Posted on 08/29/2007 4:34:41 AM PDT by fabrizio
I think this is a great analysis by the brilliant Michael Novak. I agree with most of his analysis — it’s one of the few analyses that puts Bush’s record within the context of the times: he doesn’t mention the recession and market meltdown that Bush inherited from Clinton but makes the point that the terrorist attacks on 9/11 drove much of the policy decisions during both terms in office.
What Bush’s two terms have painfully missed is an effective bully pulpit spokesman. Bush is just lousy at it, except his major set-piece speaches. Cheney could have done that (although I’m sure he wouldn’t have relished the role) but I’m sure they worried about Cheney taking too much of the spotlight. That’s where we’ve really missed the Gipper. If Bush could have effectively taken his major initiatives to the people — going over the heads of the media elites — I think his record would have been much better. And with that ability, maybe he would have done some things differently (like CFR).
It is a shame, really, that he was crippled by the inability to communicate effectively.
So how would you rate Reagan on the issue of illegals? Don’t we measure modern-day conservativism by him?
To a point. Bush was supposed to lead Congress. I have always thought that Congress, especially in the first two years of his presidency, wanted him to lead them into a stronger conservative direction. When they saw he had no intention of stopping pork and, in fact, proposed increased spending they said, "What the heck? Why not do it ourselves?". And, off we went.
Education: Pure deal-making with a supposedly Republican Congress and liberals demanding compensation for losing a close election. To his credit, Bush did try and institute some standards for getting the money.
Once agian. He could have stood up to the liberals. He had a republican Congress waiting to support him.
Immigration: I believe it was a matter of timing as I noted in another response. In the first term, the economy would have suffered from such a crack down. In the second term, we see more of it. Surely the result of conservative pressure but also made more palatable by an improved economy.
Bush has always wanted a "new America". He was convinced that people like you and me gave him a mandate to do before he was even elected.
If 9-11 hadn't happened where do you think we'd be today?
| We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We're a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture. Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey ... and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende. For years our nation has debated this change -- some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America. As I speak, we are celebrating the success of democracy in Mexico. George Bush from a campaign speech in Miami, August 2000. |
Here is an excerpt of a good critique of that speech:
In equating our intimate historic bonds to our mother country and to Canada with our ties to Mexico, W. shows a staggering ignorance of the civilizational facts of life. The reason we are so close to Britain and Canada is that we share with them a common historical culture, language, literature, and legal system, as well as similar standards of behavior, expectations of public officials, and so on. My Bush Epiphany By Lawrence Auster
To be honest, these days, I do wish I’d taken more Spanish in school and probably less Latin and Ancient Greek. :-) But we were talking about illegal immigration, not the Spanish language.
bump
I guess so. It bears absolutely no relation to the old kind of conservatism. At they rate they're changing it then in about 20 years Hillary Clinton will be considered a conservative.
To deny that the two go hand in hand in these times is foolish. We aren't being invaded, with tacit approval from Bush, by millions of Gaelic speaking Irish, Polish speaking Poles, Chinese speaking Chinese, English speaking Australians, German speaking Germans, etc.
He also doesn't mention Medicare Perscription plans, No Child Left Behind, the Katrina boondoggle, the fact that government spending has been increasing at a double digit rate, and dozens of other things that make it clear that Bush is not a conservative. Except that he rewrote the definition of conservative so that he is. How convenient.
There were many Spanish-speaking voters in America in 2000. Bush was attempting to get their votes. Being from Texas, he speaks fluent Spanish. Nothing wrong with that. Like it or not, our nation is increasingly becoming a melting pot, and it started long before George W. Bush took office. If we refuse to try to attract minorities to the conservative movement, we’re going to be but a footnote in American politics in a very short time.
Wrong Bush. Jeb Bush is fluent in Spanish. President Bush's doesn't speak more than a phrase or two.
Have you ever heard him go to Boston and speak to the Irish - to Chicago to speak to the Poles - to Chinatown (in Chicago, San Fransicko, New York) to speak to the Chinese - to Minnesota to speak to the Swedes - to Milwaukee to speak to the Germans, etc? He has only focused on one immigrant group - the hispanics. Why?
Like it or not, our nation is increasingly becoming a melting pot, and it started long before George W. Bush took office.
Yes, and through Bush's policies it is now a chili pot.
If we refuse to try to attract minorities to the conservative movement, we’re going to be but a footnote in American politics in a very short time.
Pandering to hispanics even upsets Hispanics that have assimilated.
Why is Bush pandering to a class of people (illegal immigrants of hispanic heritage) the are uneducated and unskilled? Is that what YOU see as the future of the United States?
Thank you so much. I get very tired of hearing that crap - "Well, our candidate is a creep, but he's not as much of a creep as their candidate.
People, let's stop voting for creeps!
Actually, employers often have to make do with what they can get. They end up compensating for failures of schools, often, by teaching needed literacy and math skills, for instance. You guys who evaluate your presidential candidates on some theoretical and philosophical purity scale may never have worked your way throug a stack of resumes.
I guess you didn't read the article. It's mentioned quite plainly.
I don't think he's pandering any more than I think Reagan was.
I say take the tax cuts away as one of his achievements. Temporary only. They expire after 2010 and you think Hildabeast or any marxist congress will vote to keep them? The ‘pubs are toast in 2008. Even if FDT wins the presidency, what could he do with a hardcore leftist congress?
" seem to overlook some stirring initiatives by this much-attacked president—such as his work on AIDS, for the poor in Africa, and against human trafficking. However deficient you think his judgment may have been about what was possible, no president has ever been more openly pro-life."
Pro-life? Yup.
Aids and the poor in Africa? $ down a sh*thole. No one will remember Pres. Bush for any Africa initiative.
That's the best the writer can come up with?
“Clinton says”
Like I believe anything those scum say.
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.