Posted on 02/04/2008 5:14:17 AM PST by SJackson
Before and after President George W. Bush’s final State of the Union address, his critics hammered away at his record. For instance, in their “pre-buttal,” delivered some four days before Monday’s State of the Union, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took turns attacking Bush’s foreign policy, counterterrorism strategies, foreign-aid programs, education reforms and healthcare initiatives. Then, in her response to Bush’s address, Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas declared, “The last five years have cost us dearly—in lives lost; in thousands of wounded warriors whose futures may never be the same; in challenges not met here at home because our resources were committed elsewhere.” And just before noting that Americans “have no more patience for divisive politics,” she added, “If more Republicans in Congress stand with us this year, we won’t have to wait for a new president to restore America’s role in the world, and fight a more effective war on terror.”
All of this is to be expected, and none of it is out of bounds, especially in an election year. However, the Left’s deep-down disgust with George W. Bush continues to amaze. After all, this is the man who, according to Peggy Noonan, “destroyed the Republican Party.” But even if Noonan has succumbed to a bit of rhetorical excess, there are other reasons the Left might, at least, appreciate the Bush presidency.
Take, for example, how he eschewed the realism embraced by the wise old men in his own party—the ones who bequeathed to him and his predecessor the radicalized chaos of Afghanistan, the “stability” of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the open-ended occupation of Saudi Arabia, the Middle East “peace process, the measured responses to the mass-murder of Marines in Beirut—and instead pursued a foreign policy that looked and sounded more like Woodrow Wilson’s than that of the elder Bush.
“The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder,” he declared. “They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life.”
And there was more.
“The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands,” he intoned in 2005. “America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one… So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”
“It is presumptuous and insulting to suggest that a whole region of the world—or the one-fifth of humanity that is Muslim—is somehow untouched by the most basic aspirations of life,” he preached in the early days of his presidency, sounding positively Wilsonian.
But these weren’t mere words. There was action behind them: When the Left writes its history of the Bush presidency, there will be no mention that his was the first administration to officially call for the creation of a Palestinian state, long a cause championed by America’s Left. Of course, the tradeoff was that Bush refused to deal with Arafat and his terrorist brethren.
Bush launched genuine wars of liberation that freed women from a medieval monstrosity in Afghanistan and shut down a vast torture chamber in Iraq. In place of the Taliban and the Baathists, Bush propped up a pair of progressive, popular governments in the heart of the Muslim world, bolstering them with the sort of open-ended, nation-building efforts the Left once championed in places like Haiti and Bosnia and Kosovo. He created new aid programs to support pro-freedom elements behind Islam’s iron curtain. And he carried out a long-overdue withdrawal of troops from the theocratic thugocracy in Saudi Arabia.
His policies would be equally dramatic—and one would think, equally appealing to the Left—in the realm of arms control. The Left maintained that nuclear arms reductions would solve the world’s problems. President Bush set America on a path to slash its nuclear arsenal from 7,000 warheads to just over 2,000, and convinced Moscow to do the same. It’s the sort of disarmament program Bush’s predecessors could only imagine but dared not attempt. So why isn’t the Left celebrating Bush’s sweeping reductions?
Likewise, the president’s critics on the Left overlook the development programs he poured into the chronically undeveloped world. “We must include every African, every Asian, every Latin American, every Muslim, in an expanding circle of development,” he explained. And then he increased and revitalized foreign aid with his Millennium Challenge Account program. He conceived and promoted huge new aid programs in Africa, devoting perhaps $45 billion to the global fight against AIDS.
Here at home, Bush supported something close to amnesty for illegal immigrants. The Right punished him for it, and the Left certainly didn’t applaud him personally.
Under his administration, albeit partly as a result of the forces unleashed by 9/11, federal spending grew from $1.9 trillion to about $3 trillion. But government growth was also aide by new entitlements like Medicare Part D, the widely popular and costly prescription benefit Bush endorsed, and new education spending under No Child Left Behind, which Bush promoted. In fact, in his first five years in office, as USA Today reported, Bush increased K-12 education spending by an average of seven percent annually—more than double the increases his predecessor achieved.
So the question remains: Why do liberals despise this big-government, big-spending, humanitarian, nation-building, idealistic, internationalist, arms-cutting president? And why do so many conservatives still defend him?
Ironically, the two sides may have the same reasons for their divergent opinions of this polarizing president.
First and foremost, Bush defeated two of the Left’s standard-bearers in bitterly contested elections.
In 2000, he refused to back down during the Orwellian post-election campaign of Al Gore, author and chief adherent of the global-warming creed. That endeared Bush to the Right and enraged the Left.
