Posted on 03/14/2007 8:35:08 AM PDT by SuziQ
Shortly after President Bush's State of the Union Address this January, I attended a conservative summit in Washington, where I heard a raft of criticism about the president's falling away from conservative principles. There was hope and energy, of course, but also more demoralization than I expected--a demoralization Joseph Bottum clearly shares... snip
I am considerably more supportive of President Bush's stewardship. Mr. Bottum's judgments--many of which have force, I admit--require two general remarks. The first involves his claim that the war in Iraq is "already lost" (which he qualifies by adding "in perception"). The second is the criterion of "competence," lack of which in several major areas is Bottum's single most serious charge against President Bush... snip
By no means should President Bush get a pass for his errors and misperceptions, or his slowness in correcting them. Still, one ought to use standards that are cut to the cloth of human nature. ...Expectations too high for anyone in the presidential office are no proper criterion for evaluation. Besides, despite enormous blows to our banking, investment and transportation systems, the decisive steps President Bush took allowed our economy not only to recoup the dreadful financial losses of September 11 but also to climb unparalleled heights...snip
The single most dominant issue we face remains the threat from jihadism. ... A great many do not see the danger as President Bush does. They certainly do not recognize what bin Laden and his lieutenants have often declared--that Iraq is today the frontline in that jihad... snip
At the very least, in the face of passionate hostility at home and abroad, George Bush has proved himself a brave and determined man who has staked his presidency on getting democratic momentum underway in the Middle East. These are not inconsiderable accomplishments...
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
This is a terrific piece by Michael Novak, especially his comments about peoples' sometimes unrealistic expectations of a President.
[insert random BDS convulsion here]
Sorry, Bottum provided rational, logical criticism. Novak offers nothing but a rank emotional appeal. Anyone wanting to rebut Bottum's well done analysis will have to do better than this.
He's cut taxes, appointed two conservative judges to the SC, and has successfully led the nation through six years of a war on terror. That war has freed two nations from totalitarianism and we have not seen another successful attack on the US since the war began.
That's good enough for me to call him a good President.
He's cut taxes, appointed two conservative judges to the SC, and has successfully led the nation through six years of a war on terror. That war has freed two nations from totalitarianism and we have not seen another successful attack on the US since the war began.
That's good enough for me to call him a good President.
Amen.
If you give Bush no credit for everything he has accomplished, and blame him for everything that has gone wrong in the World, whether it is his fault or not, the conclusion that he is incompetent is inevitable.
I believe Novak went far beyond rank emotional appeal. He acknowledges Bottums' criticisms, and if you read the article, Novak agrees to a point. However, he also states that some of the President's critics have unreasonably high expectations of what any President is capable of doing.
You can say THAT again! LOL!
I've been willing to overlook many of the Presidents failures. The tipping point for me was the metaphore provided by the administrations handling of the Sandy Berger incidents.
Bottum ignored the challenges that Bush faced.. recession, Enron and related business corruption, a worthless CIA and FBI, then the attack of 9/11 which turned the nation upside down. GWB had no mandate from the 2000 election, it was a dead heat for all purposes, yet he has still accomplished so much.
If Gore had been elected, we would be under the Kyoto Protocal and members of the World Court. Saddam would still be training terrorists and thumbing his nose at the US while only miles from the majority of oil reserves in the world. Would Gore have had the stones to attack Afghanistan?
Bottum has no idea of where we might be as a nation if GWB had not been elected. That makes him sadly mistaken in his appraisement of the President.
IMHO, to tell the truth, you can poke holes in both their arguments, con and pro. These are two very intelligent people, but maybe the subject is just too complicated for a brief debate.
Maybe that's the problem. It reminds me of a college debate, each side bound to defend its cause, but the reality is something of a mixture, pro and con. I think a freeper yesterday pointed to what may have been a good summary of the problem, in Bottum's piece: That Bush did all the right things, but didn't always do them very well or stand up and defend what he did. I forget his exact words.
Incidentally, these article both first appeared in the most recent issue of First Things, and the Wall Street Journal must have seen them and decided to pick them up.
