Skip to comments.George W. 'Deer in Headlights' Bush
Posted on 12/28/2008 9:03:52 AM PST by wgflyer
admire President Bush. I think he is a good man and I have said so before. But as Bush leaves office he is looking more and more like a deer in headlights....
...A sound education, a clear and steady mind, real world experience, a moral compass, the ability to listen to and understand conflicting points of view, superior communication skills, common sense and courage are the tools a statesman needs. With the possible exception of education, none of these skills can be taught. They must be lived, learned, and earned.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
What bothers me is, Pres.-Select Obama already has this “deer in the headlights” look and he hasn’t even moved into the Oval Office yet. I don’t think he thought he’d ever “win” the election.
Just going to school doesn't mean you are educated.
“But as Bush leaves office he is looking more and more like a deer in headlights....”
Probably because he is watching his legacy crumble around him. IMO I think he is a good man and history will look favorably on him.
I’m feeling a little like a deer in the headlights myself since November 4.
>Probably because he is watching his legacy crumble around him.<
Who’s fault is it? Isn’t one supposed to build one’s legacy. You either fail or succeed. He fought the enemy abroad but not the one at home.
It is a good analysis. Thanks for posting it.
The difference between fantasy and reality can be stark and ugly. He was great at speachifying, but now he has to back it up with action. He will crack under the pressure.
This is a terrific article.
I agree. Oprah was wrong. Obama is not “The One” for this dangerous time in history.
Bush never stood up and defended himself. He deserves exactly the “legacy” he has allowed the scumbag liberal news mice to paint for him. They write “history”, too.
It is a good analysis. I think the most disturbing part was his ducking when asked about defending the Constitution.
There was never any evidence that his father felt strongly about the Constitution and he does seem to have had the same lack of feeling about it. He clearly has strong feelings about moral principles but never seems to have connected them to our founding principles in any discernible way.
You make an excellent point that I find disturbing as regards both of these men. Bush pere et fils served in the military but it seems they did not absorb the basic modicum of patriotism and feeling for the American form of government that most people do from that experience. While I hate the class warfare approach to understanding the differences among people, it seems appropriate to consider that their service was more in the vein of noblesse oblige than a strong underlying love of country and Constitution.
MORE SAMPLES:”In other words, Bush talked the talk but he did not walk the walk. This was almost always true when it came to wielding the veto pen. Bush couldn’t find the veto pen — let alone use it. Bush would not even veto legislation that he knew was unconstitutional. “Taking a constitutional view” is not the same thing as taking a constitutional stand. Statesmen don’t “take views” on the Constitution — they defend the Constitution with their deeds.
The follow-up question proves the point. DeMuth asked Bush if it was harder to work with a Republican or Democrat Congress. Here is part of Bush’s response:
In some ways it was more difficult because when you work with the [Republican] Congress, there was an ability at times to forgo Republican principles, and it put the President in an awkward position.... It’s easier to veto bills ... when the Democrats are in power, because, after all, it’s Republicans who crafted the bills coming in.
Bush did nothing to stop profligate spending by the Republican Congress. His excuse was that the situation was “awkward.” These are not the words of a statesman. Statesmen do not “forgo principles.”
If additional proof is needed that Bush “takes views” on principles, but does not defend them, take a look at the video of this disquieting declaration by the President, “I’ve abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.” Listen to his voice. Watch his demeanor. This is a defeated man, a tired man, anything but a statesman.”
I don’t think Bush is a stupid man and there must have been a reason why he didn’t fight back for 8 years on the home front. What that reason is I don’t know. Even somebody like Karl Rove regretted not fighting the lies and insinuations of the Democrats. I’m assuming Rove knows the reason for Bush’s reticence and is sure to cover it in the book he is writing. Whether it is based on religion or some morality concerning governance or whatever Bush’s silence is certainly puzzling. I wouldn’t say he is a dear in the headlight because the oncoming car was oncoming for 8 years and Bush could have jumped aside at any moment. There is something else behind this — maybe a pledge to himself for wining the election through the courts — and if he writes a book maybe we will know.
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.