Then, Bush played hardball in 2004, overcame incredibly high odds as an unpopular president presiding over an unpopular war, and defeated a leftist archetype in John Kerry.
These were Bush’s original—and unforgiveable—sins.
Speaking of sin, Bush openly talked about how Jesus changed his heart, how his evangelical faith shaped his decisions. Not coincidentally, he encouraged government agencies to make more room for faith-based groups. The Left’s reaction was predictable. A 2003 piece in The Nation condemned Bush’s “heretical manipulation of religious language,” declaring that “Bush’s discourse coincides with that of the false prophets of the Old Testament.”
In 2006, Kevin Phillips, who never fails to remind us that he was a Republican strategist, concluded that “the White House is courting end-times theologians” and embracing “a crusading, simplistic Christianity.” “No leading world power in modern memory,” he inveighed, “has become a captive of the sort of biblical inerrancy that dismisses modern knowledge and science.”
But it was more than Bush’s religiousness, alleged “manipulation” of religion, or connection with the evangelical wing of Christianity that drove the Left to dislike him so much. It had to be.
After all, Jimmy Carter openly shared his born-again, evangelical faith with Americans. Likewise, Bill Clinton wore his faith on his sleeve. Indeed, in the post-Lewinsky era, he seemingly spent more time with evangelical pastors than he did with his cabinet and staff. As E.J. Dionne has observed, “Bill Clinton could quote Scripture with the best of them. Bill Clinton could preach with the best of them. He gave some very powerful speeches at Notre Dame, where he sounded Catholic; at African-American churches, where he sounded (African Methodist Episcopal) or Baptist…He quoted Scripture at least as much, if not more than George W. Bush does.” And it should be recalled Bush’s faith-based programs have their roots in Clinton’s Charitable Choice reforms, which opened the way for religious charities to compete for federal grants and use federal resources to provide social services to those in need.
So what is it about Bush’s faith that provokes such venom? I would submit that much of it has to do with the way his faith informed his position on unborn life.
As a consequence, he would veto a bill that used tax dollars to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos in support of stem-cell research. “Our conscience calls us to pursue the possibilities of science in a manner that respects human dignity and upholds our moral values,” he observed, reminding Congress of a timeless truth: Just because we can do something, just because science makes something possible, doesn’t mean we should do it.
Plus, Bush would appoint judges and justices that seemed open to pulling the plug on Roe. He would reinstate the ban on federal assistance to international abortion providers. His administration would notify states that Medicaid would no longer cover abortion pill RU486—and that states could provide medical coverage under the Children’s Health Insurance Program to “unborn children.” His administration would promote “embryo adoption.”
As others have observed, Roe is the Left’s Holy of Holies. To undermine it is to commit blasphemy, heresy, and the abomination of desolation.
Finally, the Left’s hatred of Bush has been propelled by his stalwart stance on what one observer shrewdly calls “the wars of 9/11”—the military operations that inevitably followed and will continue to follow the attacks on America’s homeland.
Again, the Left’s reaction was predictable. Since the 1960s, the Left has grown increasingly opposed to the use of American power. Viewing everything through the prism of Vietnam, the Left distrusts American power and sees war itself as the enemy.
In addition, the wars of 9/11 served as fuel for Bush’s black-and-white view of the world—even George Will calls him “our Manichean president”—which view further alienated Bush from the Left. In this regard, it pays to recall that the postmodernism which captivates and animates much of the Left assures us that there are no differences between evil and good, no objective truth, no absolutes—except, of course, the absolute that claims there are no absolutes. Thus, someone who uses phrases like “Axis of Evil” and “evil doers” and “monumental struggle of good versus evil” and, as he did during his final State of the Union, “evil men who despise freedom,” is not likely to be embraced by those who see the world in shades of grey.
But those who believe there is good and evil, that force is not inherently evil, that there is even a time for war, would rally around such a president, which may explain why many conservatives still support the president and many leftists never did.
“I’m not crazy, they are.”
“BDS is irrational while MDS is rational.”
That’s what ALL infected folks say.
“It’s simply a matter of economics. If a market has only one choice, then that gives great power to those who control that item. In our case it is oil.”
Ever ask yourself why we never use something other than oil for fuel? Why the market has never thrown up anything else?
“It’s not disputable. Give the market a choice other than oil, and you’ll bring an end to the power of the mid-east jihadists.”
We are a petroleum based civilization, Gasoline/heating oil are just a small part of what we get from petroleum, it’s in darn near everything.
