Where I disagree with many of you, is in thinking that humility and lack of self-defense are flaws in his character
"Humility." Humility is a virtue. It is not humility to allow political enemies to ride roughshod over your supporters; to ruin your policy initiatives. That is weakness. And, IMHO that was a flaw in the man we admire..
"Lack of Self Defense," has left us in the former President's party with a weak defense against sweeping changes that threaten to inundate us with government edicts and economic policies that could end our way of life. And, IMHO, that was a flaw in the man we admire.
kept me accutely aware of what the man was really doing, vs what was reported that he had done.
Why do you feel unique in that ability? Many of knew precisely what he had done, only to watch while he sat silent when it was mis-reported, misinterpreted. Again, that exposes his supporters to "derision," a feeling of which you seem acutely aware.
His deafness to calls for to more effective control of the border, for example, exposed his supporters to derision as "racists," and worse.
I really don't think that President Bush should have controlled the election process, do you? What do you suggest he might have done to keep Democrats from crossing over to vote for McCain? What would have been an appropriate action, short of something illegal, or some form of abuse of power, that would have had any effect?
Of course he could not "control the process." What he could have easily done is taken part in it, as was his duty as head of the party. I agree fully with you that as time passes, his standing as a good President will be established. But, his immediate legacy is before us on the TV screen, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., in all his marxist glory.
I want you to personally know, that during his Presidency, I did not "join in the chorus" of unhappiness with George W. Bush, rather I tended to defend him, even as you do now. Furthermore, I wouldn't dream of discussing this openly with members of the Democrat party, although I suppose this forum is an open book to them.
Now that he is out of office, and we in the GOP are left with the wreckage, it is not IMHO, the time for reticence. I don't propose that we disown him, just be aware of his mistakes in order to build upon them. Above all, we shouldn't waste our time in defending W in those areas where he did little to defend us against profligate spending, against illegal immigration, against a Democrat Congress that made his last term a disaster.
He kept us safe. That is the overriding success story of his 8 years. But he did not have the political leadership abilities and communication skills necessary to assure handing over the power of his office to someone who would continue with that basic need. In short, while you continue to loyally defend him, a virtue on your part, he did not fully return the favor.
You talk about political enemies "running roughshod over your supporters." What are you talking about? Did you think it was his job to verbally defend you? Or me? I don't. It was his job to protect this country from terrorist attack - and he did.
I really believe that blaming President Bush for the present state of the Republican party is hyperbolic and faulty. Elected Republicans are complete wimps. The fact that they are in disarray now is due to their own weakness. It's not the job of a former President, or a President leaving office to control the party. Reagan didn't do it. BushI didn't do it. Eisenhower didn't do it. Why should that have been GW's responsibility?
I don't feel "unique" in the ability to know what President Bush was doing. Of course there were others........but certainly not many. The majority of conservatives turned on him and were part of the attack. They didn't listen to anything he said, they blamed him for things he never did, and blamed him for not doing things he did do.
I don't think he was "deaf" at all. He was focused on his job, and certain that he should continue doing what he thought was best for the country.
Again - w regard to the election. How much do sitting Presidents involve themselves in the election of their successor when their VP doesn't run? I'd like to see some quotes or citations that ANY Republican President ever did that.
And again......the "wreckage" is the fault of a myriad of factors, and as long as the focus is solely on him, nothing will ever be done to correct the real problems in the Republican party -which are legion.
The focus on President Bush is counter-productive to solving the problems.
Final point. I do not in any way, shape or form, believe that it is a President's job to make me feel good, or "return the favor" of my support. However, I realize that what he did was to love this country, and defend its people. He loved the military and their families, and EVERY time he spoke, he patted all of us on the back and thanked us for our service. It wasn't his "job" to do so, but he did it anyway.
I'm sorry so many were not listening, and I'm sorry that some feel hurt that in not defending himself, he didn't do enough to defend us against the media slander, but I think that is fundamentally an emotional position, and doesn't jibe with the real responsibility of the President of the United States of America.
I'm sure the President would have been happy to 'hand over the power of his office to someone who would continue his policies'. Unfortunately, it was not he alone who got the Republican party to the point that regular voters didn't want to trust them with the economy, which was first and foremost in their minds at the time of the election. The Republicans in Congress had spent beyond what even the President wanted, and not being one to throw the baby out with the bath water, and not having a line item veto, he didn't want to turn down the full budgets, so they went on through. That, combined with the, what I consider suspicious, timing of the bank and investment house failures, served to turn even some Republicans toward the Democrat party, though they've never been known to be penurious with taxpayer dollars, so I don't know what they were thinking.
The average voter only knows what's shown on the nightly news, or what they read in the newspapers. If all they get it negativity toward all Republicans, they begin to think that maybe the Republicans don't have the answers, so they'll try the Democrat this time. We also had a candidate who was less than enthusiastic about the basic principles of the Republican Party. It's the nature of the political cycle. Unfortunately, that coincided with That One's rise, and his fawning, slobbering coverage by the MSM, so that people didn't even LISTEN to what he said he was going to do, they just felt good listening to him, and besides, voting for the cool black guy would assuage their white guilt.