Regards, Ivan
Posted on 09/11/2002 10:31:10 PM PDT by MadIvan
In his speeches yesterday, George W Bush did what he does best: he bolstered American confidence, forced Americans to look forward and reminded Americans of their own strength. What a difference a year makes.
At the beginning of his presidency, Mr Bush seemed to many outside America as a little boy lost. He seemed lacking in decision and understanding. Within three days of September 11, he had the measure of what had happened, as he showed at the memorial service in Washington's National Cathedral.
His mettle was again apparent on September 20, when he addressed the joint session of Congress. "We will direct every resource at our command . . . to the defeat of the global terror network. Every nation now has a decision to make: either you are with us, or you are against us." Americans needed this show of absolute resolve.
Mr Bush had appeared inarticulate, but he has turned his lack of eloquence to his advantage. That his speeches cost him considerable effort somehow makes them more winning. A parallel is George VI: because audiences knew he was a stammerer, they found themselves on his side.
Mr Bush's awkwardness made him more believable than his predecessor, Bill Clinton, with his glib words. If Europeans are struck by the crudity of his demeanour, they fail to realise that it is precisely his homeliness that adds to his appeal for Americans.
Over the past year, Mr Bush has shown himself to be a president for the Americans in the unexpected situation in which they found themselves. In the days after the World Trade Centre's towers fell, America's confidence was devastated; its spirit could have been September 11's greatest casualty.
Imagine what the reactions of Mr Clinton, say, or Al Gore might have been to September 11. Mr Gore's hallmark is caution; his finger-wagging attitude would have been woefully inadequate. Americans felt that Mr Bush was with them, not an external critic. He took America into war in Afghanistan, and the war was won.
Mr Bush's blunt approach came as relief from Mr Clinton's "I feel your pain" approach. Mr Bush did what Mr Clinton would never dare to do: he spoke of good and evil. And, to the embarrassment of British observers, he invokes God. "Our purpose as a nation is firm, yet our wounds are recent and unhealed and lead us to pray," he said last September 14.
It's only embarassing to us because the Church of England is a joke - Ivan
To Americans, this seems not embarrassing, but natural and right. After September 11, Mr Bush's approval ratings were the second highest in American history, 88 per cent. Even now, despite some anxiety over war on Iraq, his ratings are 69 per cent - Mr Clinton's all-time high.
Mr Bush's go-it-alone stance and his tough talk have raised European hackles. But his attitude was what Americans needed. Mr Bush is responsible for America's recovery, as Rudolph Giuliani is responsible for New York's. Mr Bush speaks - today as last year - of Americans' future; their resolve, not their wounds. They might not have known it when he was elected, but Americans have found in Mr Bush a great leader.
Regards, Ivan
And, though it saddens me, I must agree with your assessment of the Church of England ... is the Archbishop of Canterbury a pod person???
Pinging my husband to this!
You'll never know how much that means to many of us.
English Vocabulary Question: I gotta ask, though. I've often seen the word whinge used in articles lately from the U.K. (usually referring to the leftist Guardian and their ilk). Is that similar in meaning and pronunciation to whine (pronounced like "wine")? Is the "g" in whinge silent? Just a question from a former English Literature teacher here :-)
Best Regards, Ivan
I read David McCullough's biography of Harry Truman. In it Churchill admitted to HST that he was not at all impressed with him. However, he realised, over time, that HST was instrumental in saving western civilization.
I believe the No.43 will be remembered for doing much to save the western world. Mr. Blair seems to understand the tide of history and what our relationship requires.
Yes, Clinton uses feminized language that appeals to some women and gays. It really turns off heterosexual males. It also sent the wrong message about the US to our enemies, potential enemies and their allies. They saw the president Clinton's emotionalism in his speach as softness and weakness in the American character.
I read David McCullough's biography of Harry Truman. In it Churchill admitted to HST that he was not at all impressed with him. However, he realised, over time, that HST was instrumental in saving western civilization.
I believe the No.43 will be remembered for doing much to save the western world. Mr. Blair seems to understand the tide of history and what our relationship requires.
Clinton made it positively unmanly to vote Democrat. Witness Al Gore's hilarious attempts at becoming an "Alpha Male".
It also sent the wrong message about the US to our enemies, potential enemies and their allies. They saw the president Clinton's emotionalism in his speach as softness and weakness in the American character.
Agreed. However the enemy was stupid to take Clinton as representative of America as a whole. They could have signed onto Free Republic and seen otherwise. ;)
Regards, Ivan
Part of the reason President Bush has been making inroads with labor is his manly persona. The Manhattan based elite journalists just don't get it. President Bush is driving the same wedge between labor and academia that President Reagan so skilfully used.
It looks like God's grace continues to bless us.
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.