From Wikipedia
The following is a partial list of the major commercial petrochemicals and their derivatives:
ethylene - the simplest olefin; used as a ripening hormone, a monomer and a chemical feedstock
polyethylenes - polymerized ethylene
ethanol - made by hydration (chemical reaction adding water) of ethylene
ethylene oxide - sometimes called oxirane; can be made by oxidation of ethylene
ethylene glycol - from hydration of ethylene oxide or oxidation of ethylene
engine coolant - contains ethylene glycol
polyesters - any of several polymers with ester linkages in the backbone chain
glycol ethers - from condensation of glycols
ethoxylates
vinyl acetate
1,2-dichloroethane
trichloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene - also called perchloroethylene; used as a dry cleaning solvent and degreaser
vinyl chloride - monomer for polyvinyl chloride
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) - type of plastic used for piping, tubing, other things
propylene - used as a monomer and a chemical feedstock
isopropyl alcohol - 2-propanol; often used as a solvent or rubbing alcohol
acrylonitrile - useful as a monomer in forming Orlon, ABS
polypropylene - polymerized propylene
propylene oxide
propylene glycol - sometimes used in engine coolant
glycol ethers - from condensation of glycols
isomers of butylene - useful as monomers or co-monomers
isobutylene - feed for making methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) or monomer for copolymerization with a low percentage of isoprene to make butyl rubber
1,3-butadiene - a diene often used as a monomer or co-monomer for polymerization to elastomers such as polybutadiene or a plastic such as acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS)
synthetic rubbers - synthetic elastomers made of any one or more of several petrochemical (usually) monomers such as 1,3-butadiene, styrene, isobutylene, isoprene, chloroprene; elastomeric polymers are often made with a high percentage of conjugated diene monomers such as 1,3-butadiene, isoprene, or chloroprene
higher olefins
polyolefins such poly-alpha-olefins which are used as lubricants
alpha-olefins - used as monomers, co-monomers, and other chemical precursors. For example, a small amount of 1-hexene can be copolymerized with ethylene into a more flexible form of polyethylene.
other higher olefins
detergent alcohols
acrylic acid
acrylic polymers
allyl chloride -
epichlorohydrin - chloro-oxirane; used in epoxy resin formation
epoxy resins - a type of polymerizing glue from bisphenol A, epichlorohydrin, and some amine
benzene - the simplest aromatic hydrocarbon
ethylbenzene - made from benzene and ethylene
styrene made by dehydrogenation of ethylbenzene; used as a monomer
polystyrenes - polymers with styrene as a monomer
cumene - isopropylbenzene; a feedstock in the cumene process
phenol - hydroxybenzene; often made by the cumene process
acetone - dimethyl ketone; also often made by the cumene process
bisphenol A - a type of “double” phenol used in polymerization in epoxy resins and making a common type of polycarbonate
epoxy resins - a type of polymerizing glue from bisphenol A, epichlorohydrin, and some amine
polycarbonate - a plastic polymer made from bisphenol A and phosgene (carbonyl dichloride)
solvents - liquids used for dissolving materials; examples often made from petrochemicals include ethanol, isopropyl alcohol, acetone, benzene, toluene, xylenes
cyclohexane - a 6-carbon aliphatic cyclic hydrocarbon sometimes used as a non-polar solvent
adipic acid - a 6-carbon dicarboxylic acid which can be a precursor used as a co-monomer together with a diamine to form an alternating copolymer form of nylon.
nylons - types of polyamides, some are alternating copolymers formed from copolymerizing dicarboxylic acid or derivatives with diamines
caprolactam - a 6-carbon cyclic amide
nylons - types of polyamides, some are from polymerizing caprolactam
nitrobenzene - can be made by single nitration of benzene
aniline - aminobenzene
methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) - used as a co-monomer with diols or polyols to form polyurethanes or with di- or polyamines to form polyureas
polyurethanes
alkylbenzene - a general type of aromatic hydrocarbon which can be used as a presursor for a sulfonate surfactant (detergent)
detergents - often include surfactants types such as alkylbenzenesulfonates and nonylphenol ethoxylates
chlorobenzene
toluene - methylbenzene; can be a solvent or precursor for other chemicals
benzene
toluene diisocyanate (TDI) - used as co-monomers with diols or polyols to form polyurethanes or with di- or polyamines to form polyureas
polyurethanes - a polymer formed from diisocyanates and diols or polyols
benzoic acid - carboxybenzene
caprolactam
nylon
mixed xylenes - any of three dimethylbenzene isomers, could be a solvent but more often precursor chemicals
ortho-xylene - both methyl groups can be oxidized to form (ortho-)phthalic acid
phthalic anhydride
para-xylene - both methyl groups can be oxidized to form terephthalic acid
dimethyl terephthalate - can be copolymerized to form certain polyesters
polyesters - although there can be many types, polyethylene terephthalate is made from petrochemical products and is very widely used.
purified terephthalic acid - often copolymerized to form polyethylene terephthalate
polyesters
No, neither would I. It’s all so confusing.
