Ok, so I have seen the argument about running a campaign showing how effective a candidate can be as president.   Someone will say look how well Obama has run his campaign, this is surely a sign of how well he will do as president.

This will be followed up by someone arguing that G. W.
Bush ran amazingly effective campaigns  and then pointing out what a terrible president he has been.


So this begs the question, how effective has Georgie boy been.  I believe this is a separate question from how well has he run the country.

Actually Bush has been very effective.  I know this is a controversial idea, however I think he has accomplished absolutely everything he wanted to do.  It's just that what he has wanted has not been good for the country.

However believing he was ineffective is to believe he never intended to do exactly what he has done.

War with Iraq desired from day one?  Check.

Drain the fed and place the money in the pockets of his business buddies?  Check.

Make the government seem like it's the problem?  Check.

Not get impeached?  Check.

Destroy the constitution and make it easier for future Neo cons to run our country like a monarchy?  Check.

Get elected a second term?  Check.

He only failed on one account.  He overestimated the amount of blind patriotism that could be drawn from one terrible event.

If you can believe that these things were the things he hoped to accomplish then he has been extremely effective.

terrible?  Yes.

Terrible, but effective.