A One-Time Bush Skeptic Admits His Error (Journalist Who Actually "Gets" It! Amazing!)

The Houston Chronicle ^ | 6/2/04 | Joshua Muravchik

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

'Some liberals, reports New Republic Editor Jonathan Chait, find Bush's very existence to be "a constant oppressive force in their daily psyche."'

Bush forced them to think. Smoke rose from their heads. A small fire crackled in their hair. They didn't like it. They wanted to click their heels three times and go back to 'Clinton-land'.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

"Are we safer now than we were before we began to fight back against the terrorists? Perhaps not, just as we were not safer when we began to resist Hitler, prompting him to declare war on us. Back then, we were not safer until we had won."

Bingo. What confuses the appeasers is the claim that we are safer. No one knows for sure right now whether or not we are safer today. It can even be argued that we are less safe. We're like the school kid telling the bully, 'No, you can't have my lunch money.' Does that make you safer? Not really. Not at first. But when the bully is on the ground with a bloody nose, you'll feel ten feet tall. And when the bully comes to school the next day and you see fear in his eyes, and he avoids you, then you know you are not only safer, but free, unlike the rest of the school.

FReegards....

[Dr. Eckleburg]

September 11 was a watershed.

Would that more people realized this.

[DustyMoment]

I really do not believe for an instant that a man will be elected governor of the State of Texas and President of the U.S. with a "weak intellect".

Although he was never a Texas Gov., we did elect Jimmah Carter to be president. There's a weak intellect if ever I saw one!!

[hershey]

Much needed article. I hope his readers get it.

[Hostile]

"Why is it liberals and those that trash Bush always have to throw in "weak intellect" or some such statement?"

Because it's the same thing they said about Reagan, Ford, Quayle and even Eisenhower. Because if you can't argue against the ideals, then the next best thing is to attack the qualifications of the person who represents them.
Another reason is plain old liberal arrogance. To their minds, the only reason someone could disagree with them is because they're just not smart enough to understand the complexity of the issues like the liberals do.
Think about how arrogant liberals are; the man who won the Cold War and the man who engineered the D-Day invasion were "weak intellects" to them. (I suspect that one of the reasons liberals were so vitriolic toward Newt Gingrich was because they could never get away with labeling a college professor as a dim-bulb).
I had an argument about Bush's intellect with one of my left leaning friends. So I asked him, "How many Ivy league degrees do you have?"

[BigSkyFreeper]

Bush forced them to think. Smoke rose from their heads. A small fire crackled in their hair. They didn't like it. They wanted to click their heels three times and go back to 'Clinton-land'.

LOL

[auggy]

"I really do not believe for an instant that a man will be elected governor of the State of Texas and President of the U.S. with a "weak intellect". Surely America is not forced to pick from only "weak intellects" to lead them."

The "weak intellect", Is coming from the accusing side. Dumbocrats seem to , more and more, accuse the Republicans of what they are guilty.

Another example is when say we are Nazi's.

Anyone, with a average Intellect, can see that we are the farthest from Nazism as one could get.

Compare Nazism with Socialism, (which is what Naziism was), and the Democrats come awfully close to Nazism.

[tkathy]

Being glib and wordy doesn't always signify an intellect. There have been many geniuses who are fairly inarticulate.

[HHFi]

It's a standard tactic when liberals are trying to tear down a Republican leader, from Reagan to Bush and every politician and pundit in between, to paint their opponent as stupid and simple-minded. After all, if you disagree with the liberal position (which is, as we all know, correct), how could you not be a moron?

This is why they conveniently gloss over Bush's Harvard MBA, or try to dismiss it as something he has handed because of who his dad was. But I have a friend who is a brilliant financial advisor with a Harvard MBA, and he told me what you have to go through to get one. He said it makes no difference if your dad is Jesus, if you don't know the material backward and forward, and you aren't able to present your arguments and back them up on the spot, you make an F and you don't get a Harvard MBA. But then, my friend is a Republican, so liberals would probably just say he's far too stupid to know what he's talking about.

[Consort]

It's sad and unfortunate that in November we may see a replay of the 1992 election: Liberals and disgruntled Conservatives joining to defeat an incumbent Republican and electing a Democrat.

[tx_eggman]

Living in Houston I read their editorial page every morning to get my blood pressure up. Its staff editorial writers (Cragg Hines, Clay Robinson) and editorial board are bent towards the Molly Ivins school of journalism ... liberal, moronic, Bush hating.

So, while it confuses me to see them print this, it's still refreshing.

[jmaroneps37]

Coming from where this does, this piece is electrifying.

[maica]

How the 'elites' of the left in the communications business, ignore GWBs achievements - MBA from Harvard, jet fighter pilot - is illustrative of their ability to ignore reality.

Today they are also ignoring, ie, actively suppressing --

The new economic boom
American support for the war in Iraq and for the Commander-in-Chief
The real threat that these Islamofascists mean to our economy and our liberty

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Liberals and disgruntled Conservatives joining to defeat an incumbent Republican and electing a Democrat.

Anyone willingly working alongside liberals to defeat an incument Republican President and elect a raving leftist extremist to the office, in his place, is NOT -- by definition -- a conservative; "disgruntled" or otherwise.

[The Wizard]

bttt

[maica]

... liberal, moronic, Bush hating.

*****

My sister was in DC yesterday, and accidentally met a group of adults and eighth-grade children, on a school trip from Houston. She shared with one of these mothers a story about when she met some wonderful Texans at the Inauguration in 2001. She thought this remembrance would create a bond of warmth with yesterday's tourist, but was surprised to note that the visitor kept a stone-face throughout the telling.

No "Don't Mess with Texas" solidarity with her!

So sad that even in Texas there are people who harbor ill feelings toward such a great man.

[Consort]

Anyone willingly working alongside...

They're not necessarily working "alongside" but are attacking from opposite directions.....with the same negative result.

[PJ-Comix]

But the real issue is not about tactics or even the larger strategy but whether to fight at all.

But...but...didn't John Kerry promise to "destroy" Al Qaeda? OK, he didn't say HOW he would do it but he promised to destroy them. That's good enough for me.

[PJ-Comix]

This coming from the Houston Barnicle is quite refreshing.

Don't put that newspaper down. They used to publish my humor columns on a regular basis in their Sunday Texas magazine section.