Posted on 05/22/2006 6:16:18 PM PDT by M. Thatcher
A much-esteemed, long-neglected friend sent an email this morning, which was delightful to recieve. At one point he mentioned this post from yesterday and wrote: I think (President Bush) has lost his bearings. but then, so did Moses from time to time, it’s quite understandable.
That made me wonder a little - has President Bush lost his bearings, or have we? Is it President Bush who has broken faith with “his base” or have they?
When I read my friend’s line, I thought of a line from Pride and Prejudice, in which Elizabeth Bennett says in new appreciation of Mr. Darcy, “In essentials, I believe, he is very much what he ever was.”
Perhaps I am a dim bulb, but President Bush has never surprised me, and that is probably why I have never felt let down or “betrayed” by him. He is, in essentials, precisely whom he has ever been. He did not surprise me when he managed, in August of 2001, to find a morally workable solution in the matter of Embryonic Stem Cells. He did not surprise me when, a month later, he stood on a pile of rubble and lifted a broken city from its knees. When my NYFD friends told me of the enormous consolation and strength he brought to his meetings with grieving families, I was not surprised. When the World Series opened in New York City and the President was invited to throw the first pitch, there was no surprise in his throwing (while wearing body armor) a perfect strike.
He did not surprise me when he spoke eloquently from the National Cathedral, or again before the Joint Houses of Congress, when he laid out the Bush Doctrine. He did not surprise me when he did it again at West Point, or when he went visionary at Whitehall (don’t try to find a tape of it, honey, that was ONE SPEECH C-Span never re-ran and the press quickly tried to move along from).
There were no surprises in President Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan to battle AlQaeda. There were no surprises when he went after an Iraq which everyone believed had WMD, an Iraq that had tried to assassinate an American President, an Iraq whose NYC consul did not lower its flag to half-mast after 9/11.
Actually, there was one surprise. He did surprise me by going back to the UN, and back to the UN, in that mythical “rush to war” we heard so much about. But then again, the effort in Iraq was never as “unilateral” as it had been painted.
President Bush did not surprise me when, faced with the scorn of “the world community” and those ever-ready A.N.S.W.E.R. marches which sprang up condemning him and Tony Blair, he stood firm. A lesser man, a mere politician, would have folded under such enormous pressure. I was not surprised when Bush did not. (Aside - it’s funny how they just can’t get a good-sized crowd together for those protests these days, innit? Everything about Iraq was “wrong” and everything about Iraq is “failure and quagmire” and yet, somehow, we all breathe a sigh of relief that the job is done, that Saddam is out of power and that Iraq, save a very small piece of troubled land, is - in remarkably short order (and despite the wild pronouncements of John Murtha) - tasting its first morsels of democracy and liberty, and showing promise.)
It never surprised me that Yassar Arafat, formerly the “most welcomed” foreign “Head of State” in the Clinton White House was not welcomed - ever - to the Bush White House.
I wasn’t surprised by the, not one, but two tax cuts he got passed through congress, or the roaring economy - and jobs - those tax cuts created. I wasn’t surprised when he killed the unending farce that is the Kyoto treaty (remember, the thing Al Gore and the Senate unanimously voted down under Clinton?), or when he killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court, or when he told the UN they risked becoming irrelevent, or when he told the Congress and the world, “America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.” Not surprising.
I wasn’t surprised at all to watch him - in a foreign and hostile land - go rescue the Secret Service agent who was being detained and kept from protecting him. Or to see him shoot his cuffs, afterwards, and greet his host with a smile.
I was never surprised that he tried to “change the tone” or tried reaching across the aisle to invite onesuch as Ted Kennedy to help draft education reform, something none of his predecessors dared touch. Just as they never dared to try to reform social security or our energy policies. The feckless ones in Congress wouldn’t get the jobs done, unfortunately, but he is a president who at least tried to get something going on those “dangerous” issues. His senior prescription plan was unsurprising and it is helping lots of people.
