Bush has been one of a few conservatives in the country, along with a few folks at National Review and in Congress, to show a little class and grace in the midst of defeat.
George W. Bush, who led the Republicans and conservatives to three straight electoral victories, who won the White House against an incumbent Democratic administration, who rallied this nation after 9/11, and removed two oppressive regimes in Aghanistan and Iraq, is suddenly responsible for all that ails the nation.
This is no surprise to those of you who have been listening to the Democrats for six years, but now we have the Republicans and conservatives joining the chorus, the same folks who once celebrated the President as the next Churchill.
I have something to say to Joe Scarborough, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanan and the rest of the back bench second guessers who are maligning a good man whose winning percentage — close to 80 percent — is solid and who has more character than the rest of them combined.
Lay off. I am not sure what is more sickening, listening to Bill Maher or watching Scarborough and his media analysts cavorting as they try Freudian analysis on Bush and his father; or suggest with a straight face that the elder Bush and his team are foreign policy geniuses that George W. Bush should have consulted. You know, the guys who allowed tens of thousands of Shiites in the south to be massacred by Saddam because they refused to enforce the no-fly zone agreed to by the Butcher of Baghdad. Right, those geniuses.
As for Buchanan and Limbaugh, they so worked up the nation about immigration that they almost hand-delivered the Hispanic vote to the Democrats. What made this issue a national emergency all of sudden? Actually, nothing. President Bush's policy on immigration was similar to that of previous presidents, but his proposed solution is more creative than erecting a 700-mile wall.
You might also consider that in the mid 1990s Gingrich allowed Clinton to walk all over him at a time when Newt was touted as the hottest political genius since, well, Brent Scowcroft I guess.
It probably wouldn't hurt for all those hurting or gloating because of last week's election to simply be quiet. I appreciate the difficulty of this request, since many of them are paid to blather endlessly, but truthfully they have nothing relevant to say and they are losing their wits.
Bush has been one of a few conservatives in the country, along with a few folks at National Review and in Congress, to show a little class and grace in the midst of defeat. He did what any president should do when the opposing party wins — he extended his hand in partnership, but without offering up his principles. His Democratic enemies will show their true colors in due course and once the Republicans stop the bloodletting, they might get around to helping the President manage a tough war and the critical issues we confront as a nation.
But kicking a man when he's down has never been a sign of character. Republicans and Democrats might observe the example of Ronald Reagan. After beating Jimmy Carter in 1980, Reagan wanted desperately to reach out to the defeated President in a graceful way. Even as he prepared to take the oath of office, Reagan looked to Carter for news about the hostages in Iran in the hope that he could publicly credit Carter for securing their release. That's class.
President Bush is a good (but stubborn) man who has faced unprecedented calamities that would have tested even our greatest presidents. In fact, every president faces political setbacks and stands accused of major mistakes, particularly during time of war.
Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Truman, Ike, JFK, Reagan — all hailed as great presidents in many quarters, but all of whom had as many detractors as supporters. Even Churchill stood accused of major military blunders during World War I, and after saving his nation and leading it to victory in World War II, was immediately tossed out of power.
It is one thing to suggest that the war in Iraq could be better managed or that the President strayed too far from conservative principles, quite another to suggest that he has failed on every front simply because a confluence of factors led to shift in the Congress.
Here's hoping the President gets it right in Iraq, and leaves the White House in good standing, because he's still the toughest we've got. After all, any man who can drive the terrorists to applaud a Democratic victory surely is doing something right.
shadroui@yahoo.com
Read more articles by George Shadroui
Hear, hear!
Comment by rightwingprof | November 14, 2006
And here, I must strongly disagree. While your sentiments are heartfelt, and your support of the President laudible, you are so quick to jump into the fray that you miss a couple important things:
1. The Hispanic vote was going to go to the Democrats anyway. While Bush has gotten Hispanic votes in the past, his performance can only be considered good if we say that he did well…for a Republican. 20% is nothing laudible otherwise.
