Posted on 01/08/2003 10:24:48 AM PST by Jean S
-------------------------
I'm not entirely certain what that means, but for my part I am definately serious. I say what I mean and mean what I say.
------------------------------
What makes you think I'm a leftist. Because I can't support a leftist like Bush when he declares America has a duty to share its wealth with the world? Because I can't support a goof who wants to erase our borders? You've been had but you refuse to see it.
Bush and Clinton have much in common. After assuming the presidency, both tried to be president without knowing what to do on a concrete level.
George Bush probably acquires or accepts information somewhat quickly, but it is not processed or analyzed beyond one or two steps. There's no sign of creativity or originality or depth of processing.
Bush seems to have come into office with little discernible highly defined commitment to anything. His campaign lacked an incisive coherent theme beyond the idea that George Bush was pleasant. It isn't even apparent that either Bush senior or junior are searching for something in their lives. My personal impression is that the family is peculiarly bland and lifeless or bloodless with no determined direction. The present President Bush seems to have an infinite supply of spontaneous blandness for all occasions.
The closest thing approximating a sense of anchor or direction in the Bushs seems to be a perpetuation of ascension and verification of a type of social class. Within this, concepts of individual economic and personal rights in America are of little relevance.
Unlike Reagan Bush is a drifter, not a determined forceful rower. The same was true of his father. It is neither Bush's inclination nor within his developed capacity to confront socialism. If pressed Bush could probably not define freedom without resort to speechwriters.
I'd like to respond to two small points only from all of this. "The present President Bush seems to have an infinite supply of spontaneous blandness for all occasions." Peggy Noonan, I believe, had an interesting article a few days ago about how liberals require their leaders to be "complicated", because politics is their God and who can stand to see the ordinary at the height of one's pantheon? All I can say is, thank God for blandness.
As for leadership, and Bush's "incisive coherent theme beyond the idea that George Bush was pleasant", I am reminded of two Bush campaign messages - "restoring decency to the Oval Office", and "they have not led - we will."
Leadership does not necessarily entail having a lengthy policy agenda. It often - perhaps primarily - entails being a person of good quality, standing prepared to handle whatever unexpected challenges are presented to those one leads. In our situation, Bush cannot have been expected to have had a full agenda to prosecute a War on Terrorism previous to 9/11. Just as obviously, since then, all else pales in comparison. His ability to recognize that the greatest demand on his leadership was the single-minded prosecution of this war is a sign of his strength, not his weakness.
He also - due to his faith, I'd wager - recognizes that the fortunes of America, and of American conservatism, depend on many, many more people than just himself. He seems to be genuinely humble enough to recognize that America is a Republic, not a monarchy, and that our success depends just as much on the leadership of others - from state governors and Senators to community leaders and ordinary citizens - as on his leadership. Instead of blaming Bush for not single-handedly halting our "slide in to servitude", how about pitching in to help?
Exactly right. His character evaluation is stunning though.
"And then, of course, there's Senator Edward Kennedy. And the folks at the Crawford Coffee Shop would be somewhat shocked when I told them I actually like the fellow. He is a fabulous United States senator."
George W. Bush - Source.
"And he offered them concession after concession."
The compassionate conservative concessionaire:
If Dubya was only as smart as you are, then we would be looking at a Senate solidly controlled by the 'Rats and Speaker Gephardt in the House. That's okay. You are only one of many, many people who misunderestimate just what this man is all about.
And he said if they don't understand what a good man and president Bush is it's because they don't want to.
I have yet to hear anything from him that couldn't be concocted by any Madison Avenue outfit, managing to reach the lowest common denominator of a particular target market. That market doesn't include the vast majority of Americans who are too disgusted to vote for anyone. Bush lost the popular vote, folks. A Reagan landslide his election most definitely was not, regrdless of howsoever much we wish or need that it were.
What, pray tell, has Bush done to stop the wholesale export of critical industrial research, development, and production to Red China? How has he impeded illegal immigration? How has he confronted and repudiated Islam?
----------------------------
You're crazy. The only thing helping Bush will get me is Vincente Fox as Presidente of Utah. I stand with the quotes from me that you posted. The Bush ter will turn out to be one of the most destructive presidency in the history of this nation and I won't support it to please some goofs here or elsewhere.
--------------------------
The worst part about it is that the idiot means it.
Why did you send me this irrelevant garbage?
I assumed you would find the information useful. Apparently I was incorrect.
Thank you for your reply, and for summing up for me as neatly as possible the self-destructive anti-Americanism of those on the far right that are reflexive critics of Bush. Condemn some of his policies. Vigorously debate with the statements of some in his administration. But to categorically state that you WILL NOT support the President of the United States during a time of war is the height of self-delusion, foolishness, and betrayal.
The "ONLY THING" helping Bush will get you is the dissolution of the United States??!! With these words, you are accusing the President of treason. You state that it is your unequivocal belief that the only possible result of the actions taken by the federal government under the leadership of this President is the destruction of our Republic. If you honestly believe this is true, and you are a true patriot, it seems to me that the only honorable option for you and any who happen to agree with you is open rebellion.
You might be able to persuade some confused teenagers with this sort of thing, but as far as convincing serious adults, forget it.
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.