I was not at all to surprised to see President Bush forego the “trembling lip photo-op” moment in which most world-leaders indulged after the Christmas Tsunami of 2004 in order to get real work done, to bring immediate help to that area by co-ordinating our own military (particularly our Naval support) with Australia and Japan. Stupid, stingy American. I was surprised, actually, to see him dance with free Georgians. I didn’t think he danced.
Let me tell you what has surprised me about George W. Bush. I have been surprised by his ability to keep from attacking-in-kind the “public servants” in Washington who - for five years - have not been able to speak of the American President with the respect he is due, by virtue of both his office and his humanity, because they are entralled with hate and owned by opportunism. I have been surprised that he has kept his committment to “changing the tone” even when it has long been clear that the only way the tone in Washington will ever change is if everyone named Bush or Clinton or Kennedy is cleared out and “career politicians” are shown the door and - it must be said - every university “School of Journalism” is converted to a daisy garden, maaaan. We are stardust. We are golden.
I wasn’t surprised when President Bush thought that New Orleans had dodged a bullet after Hurricane Katrina, and therefore let down his guard. After all, we all thought NOLA had done so. I wasn’t surprised that he had - similarly to his actions the year before, re Hurricane Charlie - asked the Democrat Governor of Louisiana (and the Mayor) to order evacuations and suggested to her that she put the issue under Fed control to speed up processes (she did not, btw for a long while). But I was surprised that, when the press picked and choosed their stories while launching an unprecedented, emotion-charged, often completely inaccurate (10,000 bodies!) attack on the President - the rising waters were all his fault and he was suddenly “the uncaring racist attempting genocide by indifference” the President did not fight back against the sea of made-up news and boilerplate, fantastic charges against him.
I was surprised, and what surprised me was the sense I had that Bush’s heart was broken. That he had done everything he could to keep faith with the nation, and that he could not believe that in a time of such terrible need, all some people could think of was, “how do we use this politically, how do we break Bush with this?” It can’t have helped that some of the hysteria was coming from the right as well as the left. Things changed after that, didn’t they? The press and the left doubled up their attacks, the far-right went very smug, and President Bush never has seemed to have regrouped his spirit.
A month later, I wasn’t surprised (although some - mostly the hard-right “I’m a Conservative before I’m anything and he’d better serve me” types - clearly were) when he nominated Harriett Miers to the SCOTUS. In fact, I’d predicted it. Up until that moment, every person President Bush had nominated to pretty much any position had won accolades from the beamish far-right, but Miers did not. She wasn’t one of their guys or gals. She wasn’t Luttig, she wasn’t Rogers-Brown. Harriet Miers? Damn that Bush! The denouncements came fast and furious and suddenly “the base” with which George W. Bush had not broken faith…broke faith with him. Suddenly they were as willing to call him a moron and an idiot as any KozKid.
Imagine that. Imagine being the guy who has given his base one splendid nominee after another, in all manner of posts, make a nomination he thinks appropriate only to find that “base” coming out with both guns, defaming his nominee and directing all manner of insult at himself. President Bush is nothing if not loyal; his loyalty is often his downfall. When he asked for a little trust (which he had surely earned) a little loyalty and a little faith, from “the base,” he got kicked in the groin, over and over again, for daring to think differently, for falling out of lockstep with his policy-wonk “betters.”
That had to be bitter, for him. At that point Bush, unchanged in essentials, might have wondered if his conservative “base” had become a bit over-confident and loose-hipped, so cock-sure of their majority (not that congress used it) so certain of their own brilliance that they were beginning to believe they didn’t need him; that he wasn’t conservative enough, after all, and that the next president was going to be the solid, “uncompassionate” conservative they’d really wanted all along. The president who had delivered one gift after another to his base asked them to trust him, and his base sneered.
Then of course, the DPW debacle was launched and once again the far-right, his “base” went beserk, again, for very dubious reasons. Buster was the one who pointed out to me, then, that in this matter President Bush was being entirely consistent with who he had always been and that his defense of the sale was not unsound, nor unprecedented. The right didn’t care! They stomped their feet and went DU again. Even Rush Limbaugh couldn’t control them. The left, on the other hand, which should have supported the president - they would have had he been anyone else - simply exploited what they could of it.
