Posted on 06/15/2004 12:50:11 AM PDT by conservative in nyc
Have you ever heard of "damning with faint praise"?
That's exactly what President Bush did. You have to look at what he DIDN'T say - no mention of honor, or duty, or fulfilling the office of the presidency.
The speech was a masterpiece of stealth attack by omission. And there's nothing the libs can say about it, because it's all in the subtext!
I *DID* read the transcript of the speech, and I also saw it on TV.
If Kobe Bryant shows up at some NBA awards ceremony and the NBA Commissioner talks about what a great daddy he is and what a great guy he is, would you support that?
"Graciousness and good manners" should be reserved only for deserving people - NOT somebody like Bill Clinton, who pinned down Juanita Broaddrick, bit her hard and raped her. NOT somebody like Bill Clinton, who lied under oath as a sitting president. NOT somebody like Bill Clinton, who turned the pardon process on its head to grant clemency to members of the FALN terrorist organization in 1999 in an attempt to help his part-time wife in her U.S. Senate campaign.
Be gracious and show good manners to Jimmy Carter.
Be harsh and show handcuffs to Bill Clinton.
On the lighter side, Bush said about Hillary: "She inspires respect and loyalty from those who know her..."
LOL! Loyalty? Considering what this nation has been through with Hillary, that is a totally CLUELESS comment. (Or maybe Bush was making a joke?)
Quote came from transcript at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040614-2.html
I wish Bush would've stuck to the facts instead of describing Clinton in such glowing personal terms. Bush could've complimented Clinton on signing welfare reform, Megan's Law, federal Three Strikes/You're Out legislation, etc. Just the facts would've been just fine.
Instead, Bush complimented Clinton for his "enthusiasm and warmth."
Bush went further, saying, "Bill Clinton showed incredible energy and great personal appeal. As chief executive, he showed a deep and far-ranging knowledge of public policy, a great compassion for people in need, and the forward-looking spirit the Americans like in a President. Bill Clinton could always see a better day ahead -- and Americans knew he was working hard to bring that day closer."
- "Working hard" -
Try hardly working. He met more with Monica Lewinsky than he did his own CIA Director.
- "Great compassion for people in need" -
How 'bout Paula Jones when she was in need of justice, or how 'bout the U.S. Courts when they were in need of the truth, or how 'bout Juanita Broaddrick when she was in need of "some ice," as Clinton would say while putting on his sunglasses and walking out the door of her hotel room.
- "Bill Clinton could always see a better day ahead -- and Americans knew he was working hard to bring that day closer" -
And what day would that be? 9-11-01, perhaps? It doesn't take much "hard work" to declare war on terrorism, which is what Clinton did in an Oval Office address to the nation during the impeachment scandal. It DOES take a lot of hard work to FIGHT a war on terrorism, which is something Clinton never did.
Clinton did a few good things when he was president. (Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.) Bush should've stuck to the raw record instead of cluelessly endorsing Clinton's personal qualities. To paraphrase George Will: Bill Clinton might not be the worst president in American history, but he may very well be the worst person to be president.
Transcript of the Bush-Clinton love-in:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040614-2.html
I've always been concerned that Bush is way too politically naive for Washington, D.C., but it may be that he actually has respect for people like Kennedy, Clinton, etc. Maybe he figures they're all part of the same club. Makes me want to puke, but I think that's Bush's position.
Remember when Bush took office and there were all those stories about vandalism that had been committed by outgoing Clinton and Gore staffers? Apparently, much of the damage (if it ever existed) was never documented, so it remains a controversy to this day. However, I had to laugh when I read this comment from Bush:
"It's good to see so many who served our nation so ably in the Clinton administration. Thank you all for coming back. Thanks for your service to the country, and welcome back to the White House. We're really glad you're here and I know the President is, as well."
*Hey, maybe they brought back all the "W" keys for the White House computers!*
If Kerry kicks Bush's ass in November, it won't be because of "petty attitudes" within his conservative base. It'll be because Bush has alienated conservatives on everything from big-government education, out-of-control spending (even an increase for the National Endowment for the Arts of all things!), apathy for our illegal immigration epidemic, and his constant cozying up to the Clintons and the Kennedys.
I don't know for sure how I'll vote in November. If I vote for Bush, I will only do so as a vote against Kerry. George Nethercutt and Doc Hastings are Republicans who have earned my vote in November through a variety of local and national actions. Bush has yet to earn it.
Too many people were sore at GHWB and voted for that kooky little weasel Perot or just stayed home.
Republicans have a lot to learn from Democrats. They don't do that sulky "I'll take my ball and go home" deal. The left was very angry at Clinton for "triangulating" on so many conservative issues (like welfare reform) but they still voted for him.
Here's why you shouldn't vote your pique: Judicial Appointments.
It's true that GHWB made some spectacularly bad appointments, never should have listened to Sununu on Souter. But Clinton's have been much, much worse, not so much on the Supreme Court (though they're bad - Ginsberg is way above her level of incompetence) as in the Circuit and District courts. That's where the real damage was done.
Read my lips: Bush41 lost in 1992 because of himself, not because of that "kooky little weasel" as you put it.
Also, the left finally DID punish the Democratic Party for Clinton's "triangulating" when many of them voted for Nader instead of Gore in 2000, allowing Bush to win Florida. And because Nader was at between 5 and 10 percent in some state media polls in the weeks before the election, it caused Gore to have to use valuable campaign resources in states he hoped to have wrapped up early on.
As for judicial appointments, they aren't really appointments. They're only nominations, as we've seen with people like Miguel Estrada. Kennedy will block any solid conservative nominated for the Supreme Court, and he'll get 40 fellow libs to join him. In order to get a true conservative (like Scalia) confirmed, Bush would have to FIGHT HARD for his nominee and turn it into a national issue. From what I've seen of Bush43 so far, I think he'd probably drop the nomination and go for a moderate instead.
Yes, Bush's nominees are much better than Kerry's would be, which is a major reason why I've left myself the option of voting for Bush in November even if it's just because I don't want Kerry to win. However, it would be far more preferable to be able to vote for a candidate I truly support and admire.
That's what's called a "counsel of perfection."
Thank you for leaving your option open to vote against Kerry. Even if you think Pres. Bush is a disaster, Kerry would be an UNMITIGATED disaster. This is no time for revenge voting.
And I'm sorry, but Perot is a weasel with a personal vendetta against GHWB. Too bad so many people believed his lies.
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.