Regards, Ivan
Posted on 05/03/2003 3:00:27 AM PDT by MadIvan
What did you make of Dubya in his Top Gun get-up landing on the USS Lincoln out in the Pacific? Opinion on the Right seems to be divided. Howard Feinman on MSNBC said it was the "strong horse" speech: you'll recall the late Osama, in his farewell video appearance in 2001, said that "when people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse". Some, however, thought the stallionesque aspects were excessive: Andrew Sullivan worries that the President appeared "hubristic".
Most of the rest, seeing the Commander-in-Chief climbing out of the cockpit in the north Pacific, are trilling deliriously, as in South Pacific, "I'm in love, I'm in love, I'm in love, I'm in love, I'm In Love With A Wonderful Guy!"
Speaking of horse-like aspects, a significant sub-set of the above group have emailed me photos of the flight-suited jock and drawn attention to the presidential lunchbox, the most prominent political package since Al Gore appeared in tight bluejeans on the cover of Rolling Stone with his thumbs in his belt loops to hoist his gusset tighter. Having spent most of the 42nd presidency discussing the distinguishing characteristics of the executive branch, I think we need to "move on".
Over on the Left, meanwhile, it's business as usual: "Oh, sure, he 'flew the plane'. He flew the easy bits - the straight part in mid-air. Anyone can do that - look at Mohammed Atta. Bush didn't do the tricky tailhook landing, did he? And we're still not winning the hearts and minds in Iraq - did you see that anti-American demo the other day?
"Okay, it was about a tenth of the size of the one in Berkeley, but that just shows you how bad things are going. And don't give me that hung-like-a-stallion stuff. That's just the way they design those army suits, to ease the sexual insecurities of the impotent white American male - see Norman Mailer, at great length. You want a real strong horse? Check out the guy second from the left in the New York City Ballet..."
Meanwhile, a show about a numbskull Prez who thinks he's invading a country called "Iraqistania" looks like being the biggest thing on the West End stage since Cats.
The Madness of George Dubya is really an example of the madness George Dubya causes in his opponents. Let us take it as read that he is not as verbally fluid as his predecessor, who was positively brimming with fluids. On the other hand, few Democrats are, either. Senator Bob Graham was on television last Sunday, repeatedly referring to Sars as "Scars", but no snooty media types made cracks about it.
Speaking as a third-rate hack, I'd say articulacy is greatly overrated. Watching the President fly in, I envied a guy who can control an S-3B Viking. I've been in enough Piper Cubs to figure I'd have a sporting chance if the bad guy shot the pilot and I had to pull the plane out of a tailspin and save me and Pussy Galore.
But if it was an F102 Delta Dagger, like Bush flew in the 1960s, me and Pussy would be in big trouble. If Bush, who got a National Guard deferment for Vietnam, is a draft dodger like Clinton (as the Lefties charge), he's a dodger of a different order.
I shall say no more because I sense a touch of the Rageh Omaars coming on. Like the BBC's squealing schoolgirl giving the full Monica to a Saddamite bureaucrat ("Once you have tasted the waters of the Tigris, you can never forget Baghdad!!!"), I feel the urge to lapse into orgasmic multiple exclamations: Man, you are way cool!!!! That flight was, like, totally awesome!!!!!
The chaps who dismiss Bush as a moron forget that what counts is what a guy does when he's not talking. It's true that he didn't know the name of the leader of Wackistan before he became president. But one advantage of that is that he isn't the prisoner of his past the way, say, Chirac, Schröder and Putin are. Chirac the sleazy deal-maker, Schröder the 1960s anti-American peacenik and Putin the KGB hardman seem incapable of rising above their CVs.
That's the subtext of the Russian president's extraordinary performance with Tony Blair the other day. How would you feel if you were Putin? Your guys kill more people in a single Moscow theatre than Bush's do liberating Baghdad. Bush wraps Iraq up in a month, while you've spent years killing hundreds of thousands and reducing Grozny to rubble and your boys are still coming home in boxes.
I'd say The Madness of Vlad and Jacques would make a good play, but no doubt there's no audience for it. Between now and January 2009, whatever Bush does he'll always be a dummy to the smart set. So the "strong horse" can fly a jet across the Pacific? Big deal. You can take a horse to water, but you can't make him think.
