Besides The New York Times article blaming President Bush for the "housing nightmare," I found a related article blaming him for the high cost of gas. Apparently the author thinks there are a variety of causes, and the weak dollar is the link between those causes and the resulting expensive gas.
A lack of an energy policy is prominently mentioned, as if President Bush and Republicans tried to block developing viable energy sources. No matter what is said or written, alternative energy like solar, wind, wave, and biofuels are expensive and unreliable, and if developed rationally, would not even keep up with increasing demand for energy, let alone replace dependence of fossil fuels (and don't forget nuclear, like the Liberals have).
Now I would like to apply the author's rationale to linking those causes with what is now cheap gas. How does he explain oil falling over $100 a barrel using the causes he gives for its price rising?
My position has been that oil has been in demand because world economies were booming, and now that the financial crisis has taken the bloom off the boom, oil prices reflect lessening demand.
So did President Bush cause the financial crisis?
Apparently The New York Times in its Sunday issue is going to say "yes."
I guess the corralary to that would be, if President Bush caused the financial crisis, did he also cause the prosperity buddle that carried the rest of the world along for over seven years of his presidency?
When did doing right become doing wrong?
Or are there other forces at play?
I doubt any Liberals will want to give President Bush credit for all the good economic times that overcame huge obstacles like 9/11, islamic terrorism that struck Spain, the UK, Bali, India, and so many other parts of the world (but somehow not the United States) following 9/11, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You have to be very choosy when you're playing the blame game.