Posted on 05/23/2006 8:34:45 AM PDT by Pokey78
NNow when he is at his lowest point yet in the polls is the time for those who love and admire President Bush to say so. Depending on the final success of his already successful campaign to bring the rudiments of democracy to Afghanistan and Iraq, George W. Bush, #43, may go down as a truly great president, who against fierce odds turned the entire Middle East in a new, more democratic, and more creative direction.
But I do not want to argue here the question of his greatness (I have heard voices call him the worst ever) because the question of ranking is above my pay grade and my foresight.
What I do want to argue is that, after Washington and Lincoln, Bush is the bravest of our presidents. He has faced the most intense fire, hatred, contempt, heavily moneyed and bitterly acidic partisan opposition, underhandedness, betrayal, of any president in the last hundred years. He has faced hostility over a longer time, in possibly the most dangerous period of international warfare in our national history. He has remained constant, firm, decided, and generous (to a fault) with his opponents.
He has faced almost unbroken contempt from the academy, from the mainstream press, from Democratic elites, from Moveon and all the other holders of the Democratic-party purse strings, from the Democratic Congress, from his treacherous (if not treasonous) Central Intelligence Agency, and from many levels of the permanent State Department. Almost every day, he has been pummeled and undermined by powerful forces of American power. Still, he has stayed firm, with clear arguments, and an even clearer vision.
On the number-one issue facing the nation—the war declared upon us by fascists who pretend to be religious—he has not wavered, he has not bent, he has stayed on course and true.
In Iraq, civil society, nearly comatose under Saddam Hussein, is today alive and full of vitality. Newspapers and television and magazines are full of diversity and energy, political parties multiply, private associations are functioning by the thousands, most of the country is more secure than some American cities. Iraqi exiles from around the world, far from fleeing, are coming back in droves.
In Paris, France, more cars may have been set on fire this past year than car bombings in Baghdad. In the decade of the Algerian war some time ago there may have been more bombings in France per week than there are now in Iraq. A tiny band of extremists, led by a crafty but crazed Jordanian, are still capable of impressive resourcefulness and ruthless killing, especially within camera reach of the hotels in Baghdad, where the American press is bunkered down. But they represent only a small fringe of Iraqi voters—and of course they loathe democracy with all their writhing intestines.
Despite the depredations, beheadings, and homicide bombings aimed at American public opinion, and especially elite opinion, President Bush has bravely kept his focus on eliminating one by one the dwindling band of terrorists, on the reconstruction of Iraqi civil society, and on the ability of Iraqi parties to broker and bargain and argue themselves into consensus in a political manner.
Whatever American voters may say of him to opinion pollsters—and his polls are now very low indeed—the survival of democracy in Iraq will in the future count as an enormous achievement. Moreover, the exchange in Arab minds of the "big idea" of democracy for the grand illusions of the past (Arab nationalism, Arab socialism, Baathist dictatorship, pan-Arabism), may a generation from now confer on President Bush the unmistakable honor of having been one of those presidents who actually changed the course of history. A president who changed the course of history, yes—and also one who did so against unprecedented opposition at home, bitter and hysterical opposition, even from those who were formerly of the party of democracy, human rights, and international outreach.
It takes more bravery to continue walking calmly through immense hostility at home, than to face down a foreign foe, with a united nation at one's back. This, as I say, is a very brave president.
It may also turn out that, despite currently swirling furies, the president's stout refusal to be merely partisan or to throw red meat to some of his best supporters (he knew as well as anybody what they most wanted now), alongside the five interlinked courses of action he proposed, will have empowered a much more thorough immigration reform than seemed possible even four weeks earlier.
Despite a normal diet of failures and setbacks, common to all presidents, it is also worth counting up his steady, always surprising successes in cutting taxes, in reshaping the Supreme Court, in getting personal Social Security accounts and personal medical accounts on the agenda of public discussion (the first president since Roosevelt to touch the third rail and live to tell of it), and in presiding over the most amazing economy in the world during the past six years.
Polls may be fickle. Notable accomplishments endure, as rock-solid facts. The full record of this president may yet turn out to be as highly ranked as his bravery is bound to be.
If you were in his shoes, would you not prefer the fame of 30 years from now to popularity in your own time? Being popular is neither within one's own control nor, in the larger scheme, a goal worth pursuing. Doing the right thing steadily, as best one can, is.
I like this guy. And I admire his guts, and his decency.
— Michael Novak is the winner of the 1994 Templeton Prize for progress in religion and the George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy, and Public Policy at the American Enterprise Institute. Novak's own website is www.michaelnovak.net.
What is the use of a law if the enforcement of it does not deter the crime the law is to remedy?
How many business have been busted? How many businesses use illegal aliens? Bubba enforced the law better than president Bush.
It's always possible to come up with some isolated instances, but businesses are not afraid to hire illegals. Why not?
What branch of government has the job of executing laws, patrolling the border? Who currently is chief of that branch?
Mr. Terrell...the left has had 60 YEARS to incrementally implement its agenda. It started with Roosevelt packing the Supreme Court in 1936...and ended with the overthrow of the Democratic Congress in 1994. For the First time ever, this year, there is a small margin on the Supreme Court, of Constitutional judges. We need two more to make it secure. Then, incrementally, over a generation or two, we may be fortunate enough to hand an America to our grandchildren....provided enough of us don't have an adolescent snit that our standardbearers haven't accomplished a generations worth of work in three years.
Maybe enough realize that paralyzing risk aversion ala Clintoon is not the way to run a country.
Since you don't know my position on illegal immigration, you cannot judge its defensibility or lack thereof. As for the President's position, I agree with some parts and not others. Merely because I do not entirely agree with him (or anyone else, for that matter) does not make his position indefensible, merely different from my own.