Regards, Ivan
This is my favorite part:
How would you feel if you were Putin? Your guys kill more people in a single Moscow theatre than Bush's do liberating Baghdad. Bush wraps Iraq up in a month, while you've spent years killing hundreds of thousands and reducing Grozny to rubble and your boys are still coming home in boxes.
Most of the rest, seeing the Commander-in-Chief climbing out of the cockpit in the north Pacific, are trilling deliriously, as in South Pacific, "I'm in love, I'm in love, I'm in love, I'm in love, I'm In Love With A Wonderful Guy!"
The aircraft landing is ALL that was talked about at my husband's office yesterday. It was under discussion at my doctor's office. This was a wonderful event, and I am also enjoying the wailing and moaning of the democrats. Ha!
I think it was one of the grandest stage entrances for the last scene in the Battle of Iraq Act on the War on Terrorism story. Musing over other leaders choices, I think most likely Ronald Reagan would have used a helicopter which circled before landing much like his exit from the White House. And, I bet a year’s pay that Michael Dukakis, the man who would be president, would still be crawling along the seabed in a battle tank if he had ever made it to the Presidency over Dubya’s father.
I like GWB a lot. And my handle suggests a questioning of his primary-campaign slogan, so I'm giving him more credit with the passing of time. But as to placing him ahead of RWR, talk to me after GWB has a resume like this:Got the country going again.And that was with a Democratic Congress and a post-Vietnam military. It will probably take two terms for GWB to do that much.
Whipped inflation.
Ended the Energy Crisis
Transcended Communism.
Thanks for posting that photo; that's the contrast that came to mind as I was reading the post yesterday with all the photos of GWB in flight gear . . .
Yeah, but W only shares his luchbox with one special girl on the playground. Thank goodness.
Wow, I just said that at a party last night to some leftie woman who was singing the "imperialist - oil - dummy" line. I'm convinced Dubya's pretty darn smart but no, he's not a smooth talker. But as I told this woman, being articulate is rated most highly by those of us who are articulate... and little else. That I've known people who were excellent talkers, but untrustworthy snakes, nevertheless. I finished by saying "I think being articulate is over-rated." I don't believe I beat Mark Steyn to something.
Tail-wagging self-satisfaction aside, I think we may be seeing something significant here. This may be the beginning (the barest beginnings) of the end of the undue influence of television. For 30 years I've been hearing pundits say that some of our greatest presidents from the 19th and early 20th century would have never been elected if they had to compete on television, that they didn't have the charisma, the slick packaging... people have talked for years about the Nixon-Kennedy debate. It may be... it MAY be... that Clinton will have been the last one to dazzle enough people by "giving good television."
Maybe it really is a combination of Rush Limbaugh, FOX News, and the internet, but people must be beginning to see that slick, glossy images are just that; images ... and that the ability to improvise bs at the drop of the hat is merely one of many abilities, one that plays well on TV but isn't necessarily indicative of much else.
Could we finally be growing up? Getting past that teenage stage where we fall for pretty faces and smooth lines, and moving into that stage where we look for someone with, well, character? Oh, I hope so!
OK. You're onto us. I really do feel bad, though.
As far as the flight suit goes, I think they had him strapped in real tight. Not for the visual effects, but to make sure the gear was snug for the CINC. He had a hard time getting himself untethered from it.
I would have been glad to help, had I been there. (See, you WERE right.)
Those pictures of W from the USS Lincoln were political weapons of mass destruction. Absolutely brilliant!
And let's not also forget this photo! 
The smart set. Those are the ones who back all of the tyrants like Stalin, Mao, Saddam, Fidel, basically anyone opposed to freedom and dedicated to the destruction of the U.S., right? Count me as proud not to be part of that bunch, and glad to have a president who isn't among them as well.
Thanks for posting another great piece by Steyn.
What is double hilarious about this is that the Rats had no clue what was coming! The Stealth President strikes again!
On a serious note, I would point out that all the great myths about leaders in our history and literature are about warrior-kings. Of course, we don't have a king, but a warrior-president, but the analogy holds true. Epic poems were written about Arthur, Roland, and David.
No one writes an epic about a policy wonk.
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.