Posted on 04/22/2004 6:13:54 AM PDT by jcb8199
I do not know precisely why President Bush's popularity continues high despite a month of the most relentless pounding from partisans, the press, the 9/11 commission and history itself (Fallujah, etc.) No one else knows either. Professionals will read the polls through the prism of their own expertise. Media people will say it's the cumulative effect of Mr. Bush's stirring ads. Those who agree with the president's stand on Iraq will say it's Iraq. Others may argue it's because he put tax cuts at the heart of his economic policy and the economy has begun to rebound. There is probably some truth in all of this. But my guess would be something else.
I think Mr. Bush is admired and liked after three years of war, terror, strife and recession because people have eyes.
They look at him, listen to him, and watch him every day. They can tell that George W. Bush is looking out for America. They can tell he means it. They can see his sincerity. They can tell he is doing his best. They understand his thinking because he tells them his thinking. They think he may be right. They're not sure, but at least they understand his thinking.
They are not shocked that our intelligence system wasn't working very well before 9/11. They would like our intelligence system to be first-rate and the best in the world, and they like to say they expect it to be best in the world. But they also think it comes from Washington, it's government, and so by definition flawed. Mr. Bush has survived not finding of the weapons of mass destruction for two reasons. One is that Americans have come to be sure that Saddam was an unusually bad man and a threat to whatever stability the Mideast enjoys. The other is that Americans believe Mr. Bush himself honestly believed Saddam was a threat. If Bill Clinton, who thought Iraq had WMDs, had invaded Iraq post-9/11 and not found them, he would have been thrown out of office. That's because no one ever believed what Mr. Clinton said, and they wouldn't have believed his explanations. They assumed most of what he did had a cynical and self-serving basis. Mr. Bush doesn't have that problem, because regular people don't think he's a habitual liar. (This is why in presidential elections character trumps everything. It's not some abstraction, it has practical and daily presidential applications.)
Americans do not think Mr. Bush has a persona to dazzle history, they think he is the average American man, but the average American man as they understand the term: straight shooter, hard worker, decent, America-loving, God-loving.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Oh, and ur spelling SUCKS.
G'day
Look at the declining veiwership to the major network press and the increase of those getting their news on the internet. Any guesses why?
We just can't trust the liberal press anymore. This generation has figured that out.
I agree with you. Noonan is way off base here, and I don't understand why she said this. She was trying to make a point about Clinton's character, but I don't think she thought this line out too well.
I think she meant to say "if Clinton was in Bush's position, with everything else being the same" or something like that.
I'd think it would be obvious to anyone that a Democratic president wouldn't be attacked during a war the way that Bush is attacked today.
Oh, that explains it. You misunderstood me.
I don't mean to say that Bill Clinton was not accepted because he hailed from Arkansas. I would say that Bill Clinton was not welcomed into the Washington insider culture because he was not part of it. It's not so much a matter of where he's from, but of where he isn't from, culturally speaking...and that idea isn't original with me.
Personally, I consder Bill Clinton the Tonya Harding of the US presidency...and while I may have coined the phrase, that sentiment isn't original with me either.
But enough about me. Give me your take on things and broaden my horizons, if you would.
People Have Eyes: Americans dislike Bush's enemies more than they dislike Bush.
Posted by jcb8199
On News/Activism 04/22/2004 6:13:54 AM PDT with 43 comments
The Wall Street Journal ^ | Thursday, April 22, 2004 | Peggy NoonanPeople Have Eyes [Noonan]
Posted by 68skylark
On News/Activism 04/21/2004 9:13:09 PM PDT with 34 comments
OpinionJournal.com (Wall Street Journal Editorial Page) ^ | April 22, 2004 | PEGGY NOONANPeople Have Eyes(Noonan)
Posted by ride the whirlwind
On News/Activism 04/21/2004 9:09:55 PM PDT with 37 comments
WSJ Opinion Journal ^ | April 22, 2004 | Peggy Noonan
But we do.
Peggy Noonan BUMP!
This is not some chat room.
Pardon, but this is Free Republic. Look around. This is a forum for conservatives.
Also, this a forum for the literate.
That's pretty funny.
Well, I think GWB is more Midland than Kennebunkport, though there's no denying parentage and education paved the way for his ascension to the presidency.
I have libertarian sympathies in some ways and think they're tolerated here more than those self-described libertarians give credit, so pardon my early morning umbrage at what I took to be a bit of a whine and the tossing off of the term "Bushbots". A term I don't care for.
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.