agrees with Rev. Wright entirely — he just can’t admit that to the American people.

Perhaps Judicial Watch said it best: “Somehow, the charismatic young lawmaker that the mainstream media loves to portray as a sort of rock star doesn’t seem any different than most Washington heavy hitters.”