[M. Thatcher]

From my favorite blogger.

[livius]

Wow! Very nice article. I am sick of the self-proclaimed "base," which acts like nothing but a pack of howling dogs, inciting each other with their own howling.

I almost wonder if one of Bush's mistakes has been that he gave them (the extremists) the courtesy of listening to them or asking them some input in the first place. Reagan just ignored them.

And as for their being the "base," I doubt it. When I worked on the campaign, I met many people (on the GOP voters list) who told me they would never vote for him - in fact, they hadn't voted for anybody since Ross Perot. But I will bet you a lot of these very same people are the ones who are now out there proclaiming that they are Bush's "base."

[Mr. Brightside]

Very well done.

We will miss G.W.Bush one day the same way me miss the Gipper.

[Huck]

She lost me with the Miers paragraph. Waaaay off the mark.

[Dixie Yooper]

Thank you.
Great reminder of the accomplishments of someone who is well on his way to becoming the greatest president of our lifetime, not the worst (as john edwards would want us to believe).

[ohioWfan]

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.”

This is a FANTASTIC article, and right on the money.

President Bush, "In essentials....... is very much what he ever was."

Those who are crying "Betrayed!" are the betrayers. He has not changed..........they have.

[Dinah Lord]

Thank you M. Thatcher.

[MJY1288]

This is the best thing I have ever read here on FR, Spot on analysis of who has abandoned who

Thank You!

[FastCoyote]

I agree with this article soooo much. Bush should be Sainted. He is a God. Not just any god, a God! To criticize is to blaspheme. HE knows what is good for us. The burdens of our sins are on HIS shoulders, I don't know how he can bear the burden.

[Artemis Webb]

Brilliant...moving...thought provoking...

shame on US.

[B Knotts]

It is good that conservatives are faithful to principle and not caught up in personality like Democrats are.

We are a nation of laws, not of men.

[MEGoody]

This is going to get the Bush haters all in an uproar. LOL

[luvbach1]

When I used the term Bushbot it was in general and was not directed at a specific person. As such it was not a personal attack. I define Bushbot as one who can not tolerate any criticism of the POTUS. I reserve the right to define it as I choose since it is not in my dictionary. Another poster voluteered to that she was a proud Bushbot although she disagreed with the president in other areas. I responded that while she could call herself a Bushbot, I did not have to. That was the extent of my "personal attacks." And although I paraphrased in this post, I did re-read my posts and the replies re use Bushbot. And I did agreed, when asked, that Bushbot could be a pjorative, but since I didn't direct the term at an indvidual (she claimed it) it could hardly have have been a personal attack.

[Lakeshark]

Ping. Read the article......it's good.

Then comment.

[AD from SpringBay]

bump

[avacado]

Excellent article. If I could write that well, I would have written exactly that.

Thanks!

[BellStar]

Thanks M. Thatcher!

[x]

We take politicians on trust. When we vote for them we accept them as they are, but we hope that they'll rise above what they've been. If we're clear eyed about things, we hope that they'll be better than just the usual politican or office seeker, but our hopes aren't always well founded.

People who vote for politicians pay them the tribute of thinking that such leaders would grow in office. Many voters wouldn't bother otherwise. And when it doesn't happen, it certainly does irk the electorate.

That's how people could be "disappointed" with Bill Clinton. We say Clinton as he was. They saw him as they dreamed he could be. And they were "surprised" and "disappointed" by his inability to rise above himself, his past record, and his personal limitations. It was like that with Nixon as well.

And it's like that with Bush. I'm not "surprised" by his performance. It's what I could have expected. But I am disappointed that he didn't do better on some key issues. It's not a question of honesty as it was with Clinton and Nixon.

I don't think it's so much a matter of ideology, either. Well, it is with regard to immigration. But it has more to do with competency and how well the administration handles things. I agree with President Bush on most of the issues, but am disappointed by his performance.

[CitizenJ]

Thanks.

[PISANO]

I have praised George Bush to the hilt and criticized some of his decisions and I have been very dissappointed with some of his policies, but ONE thing I can say is that I always KNOW where he stands, he doesn't placate and is a man of his word.

IMHO he is a true [outstanding] LEADER and I am proud and thankful that he is our President in these perilous times.

He IS that man standing tall and strong for ALL OF US on the RUBBLE of the WTC, he is that man that took symbolism to new heights when, wearing an armored vest he threw a PERFECT STRIKE in Yankee stadium for all the world to see.

He may NOT be a MAN for ALL SEASONS but he IS THE MAN for THIS SEASON!!!

[garbanzo]

You used to love that about him.

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%.