And now, the Great Big Immigration Imbroglio of ‘06 has turned “the base” quite vicious. President Bush is no longer simply a moron or an idiot to his base, he is a bad man. He is a bad American. He is a bad president. Everything he does now, is wrong. As yesterday’s WSJ pointed out, Bush is closer to the deified Ronald Reagan on this issue than anyone on the right wants to admit. And they’d never do to Reagan what they are doing to Bush. Let’s look at a few Reagan quotes on the nature of those “far-right” conservatives, mmkay?
‘When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn’t like it.
‘Compromise was a dirty word to them and they wouldn’t face the fact that we couldn’t get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don’t get it all, some said, don’t take anything.
‘I’d learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: ‘I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.’
‘If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that’s what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.’
Mr. Reagan, I salute you. I did not vote for you. Twice. I came too late to appreciation of you. But sir, some of us have been saying the same thing to “the base” for a few weeks now. They’re still not listening. They won’t, I imagine, until they absolutely must. And perhaps it will take a staggering defeat for that to happen.
President Bush’s immigration policies have not changed materially since he was Governor of Texas. You folks knew that when you elected him, twice. He has not changed, cannot change, because his policies arise not from his poll numbers but from his convictions and his conscience. You used to love that about him. Can everything, everything that needs to be done BE done, and all as you would have it done, in the real world, a world of bitter bipartisanship and a corrupted press?
Some say that the GOP should consider “losing in ‘06 to win in ‘08.” Some conservatives say that they’re going to not vote - to sit out an election or vote for a third party candidate to “teach the GOP a lesson.”
The far-right gwwwwarks like a cracker-obsessed parrot: Bush has abandoned the base, he’s abandoned the base, he’s abandoned the base.
Ever stop to think maybe the president feels his base has abandoned him, that uncontent with 75%, they’ve simply moved beyond reason? Ever stop to think that while you’re calling the president every despicable name in the book and demanding his fealty or you’ll “teach him a lesson,” that perhaps there is a lesson you need to learn? That a good man, disinterested in merely laughing or crying for the camera for 8 years and looking to do a difficult job in the face of unprecedented hate, unprecedent speed of communication, unprecedented global instability, unprecedented backstabbing from within his own CIA, deserves some loyalty and the benefit of a doubt as he tries to bring you the 75% you so callously spit back at him as insufficient?
We do not know everything we think we know. Nothing is static; everything is in flux, and it is very likely that more is at work here, on many levels, than any of us can dream. There are things seen and unseen. Think about it.
Here is a question, and I’ll be writing on it some more during the week, but start thinking about it, now: HOW DO YOU RECEIVE A GOOD?
How you receive a good has a lot to do with whether any more “good” comes your way. The Conservatives got a “good” in 2000 and 2004; they’re receiving it very badly, indeed. I think the throwing-under-the-bus-of-George-W-Bush by “the base” is one of the most shameful things I have ever witnessed in all my years of watching politics, from both sides of the political spectrum. How do you receive a good?
President Bush has never surprised me. He is, in essentials, the man he ever was. It does not surprise me that he is a Christian man living a creed before he is a President, that he is a President before he is a Conservative. It seems to me precisely the right order of things.
You “base” have received a great good. You’ve forgotten it. Continue to do so at your - at all our - great peril.
Nixon had no one in his corner anywhere. He had Walter Cronkite on television yapping about the impending McGovern victory every single night. People believed those media hacks back then. They never reported a single good thing about Vietnam. There was no conservative media to rebut anything, none. All we heard was what the left wanted us to hear. Not so today.
Nixon had a Democratic Congress of almost two to one strength. He was more vilified than Bush has ever dreamed about being. So was Reagan.