The market has given us choices. Solar, ethanol, wind, geothermal and cow gas (methane).
The fact that none of these have made a dent in the demand for oil testifies to their technical inadequacy to compete with oil in cost, transportability, and BTU's per unit volume.
Peak oil is an environmentalists myth. We know where there is more oil than we have ever had in reserves before now. It's tougher to obtain cause its deeper - but its there and we just need a bit of human resolve to go get it. Some of it is easy to get, but because it isn't politically correct to mess up 50 acres of tundra (out of several million acres), it is left untouched.
A single recent find by Petrobras off the coast of Brazil has the potential to be another Saudi Arabia or Iraq. Oil sands and shale are now becoming economically feasible to refine at a profit. They total more than all the oil yet extracted in the last 100 years.
To generate enough electricity to equal 50% of current US requirements, you would need to cover 11 Eastern states with solar cells - not a bad idea, but an economic disaster. Ethanol production is already pricing tortillas out of the reach of poor Mexicans.
Your right: "It’s simply a matter of economics." The main problem is few people understand the real economics behind our petroleum based economy. And we haven't even touched on the trillion dollars of infrastructure that is in place to support the petroleum economy that doesn't yet exist for any other form of energy.
Sorry, but the market has not given us another choice.
Flex-fuel is entirely and economically feasible, but the automakers aren’t making flex fuel engines which would run just fine on gasoline.
In the case of methanol (and other fuel) from coal...our MOST significant avenue for real choice ... that’s being held up by enviro-wackos.
And they are the ones holding up explotation of known petroleum reserves in ANWR and offshore in the Gulf of Mexico and Florida. Current shortages are entirely contrived - by the PC crowd.
And it looks like we will have a President that buys-in to the enviro-fascists gloom-doomism. Both Democrats and McCain (hesitate to call him a Republican) are fervent GW believers.
I'm more anti illegals than most, but it's pretty damn clear you've never met a Mexican family, much less had the conversations you claim.
I think you've spent a little too much time alone with your MOI
Riiight!
The jihadis will put down their swords.
The lefties will stop practicing abortion.
Je$$e Jackson will stop shaking down corporations.
Dems will end welfare.
Professors will start hating Marx and loving America.
Mexico will help secure our common border.
China will scale back its military and stop flooding our markets with cheap dangerous crap.
Chuckie Schumer will propose a nationwide concealed carry without permits program.
Why didn't we see it before? It's not Bush, It's that Eeeeevil Petroleum!!!
I think you've contracted PDS. Petroleum Derangement Syndrome.
In that sense, they're actually libertarian, but will happily take free money from anyone.
They simply don't make a connection between politics and faith, but as a group are very religous.
Have you ever seen a Mexican take a stand over anything but living here or money? They don't.
Sigh...
So much to explain. So little insight.
I’ve got your rational choice in post #31.
I’ll pray for you to have some insight. ;^)
President Bush legacy:
President Bush led our brave troops to destroy 2 terrorist regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan and freed 50 million people.
President Bush led our troops to destroy Al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan.
President Bush protected us since 9/11 and we did not have a terrorist attack in America since then.
President Bush cut our taxes which helped us out of recession, the Clinton recession, and thus has helped in giving us one of the best economic prosperity on record.
President Bush appointed two great conservative Supreme Court Justices.
President Bush is the most pro-life President since Roe Vs Wade criminality has been established.
If not for President Bush great and strong leadership we would have surrendered to the terrorists long time ago and the world would be living the new Dark Ages.
God bless President Bush. God bless our brave troops. God bless America.
We will miss you a lot Mr. President, we will miss you a lot.
You don’t have to wait 36 hours. McCain has truly become a man hated by the Right. And with good reason.
“
When it comes to smarmy ways to say “I can’t defend my position” you’re not very creative.
Ooooohhhhhhh nooooooo...as long as W’s alive they’ll be full of venom. As long as conservatism and Christianity are still alive, they’ll be full of venom; so in short, they’ll ALWAYS be full of their venom, and imagine when Bush dies and has the funeral befitting of him as did Reagan...
nah, these people are truly sick!
Actually, “ditto” means that you repeat what you previously said.
But, “insight” was your issue.
It’s economics 101. A market with one choice is easily controlled. A market with choices is less easily controlled.
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.