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.
That's WHY I post facts; historically accurate FACTS...to get them on the record and for clear refutation of the lies and 1/2 truths and nasty propaganda spewed out by FR's KNOW NOTHINGS.
We must NOT allow ourselves to be cowed into silence, by the doom&gloom naysayers and Bushbashers, who post distorted, at best, drivel. Facts and calm debate, will ALWAYS trump emotional codswallop.
And do NOT wish for it to be true; it would be a death knell to the GOP.
"Codswallop" is an extremely cool and appropos word. ;)
If you are going to CCP ( or make it look as though you have CCPED ) something from one of MY post, please do NOT take words from some other reply/make something up and accredit it to me. Your "But I do wish that you Johny(sic)-one-notes" "quote" was NOT said by me, on this thread and besides which, I do know how to spell "Johnny". Ergo, besides being incapable of true debate, you are also a grievous liar!
I called a FOUL on the "cult" thingy. It's really too bad that you lack reading comprehension skills of a even second grader.
Your side "can't take it". It is YOUR side, who whimpers and whinges and whines and moans when called on incivil and vile behavior; not mine.
Let others fumble around and use less interesting language. Our side needs to use English to its fullest! :-)
OTOH, you are misusing the word "CULTURE" and attempting to force me to stick with YOUR agenda. Sorry...ain't gonna work!
When people on this forum talk about "AMERICAN CULTURE", most have little comprehension of the meaning of the term. It can encompass all manner of things...from dress to music to art to food to how we celebrate vaious holidays and just WHICH holidays ARE celebrated. Usually, though, what they appear to mean, is what is known as THE AMERICAN DREAM, which was fleshed out and cinematically and via pop music fed back to those living here, by *GASP* Jewish immigrants from middle European countries! :-)
But thanks for the attempt; pathetic though it was.
And for Christmas, he gave me a calendar called "Weird and Wonderful Words"......a couple of examples....
Sindonology - the study of the Shroud of Turin
Kenspeckle - a Scottish word meaning 'conspicuous' possibly from the Swedish.
Let's see......... the leftist nature of some of the 'true conservatives' on FR is kenspeckle. I LIKE it. :)
Or how about 'erinaceous'..........someone with the manners of a hedgehog. That one could be used around here, too. :)
Jargogled........an obsolete word meaning 'confused.' LOL! I could use that a lot with some of the pseudo-cons I run into around here. :)
When I was young, I too loved to read dictionaries. Words really ARE "magic: and the more fluent one is, in one's mother tongue, the better. And now, I have learned a couple of new words and seen a couple of "old friends".
Many thanks for "ERNACEOUS"; it's now going to become a favorite of mine. :-)
Do you know WHY many people think that our FFS were so much more intelligent than we poor mortals? It's because they used, REALLY USED the English language so well! Lots and lots of now in disuse words, used to berate and belittle and libel others......but it sounds, to us, so erudite, because they didn't sound like today's ganstarapper wannabes, with all the F bombs and gutter slang and profanity. Yet, if you look at what they said about each other, they were WORSE! LOL
It absolutely floored me.
Now he's got a degree in PoliSci/International Relations, and is about to finish his Masters in Int Rel, and is doing an Internship for a Publishing company in DC doing editing.
That love of words got him the job......and will take him far.
btw, I plan to use JARGOGLED the next time I run into another confused Bush basher who thinks Reagan was a god.
I wonder if Ben Franklin used it to describe anyone....... :)
"Lots of kids have, in past decades ( no, not I ), bribed officials to get their driver's licenses."
Certainly there are individual police officers susceptible to bribes. But no one HAS to bribe anyone to get normal government services in this country, because it isn't an aspect of our (get ready for it) CULTURE.
cul·ture Pronunciation Key (klchr)
n.
1.
1. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
2. These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population: Edwardian culture; Japanese culture; the culture of poverty.
3. These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression: religious culture in the Middle Ages; musical culture; oral culture.
4. The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.
2. Intellectual and artistic activity and the works produced by it.
3.
1. Development of the intellect through training or education.
2. Enlightenment resulting from such training or education.
4. A high degree of taste and refinement formed by aesthetic and intellectual training.
5. Special training and development: voice culture for singers and actors.
6. The cultivation of soil; tillage.
7. The breeding of animals or growing of plants, especially to produce improved stock.
8. Biology.
1. The growing of microorganisms, tissue cells, or other living matter in a specially prepared nutrient medium.
2. Such a growth or colony, as of bacteria.
Now, see that definition 1.1
"1. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, INSTITUTIONS, and all other products of human work and thought."
Do I have to define the word "institutions" now, or do you know that that includes government?
"JARGOGLED"? Oh my goodness...you've got me there and I can't even find it in any of my dictionaries. LOL
I give up...what does that word mean?
This is like when I read POSSESION and wound up reaching for a dictionary, every few chapters. I have a better than average command of the English language, but every now and again, get humbled by being hit with an arcane word or three.
Reagan did not give blanket amnesty to all illegals living here. The provisions of the Simpson-Mazoli amendment only provided amnesty/legalization to some illegals, depending on their line of work and length of stay, they had to provide proof of employment, they could not have actually been convicted of felonies, etc. Congressman JD Hayworth in his book chronicles some of the fraud committed by illegals just so they could claim to have met the amnesty requirements specified by the '86 legislation. It's not my fault that you are ignorant of the facts.
Here is previous post by our good friend Sabertooth that covered this very topic :
Reagan Amnesty Pop Quiz – Answer Sheet
1. The Reagan Amnesty granted a blanket Amnesty to Illegal Aliens.
FALSE
The Reagan Amnesty wasn’t for all Illegal Aliens, there were many requirements that had to be met for Illegals to be eligible. Among them were certain residency requirements, no felony convictions, less than three misdemeanor convictions, medical examinations, etc. They can be found in the following subsection:
"Sec. 245A. (a) Temporary Resident Status.--The Attorney General shall adjust the status of an alien to that of an alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence if the alien meets the following requirements:
-------------------------------------
AND no matter how you spin it, Dubya will never be considered as great a President as Jefferson was. Period. Now crawl back in your hole...
I didn't talk about corrupt policemen and know of NO local, where the police are in charge of the DMV. Do you? And you even CCPed what I posted, as a header reference from which to leap off from. You just can't be taken seriously. LOL
I'm so glad that you've decided to have your own little made up argument over Jefferson; how precious. But I doubt that you actually know all that much about the man and his presidency. You've yet to refute the accurate facts I have posted about him.
But, still and all, that has NOTHING to do with this thread's topic, which you have embarrassingly ignored utterly.
What a delightful word! :-)
You know what's funny...during the Clinton years, all anybody here ever wanted was a good Christian man, honest and firm in his convictions, who did what he thought was right regardless of the polling data. You get one...and his approval ratings are at 30%.
Thanks for the ping!
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my ‘miscellaneous’ ping list.
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.