I understand all you Bush worshipers want your own thread to kneel and cry. Fine. But stick to the facts. I was there. Bush has it great compared to Nixon and Reagan, if nothing else but by virtue of this website's existence. There was nothing and nowhere of this nature for people to come together and support the president.
Amen
I can't decide if it's the herd instinct, which I thought was almost the sole property of the libs, or the piranhas smelling blood....
It astounds and saddens me. The border issue/problems have been upon us since long before Bush even came to office - and even now, if the plan he outlined isn't implemented, what the libs will then do is far worse.
In addition, the Bush bashers act as if Bush could just make an edict and that would be that. We do not have a monarchy or a totalitarian government.
It puzzles me that some don't understand this. Or has FR been infiltrated with sleepers just waiting for orders when the opportunity presented?
Amen
Amen
Upon reading my post, I saw it contained a far more sarcastic tone than I intended. I meant no offense, and gave it. I should have quit after comparing the media and social treatment of the Nixon and Reagan presidencies with our current president.
Those of you who support the president, please forgive my misguided sarcasm, and please accept my apology.
Your favorite blogger does not frequent FR or else he/she would have written:
The far-right gwwwwarks like a cracker-obsessed parrot: IT'S BUSH'S FAULT
Agreed. It used to be that we could discuss topics with fellow conservatives and cheer when the Viking Kitties hit the lefties with a ZOT. Now the lefties live among us and troll our threads.
I've been called a Bushbot and a Bushite and a Bush Apologist, but it doesn't matter when I consider the source. I don't agree with his immigration ideas and I was dismayed when he promised to sign the Assault Weapons bill. But it could be so much worse. Congress did the right thing with the AWB and with enough pushing from us they will come around.
Here's one of my favorite GWB pics:
WRONG. The correct statement is "Republicans act as though he is some kind of traitor every time he supports any immigration policy that does not say "I'm going to personally kill every illegal who does not leave tommorrow."
I guess the fact that GW Bush has done so many fine things just makes it all the harder to understand why he would join the Democrats and some liberal Republicans in selling our country down the drain on immigration.
It's a little like finding out your favorite uncle, who you admired and respected and even thought was a hero out campaigning ardently for Ted Kennedy.
Certainly there are many admirable qualities in our President. But what does all this have to do with the fact that he is so wrong on protecting our borders and giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens? Bush is not a child. He has chosen the wrong path on a major issue. Are we all supposed to shut up and speak fondly of past memories and avoid mentioning the elephant in the middle of the room?
The issue is not whether or not Bush's feelings are hurt. The issue is what his pushing amnesty is doing to our country.
This is a great post..Thank you!
This is a great article. Thanks for posting it M. Thatcher.
I would say 80% of the threads on FR have at least 1 comment about immigration.
Many people will say yes,BUT......To these ,I say this man has given us not only much better than what we would have gotten from Gore and Kerry,but much more than we would have gotten from McCain, Bauer,Forbes,Hatch,Alexander,E.Dole,Kasich or Quayle.[Yes ..those were our choices]
I will never agree 100% with any candidate.The only one I agree with that much is myself.
But to all you short sighted,I want everything,NOW crowd.An election is a choice between people.We got very lucky with the person we elected.
He has delivered in spades
We have gotten more from this president for the conservative cause than we could have expected.
He started during a recession,He had to deal with festering world problems avoided by his predecessor.He suffered through the greatest attack against our Nation's soil.He governed during the worst weather calamity to hit our country in modern times.He has been served by a hostile CIA.He has had to govern with a "supposed" majority in each House.[we know how the Rhinos have been barely more than an opposition controlled Congress and Senate]He DARED to try and attack tough long term problems like Social Security,The United Nations,Medicare,modernizing the Military,[with little help from his "conservative base"]
This MAN has stood and delivered.
And we belittle him because he didn't give of us all that we individually wanted.
I made my choice both elections,just expecting decency,honesty, and the best person available to us.I got much more than I expected.I refuse to cry over some of the "things" I didn't receive.
I will push in the next election for the person that offers the most of what I believe in.