2. Just because other Presidents had bad plans in the past doesn't mean that it somehow validates the current administrations bad plans. And to be fair, Bush's amnesty plan was ridiculous, and insulting to the American people. Honestly, throughout the past decade our immigration control has basically been "catch and release". Bush didn't even bother with the catch part. There were more apprehensions and deportations under CLINTON than Bush. There's nothing silly about not supporting a bad plan.
3. Limbaugh was a cheerleader for Republicans until after they lost. In taking a look back, Limbaugh told everyone why he thought the Republicans lost. I don't especially like Rush, but there was nothing classless in his analysis.
4. When the President's first response to a Democratic victory is "Goodie, now I can get some of those unpopular bills I wanted passed," his supporters are right to worry.
5. And finally, the entire Republican party showed class in defeat. While a commentor or two may sit back and mope, the party as a whole did well. Look at Talent, Allen, Steele, and the ilk. They stepped down with class. The analysts have shown class in their coverage.
You seem to mistake concern as kicking a man when he's down. And while you're saying that Limbaugh is being unfair to the President, you're not being too terribly fair to Limbaugh.
Comment by WolvenBear | November 14, 2006
The issue being propped up here is the war. Most conservatives, including Rush, have not criticized Bush for his efforts here. Conservatives, including myself, blame the election on Bush and other liberal lights due to immigration and spending. Immigration is a real problem. Under your analogy, Bush shouldn't address the issue because past presidents did nothing as well. Thankfully Lincoln, whom you also admire, did not think in such a manner concerning slavery. Though it would have been easier to not fight, he realized the responsibility fell on him. One of President Bush's central themes in reasoning for his bold moves in Iraq, education, and Social Security was his principled and correct belief that doing nothing and leaving the problem for the next generation displayed irresponsible and cowardly leadership. He should have held the same belief in immigration. With spending, what can a conservative think. Bush is 3rd in line in spending programs in terms of handouts within a budget in the history of the United States. Only FDR and LBJ outspend this man. He quit on conservatives and took us for granted. Mr. Bush, though a good man with admirable traits, is no conservative. Stop pretending he is.
Comment by Honker | November 14, 2006
I'm not exactly sure what to believe about President Bush because he confuses me. I read this article and nodded my head "yes, that's right" (except for the immigration part, but we're already having that discussion in another thread, right George?). Then I read the comments and think "yes, that's right too."
The problem for me is that I see both ends of the political spectrum in one man.
Foreign policy - Conservative
Domestic spending - Liberal
Social policy - Mixed bag (Gay marriage - Conservative, Illegal immigration - Liberal, etc.)
If you're a democrat, it's easy to view Bush ("We hate him no matter what he does")
If you're a republican, what do you make of him? Looking at the examples I gave, many of us see contradictions. We can cheer the foreign policy stances (most of them) and loathe some of the domestic ones (illegal immigration). Okay, maybe it's just confusing ME.
In the article, the comment " he's still the toughest we've got" is the most relevant for me. Spending, illegal immigrants, Social Security, they are all important issues. However, none of them trumps the Islamic threat to our country. With those other issues compromise can be worked out and deals can be made to improve the situations. That is not the case with our problems with Islam. Bush has taken the correct stance on this and that is our most pressing problem, so while I have qualms about his views on other issues I agree with him on this most important one.
Please also note the lack of lawsuits after this election. If the democrats hadn't won control does anyone really believe we wouldn't be swamped with dems trying to win in the courtroom what they couldn't win at the ballot box?
Comment by Ron S. | November 14, 2006
I'm going to have to agree with comments 2, 3, and 4. If Bush is the "toughest we've got", then there's soon going to have to be a viable third party for conservative voters, because the Republican party ain't it.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | November 15, 2006
Calling Bush "conservative" is foolish at best. The Bush family is a cabal of liberal one worlders and Dubya is just the dumbest of the bunch. This nation is doomed with 'leadership' of the type we've gotten from Dubya.
Clearly we need a CONSERVATIVE alternative to the spineless Republican party which has shown it is not much different from the DemoRats.
Comment by iluvfreebeer | November 15, 2006