Posted on 11/16/2006 10:40:59 PM PST by KMAJ2
November 14, 2006
Thank You, Mr. President By George Shadroui
Bush has been one of a few conservatives in the country, along with a few folks at National Review and in Congress, to show a little class and grace in the midst of defeat.
George W. Bush, who led the Republicans and conservatives to three straight electoral victories, who won the White House against an incumbent Democratic administration, who rallied this nation after 9/11, and removed two oppressive regimes in Aghanistan and Iraq, is suddenly responsible for all that ails the nation.
This is no surprise to those of you who have been listening to the Democrats for six years, but now we have the Republicans and conservatives joining the chorus, the same folks who once celebrated the President as the next Churchill.
I have something to say to Joe Scarborough, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanan and the rest of the back bench second guessers who are maligning a good man whose winning percentage — close to 80 percent — is solid and who has more character than the rest of them combined.
Lay off. I am not sure what is more sickening, listening to Bill Maher or watching Scarborough and his media analysts cavorting as they try Freudian analysis on Bush and his father; or suggest with a straight face that the elder Bush and his team are foreign policy geniuses that George W. Bush should have consulted. You know, the guys who allowed tens of thousands of Shiites in the south to be massacred by Saddam because they refused to enforce the no-fly zone agreed to by the Butcher of Baghdad. Right, those geniuses.
As for Buchanan and Limbaugh, they so worked up the nation about immigration that they almost hand-delivered the Hispanic vote to the Democrats. What made this issue a national emergency all of sudden? Actually, nothing. President Bush's policy on immigration was similar to that of previous presidents, but his proposed solution is more creative than erecting a 700-mile wall.
You might also consider that in the mid 1990s Gingrich allowed Clinton to walk all over him at a time when Newt was touted as the hottest political genius since, well, Brent Scowcroft I guess.
It probably wouldn't hurt for all those hurting or gloating because of last week's election to simply be quiet. I appreciate the difficulty of this request, since many of them are paid to blather endlessly, but truthfully they have nothing relevant to say and they are losing their wits.
Bush has been one of a few conservatives in the country, along with a few folks at National Review and in Congress, to show a little class and grace in the midst of defeat. He did what any president should do when the opposing party wins — he extended his hand in partnership, but without offering up his principles. His Democratic enemies will show their true colors in due course and once the Republicans stop the bloodletting, they might get around to helping the President manage a tough war and the critical issues we confront as a nation.
But kicking a man when he's down has never been a sign of character. Republicans and Democrats might observe the example of Ronald Reagan. After beating Jimmy Carter in 1980, Reagan wanted desperately to reach out to the defeated President in a graceful way. Even as he prepared to take the oath of office, Reagan looked to Carter for news about the hostages in Iran in the hope that he could publicly credit Carter for securing their release. That's class.
President Bush is a good (but stubborn) man who has faced unprecedented calamities that would have tested even our greatest presidents. In fact, every president faces political setbacks and stands accused of major mistakes, particularly during time of war.
Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, Reagan — all hailed as great presidents in many quarters, but all of whom had as many detractors as supporters. Even Churchill stood accused of major military blunders during World War I, and after saving his nation and leading it to victory in World War II, was immediately tossed out of power.
It is one thing to suggest that the war in Iraq could be better managed or that the President strayed too far from conservative principles, quite another to suggest that he has failed on every front simply because a confluence of factors led to shift in the Congress.
Here's hoping the President gets it right in Iraq, and leaves the White House in good standing, because he's still the toughest we've got. After all, any man who can drive the terrorists to applaud a Democratic victory surely is doing something right.
Does this mean Bush is a saint ? Or that he made no mistakes ? Heck, no. I could make a long list of things I wish he had done. But whether I agree or disagree with all his policies does not change the quality of the man, he is a good and honorable man, one of character and firm beliefs. Those who engage in personal attacks reveal far more about their own character with their subconscious need to demean, pillory and demonize.
Thanks for your post I agree with you.
Maher and Scarborough are fools. Limbaugh and Buchanan are not. Bush has character, but showing "class" in the midst of defeat is NOT WHAT WE NEED. Many other things he's done are not what we need. We can still wish the man the best, while recognizing that he has screwed up many times.
never doubted Dubya here.......
bookmark
Nicely put.
I doubt he is down. Bush is much more astute than anyone gives him credit for and he understands how the world of politics work..he was raised in it after all. I don't feel sorry for him if that was the intent of this piece.
People like Rush will be lucky to be found on a microfiche document a thousand years from now. But after all their bloviating they will not erase the accomplishments of President Bush from forefront of US history.
[Maher and Scarborough are fools. Limbaugh and Buchanan are not.]
No disagreement on Maher and Scarborough. I am not one to worship at the feet of any talk show host. Limbaugh does a decent job at what he does, but he is not always right, either. Buchanan is someone I really do not give much thought to, he is too self-absorbed and has become an isolationist.
My main point was to argue the issues without demeaning the man because Bush is a good man. He has endured more personal attacks than any president in history, and he has not compromised 'his' beliefs or principles in the face of those attacks, even if we only partially share them.
Me either. He isn't perfect, but half or more of his "missteps" are due to an obstructionist Democratic Party and a mainstream media that lies and misrepresents to please its liberal masters.
Thank you, I agree. With the exception of Reagan, Bush is the most honorable president since Truman. He is worthy of more respect than turncoats like Scarborough.
I agree with you on each of these points. We need Bush to use Veto power, not to play nice, but I do applaud his class.
Another FReeper in denial.
George W. Bush suffered the worst Congressional defeat by a Republican President since Herbert Hoover in the 1932 election. Bush ignored his conservative base and the GOP paid the price at the polls on November 7th. The Democrats are back in power thanks to the poor leadership of Dubya.
I fully support this President.
I suppose some here may be in denial, but most would not forget that Nixon was the Republican President in 1972!
I fear that from here on out, he won't be good on much of anything. Hope I'm wrong.
Unfortunately, though Bush is a man of good character, he's either compromised his beliefs many times, or he never had conservative beliefs on those issues. Probably a combination of both. I am very tired of the man. Character isn't enough.
Kudos!
As I said, Bush bashers would come out and distort the facts, in 1958, Eisenhower lost 48 House seats and 13 Senate seats, in 1974, Nixon/Ford lost 48 House seats and 5 Senate seats and in 1986, Reagan lost only 5 House seats but lost 8 Senate seats. So your assessment of worst since Hoover is fraudulent.
Quite possibly, you might want to look in the mirror and shoulder some of the blame instead of pointing fingers.
The Nixon GOP wasn't in charge of Congress in 1972. The GOP lost 12 House seats and 2 Senate seats in 1972`s election. In 1932 Hoover lost to FDR, and the GOP lost control of Congress after 16 years in power, minus one two year term that the Dems controlled the Senate in the 65th Congress. GOP lost 95 House seats and 12 senate seats to the Democrats in 1932. In 2006 the GOP lost power after 12 years in control of the Congress, minus a 1-1/2 years with the Dems controlling the Senate.
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.