..abrogated the ABM treaty with the defunct USSR, is implementing a multitiered missile defense system, kept us out of Kyoto and the ICC, signed the largest nuclear weapon reduction treaty in history, toppled two countries from whence the 9/11 attacks sprang, bracketed the rest, put some of my money back in my pocket, had his justice department proclaim the second ammendment as an individual right. and on and on.
Most of what the President is being beaten about the ears for would have happened anyway, or has been festering for decades.
EXCELLENT article!
For a complete understanding of where we find ourselves today, read McClay's article below:
IS CONSERVATISM FINISHED?
By Wilfred M. McClay
". . . We also forget that the Reagan administration itself, far from being happily unified, was driven by internal battles between “pragmatists” and “ideologues,” conflicts that prefigured many of the policy battles of the present. And we forget that, outside the administration, REAGAN GOT PLENTY OF GRIEF FROM HIS OWN RIGHT AS WELL."
You can read all about this 'grief' at
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.aip?id=10812&page=all
Actually, the following commentary from NOVAK is MUCH BETTER than this current commentary:
CONSERVATIVE BUSH
An effective and pioneering president.
By Michael Novak
. . . CONSERVATISM REINVENTED
President Bush has defined a new kind of conservatism. It is legitimate to criticize it, even to oppose it vigorously. But to do so honestly and accurately, one must note the change in method that President Bush has quietly and successfully been enacting. As often as possible, in as many ways as possible, he is using as the dynamo of personal choice and the methods of the market, not direct state-management, in order to make government programs more effective and more efficient. That is why Democrats, both of the old New Deal-type and of the new Clinton-type, oppose him so fiercely. They seem to see what he is up to better than many uneasy conservatives do.
You can read the rest of the EXCELLENT analysis here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzBiYTM0YWYxNjVmNTBmODA3MGIzYWJmYzJlOTE5MmU=&w=MA==
Mr. Novak,
George W. Bush did a fine job and in fact made historically significantly correct decisions in the three years following 9-11. But then he seemed to cross his arms as if he was done after placing everything on auto-pilot.
He was led by the nose astray on so many issues (e.g., Bankruptcy Reform, Medicare Part D) and his leadership seemed to fade altogether. He had to be 'corrected' by conservatives in Congress on his choice for Supreme Court. He has not been leading, he has been following.
Even his recent 'surge' initiative seems to have been motivated by the potential cutoff or intervention by domestic powers. He appears to have been awaken to the fact that the American people are not going to tolerate failure, whether real or perceived and they are not going wait forever before progress is made. When GW Bush was effective and leading, Iraqis were dodging bullets and bombs to their voting booths. But the last years of Bush have seen a blase position of 'stand back and take flak'. Our intelligence and armed forces blasted one terrorist from the air and preempted numerous terrorist plots, but these same victories would likely have occurred with any other military supporting president. And that's why GW Bush was elected because he supported the military and the other guy didn't.
He abandoned his base and now appears more supportive of lawbreaking illegal aliens than he does American conservatives.
Presently he is a 'marking time' president. That's pathetic for a president to be and should not be tolerated.
We did not elect him to hide in a corner, to hide behind other people and let them take the flak.
I can remember Ronald Reagan getting before the podium in the White House press briefing room every week and often several times a weak. And when he wasn't in that briefing room, he was giving talks direct to the American people from the Oval Office.
GW Bush on the other hand gets in front of the camera once in a blue moon and nornally as part of some ceremony or meeting with foreign dignitaries.
GW Bush is not articulate but that's no excuse to not try harder. His slurs and word mispronounciations are not bothersome and can even be endearing, but it is his message that is missing. We have no voice in the White House for real conservatism.
I think that many of us want the President to fight the media and democrats via words and speeches, and the President does it when it is absolutely required. The man has a nation to lead, and war to fight and win, he does not have time to standup every time and confront the hate filled traitors in the democrats party and the media for every issue or no issue they bring up.
Suppose President Bush holds a news conference tomorrow and addresses those silly non story non sandal brought by the vicious and liars in the democrat party and their media, and he is very tough on the democrats and mentions that Clinton fired 93 US attorney and so on, and we get our emotional satisfaction here on FR for few hours and then what. The democrats and the media will go on and harp on the same story and the President simply does not have the time another press conference to respond again, and again, and again. It will never end and he simply will not be able to focus on important issues like winning the war on terror.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.