I will pray that next President gives me HALF as much as I received from President Bush.
disingenous remark. you meant to say "On ONE ISSUE, IMMIGRATION, there is no compromise."
Actually, we put troops in Saudi Arabia because the genocidal Sunni next door was threatening to invade it. And we were only involved at all because the madman had already invaded Kuwait.
When you look at how this war really unfolded, without the mass-media filter, it actually makes perfect sense. Everything started when Hussein invaded Kuwait. As far as this war goes, it really was the mother of all battles.
Excellent discourse, thanks for posting it.
I loved and admired Ronald Reagan, and he didn't have a 24-hr. news cycle, dozens of emboldened press and vengeful government and ex-government "actors," a devastating attack on the homeland and ongoing terror, the churning internet and bloggers, and the instant availability of opinion of every stripe.
This man is a perpetual target ..verbally, politically and physically (he WAS the subject of a blatant grenade attack on his visit to Tblisi), yet he listens to the morning threat matrix that would probably make us shrivel up in a corner, puts on his Kevlar vest, takes a stand and makes tough decisions, faces personal risk, rises above the fray and despicable personal crucifixion every day from his political and foreign foes (and now, unbelievably, his "own team") with optimism, good will and humor, and has more personal strength, grace under pressure, integrity and decency than all the swarming naysayers put together.
He lives his upbringing, faith and goodness, and it shows in all his dealings. But apparently he'd have to be God himself in his omniscience to be appreciated by the "yeah, but" conservatives among us. Too bad no one warned him in 2000 that he'd have to be a perfect quarterback in order to count on support and loyalty from his own team.
I never dreamt we would ever be in the world we have today since 9/11, and I'll never stop being eternally grateful that George W. Bush is our President in these times.
I shudder to think how much more hellishly worse we'd be had his opponents (in either election) won. God bless and protect President George Bush !!! I stand with him today, I'll stand with him until the last day, I'll thank God for time we've had him in the White House, and I'll deeply mourn the day he leaves. No one man is perfect, but no one man could've been more perfectly placed at the time he was most needed than he.
From the linked site on another post
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Losing, to win” - pretty shortsighted UPDATED
Filed under: Dumb GOP moves, America
"Jim Geraghty has a great response to Mark Tapscott’s unappealing idea that conservatives should desire a loss in ‘06 in order to “win” in ‘08.
Mr. Tapscott is a brilliant man, but honestly, when I read his piece, I thought: Lala land. He’s not taking into account the fact that the press will credit all of Bush’s successes to the Democrats and spend two years throwing confetti to tell the American public how great everything is.
And in those two years I wonder what sort of legislation we’ll get? Higher taxes? Fairness Doctrine? Regulation of blogs and free speech? How much backtracking will there be, undoing the good work of the last 6 years? And how greatly will our civil rights erode?
Geraghty says it better than I:
We can strongly suspect that voters would be repulsed by Speaker Pelosi and a Kos-style legislative agenda. But we don’t know for certain. Remember that a Democrat-controlled Congress is also likely to be getting astonishingly glowing press coverage.
You know that roaring economy? You’ll start hearing about it, and it will all be credited to the Pelosi-Reid Economic Stimulus Bill passed in January 2007.
Congressional hearings accusing oil companies of “illegal profits” will be welcomed by consumers frustrated by high gas prices. Bush’s approval rating will take another hit after he vetoes the “Every Voter Gets Free Health Care And Free Prescription Drugs And Rent Or Mortgage Subsidies And A Pony Too Act of 2007.”
Senator John Kerry’s summit meeting with French President Jacques Chirac will be credited with dramatically reducing anti-Americanism around the world. And so on.
Maybe the public will strongly oppose the Democratic agenda after two years. But then again, maybe they’ll like it, or find parts of it they do like, or maybe they’ll just get used to them. The “let’s lose this year” strategy hands a bunch of Democrats the handy tool of incumbency to keep those seats.
And in the Senate races, the candidates get to keep their seats until 2012.
BRAVA! :-)
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.