EXCLUSIVE EXCERPT: David Frum's "The Right Man"

The Hill ^ | 1/8/03 | David Frum

[hchutch]

Thank you for proving my point.

[Mortimer Snavely]

Try these guys:

Antithesis.com

[Mortimer Snavely]

I know it's difficult to spend more than thirty seconds on any given issue, heaven knows how uncomfortable it is to go beyond sound bites between commercials and actually delve into things at a deeper level, but these are tasks necessary for maturation.

[My2Cents]

It doesn't quite live up to the "makes Bush look bad" rantings from the liberals AND the "real" conservatives, does it?

I'm about half-way through with it, and I would say it's a very candid book, and one that tries neither to pan Geo. W. Bush, nor spin to build him up. What it conveys is what's there -- the history, and the insights to real events. The first year, warts and all. But overall, it protrays Bush in a positive light, which is justified. I was impressed with the background information on Jim Jeffords and the real reason he jumped. Frum has done a credible job reporting the inside story, something the mainstream press didn't when Jeffords jumped. The book portrays the pitched battle between the media and any Republican administration. More evidence that the concept of an unbiased press is fantasy.

[Marysecretary]

Thanks for the site. I read the item on righteousness. I agree with it.

[Howlin]

From the times I have seen Frum on the talking head shows, he seems a little surprised that the liberal hacks have taken things out of context and tried to portray the book as a hatchet job.

Perhaps he'll see the light.

The explanation he gave of Clinton's tax hike and the resulting "surplus" was so simple even I understood it.

[Paulus Invictus]

Then you are asleep! Or a RAT. Or blind deaf and dumb.

[hchutch]

Go ahead, underestimate Bush. Join the august company of Ann Richards, Tom Daschle, Gore, and that bunch. I think you'd better re-think that track record, because it's a hell of a lot better than that offered by the "real conservatives."

[My2Cents]

And his explanation about why that Clinton surplus needed to be given back in 2001 was also clear.

[Mortimer Snavely]

That's not a response, that's a temper tantrum.

[Mortimer Snavely]

Check out their essays on Francis Schaeffer.

[hchutch]

The fact is, despite claims of the Left and the "real conservatives" to the contrary, George W. Bush has probably though through the aspects of his agenda, and he has come down on the side of items he feels are right and in the best interest of his country.

Furthermore, a lot of the way he explains things isn't a lecture, it's appealing to common sense - and most folks can see the logic of what he is doing, and they have a good sense that Bush is an honest person. They'll TRUST him. Furthermore, Bush heeds the advice froma fine man and fine leader:
"Good manners will open doors that even education cannot and will not. Even though you have strong feelings about something, that does not give you license to have bad manners."
Clarence Thomas, June 16, 1996 speech to students at Thomas G. Pullen Creative and Performing Arts School in Landover, MD

That's a lot better than can be said with Bill Clinton.

[hchutch]

No, it's an invitation based on what has happened so far. A rather impressive track record on the President's part that quite frankly, shows that doom and gloom predictions from some on the right (the "real conservatives") has been pretty unfounded.

Furthermore, quite frankly, your manners could stand a great deal of improvement.

[RLK]

Furthermore, a lot of the way he explains things isn't a lecture

-----------------------

What has he explained?

[hchutch]

How about the benefits of his economic plan?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030109-6.html

I also will cordially extend the invitation I extended in Post 148.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for the ping to this excellent article. I have bookmarked it.

[RLK]

How about the benefits of his economic plan?

------------------------

Why should I believe that is an adaquate or thorough explanation. Whenther it makes you feel good will not be accepted as a reason I should believe it.

[hchutch]

The explanation doesn't have to satisfy you - it just has to convince enough of the average folks out there. It seems to be doing that so far. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that increasing a business's profitability helps the economy because the increased profits can be reinvested or split among the investors so they can buy, say, a new car.

[My2Cents]

I think you nailed a big part of who Geo. W. Bush is. In Frum's book, and I think he says this, Bush isn't ideological. But he has a sense of what is right, or correct, or as you say, what is in the best interest of the nation. He is guided more by instinct and common sense than by ideology. So, he's going to run afoul of the "true believers" on the right, because Bush does not come to his decisions by the same path the ideological person does. But by his instincts, he will end up being "conservative" more times than not.

I've wearied of debating the purists about how politics and government operate. One needs to operate in the sphere of politics from the basis of values, and if those values are informed by a conservative philosophy, that is fine. But often one needs to be as much pragmatic as ideological in order to achieve anything. Reagan gets bashed for not being as ideologically conservative as he was often assumed to be. But a President has the opportunity to leave a legacy in one or two areas. For Reagan, he wanted to do three things: not only check, but bring down Soviet communism; reduce the tax load to unleash the engine of the American economy; and thirdly, to restore America's confidence in itself and renew healthy American patriotism. Everything else he pretty much ignored. He did all three things magnificantly. Some on this thread think that wasn't enough. I think they're warped if they think Reagan's accomplishments should be minimized. Bush, too, will end up doing two or three things very well. If he is successful in defeating Islamist terror, and has a hand in reshaping the politics of the Middle East, he will go down in history as a great President. It will be up to his successor (and us) to build upon what Bush accomplishes to achieve a greater conservative consensus in the country, and to achieve more conservative principles within government.

[Poohbah]

I was having a discussion recently with my wife's old German professor from college. We were discussing America, and I said that America isn't founded on any sort of philosophy, but rather on a very practical basis. The Constitution doesn't set forth a philosophy of governance--it's a technical manual.