To insist on such a negative connotation, and cap it with your gratuitous "many bigots" epithet is arrogant and elitist...
It is neither arrogant nor elitist. It is true. I live in Southern California and know whereof I speak on this particular point. However, many does not mean all nor even the majority. Just to use a very simple example: if 1,000,000 people want a wall across the entire southern border and, oh, 50,000 want it for bigoted reasons, that is a small percentage of the whole. Nevertheless, 50,000 is many people.
The reasons for anger among opponents of this view are varied, but largely boil down to: (1) wanting to be seen as the only pure conservatives, and (2) clothing themselves as innocent, betrayed victims of an intransigent President and the "benighted" people whose viewpoint is more in agreement with him than with his opponents.
Thank you president Bush!
There's the truth for anyone with eyes to see. People like you don't really want to solve the illegal immigration problem (or any problem). You just want something to bitch about. Sowing division is your real goal.
Excellent Pokey! Thank you for posting this.
Will Pitt, have you surfaced? ;)
Feel free to leave.
When there are more people in the wagon than pulling it, it stops running. But you open borders types don't really understand that.
Oh, and I hope you checking account is good and full, since I assume you are willing to subsidize your largesse.
The absence of thought and analysis in your answer simply confirms what I said last time, so that response is equally relevant this time - I invite you to read it more thoughtfully. You, like the President, chose to assign negative motivation to your opponent rather than engage substantively. Further discussion seems pointless. Freepmail me if you would like a more complete explanation.
Not interested. No one tiny bit. Make of that what you will.
bump
Next there are dupes, in the case of 1984, those covering their own skins. Such dupes are the likes of the Hollywood left. The Dixie Chicks and others are in this category. Thus, the hatred, carefully orchestrated, takes on a life of it's own. It draws more and more dupes into a sort of vortex. Cindy Sheehan, is a first class example. Originally she had met GWB and had a different view.
Take the reverse situation. In Canada we had "Trudeau mania". Screaming crowds, scarce knowing anything about this arrogant,whimsical, socialist. Yet, we had 3000 of 'em in my adopted city 1968. They rushed down to a local park, to see and cheer him. The man hardly knew that city existed after that.
On George W. Bush.
I hold it that his moral resolution, stamps him as one of the greatest leaders to emerge in the last 100 years.
I guess I really don't understand this.
Illegals strike me as people who ARE pulling the wagon, because they work bloody hard.
I think many of them epitomize our traditional values of hard work and striving against very difficult odds to succeed.
Because of this, I really don't understand why they are so put down. All they want to do is work and I see no reason to prevent them from this.
If they are overburdening our social services, well, perhaps we need to rethink how our social services are being provided. I think we'd find a lot of waste and incompetence.
Finally, it's interesting to note that illegals are not so hated in Texas, probably because the services are not as generous as California. Perhaps the solution should be Texas-style services for illegals.
I'll bet that would be a lot cheaper than a wall.
D
OK, I will help you.
Illegals strike me as people who ARE pulling the wagon, because they work bloody hard.
They also take more than 20 BILLION per year more out of the economy than they put in. They create a permanent underclass. The artificially depress wages, which pulls down the living standard for everyone.
I think many of them epitomize our traditional values of hard work and striving against very difficult odds to succeed.
Their very first act in his country is a crime. The crime continues as long as they are here. 87% of all outstanding arrest warrants in Los Angeles county are for illegals. Over 50% of the prison population is made up of illegals. Illegals are 4 times more likely to commit serious felonies than legal citizens.
Because of this, I really don't understand why they are so put down. All they want to do is work and I see no reason to prevent them from this.
Like I said, if YOU want to pay for them, have at it. The USA has a duty to decide its immigration requirements. It is not up to invaders to come here and then say "I am here -- you must accept me."
If they are overburdening our social services, well, perhaps we need to rethink how our social services are being provided. I think we'd find a lot of waste and incompetence.
So what? That will always exist. Waste and incompetence should be weeded out anyway, not to pay for the entire world's poor.
Finally, it's interesting to note that illegals are not so hated in Texas, probably because the services are not as generous as California. Perhaps the solution should be Texas-style services for illegals.
You keep using the word "hate." That is playing the race card and is total crap.
I'll bet that would be a lot cheaper than a wall.
A wall would be 1/10th of ONE YEAR's losses as a result of illegal immigration.
Here, I'll leave you with a display for your back yard:
How many did Reagan veto? The President doesn't have the line-item veto, does he? I'm sure he, like Reagan before him, doesn't think it best to completely stop a full budget in its tracks.
Virtually everyone in the US is a criminal. I blow by the "Speed limit 25" signs on Pittsburgh's "major" roads at 45mph, just like everyone else does. Nobody catches us, even though the penalties for such a huge increment over the limit are outrageous.
I think of being an illegal as being similar to violating the speed limit, not robbing someone's home.
Do you have more detail on those statistics? For instance, if the people with arrest warrants have them for the "catch and release" program, I don't really care. If they have them for robberies or murders, you may have a point. Same with jail time; you're not differentiating serious and non-serious offenses.
You have not said anything that rebuts my presumption that most illegals are hard workers and would eventually make good citizens because of it. Being a citizen or not being a citizen is just an accident of what side of the border you are born on. I don't see people having a moral advantage or disadvantage for being born on one side versus the other.
Do we not have millions of welfare mooches who are absolute, paid-up citizens? I'd love to trade them for a few hard-working illegals.
More people means more growth and opportunity for all, especially in a country with 5% or less unemployment. I like to see that. I'm surprised so many others don't.
D
"How many did Reagan veto?"
A lot more than Bush has (which, again, for Bush was zero so far).
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.