| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| President Bush has never surprised me |
| 2006-05-24 |
| EFL From The Anchoress A much-esteemed, long-neglected friend sent an email this morning, which was delightful to recieve. At one point he mentioned this post from yesterday and wrote: I think (President Bush) has lost his bearings. but then, so did Moses from time to time, it’s quite understandable. That made me wonder a little - has President Bush lost his bearings, or have we? Is it President Bush who has broken faith with “his base” or have they? When I read my friend’s line, I thought of a line from Pride and Prejudice, in which Elizabeth Bennett says in new appreciation of Mr. Darcy, “In essentials, I believe, he is very much what he ever was.” Perhaps I am a dim bulb, but President Bush has never surprised me, and that is probably why I have never felt let down or “betrayed” by him. He is, in essentials, precisely who he has ever been. He did not surprise me when he managed, in August of 2001, to find a morally workable solution in the matter of Embryonic Stem Cells. He did not surprise me when, a month later, he stood on a pile of rubble and lifted a broken city from its knees. When my NYFD friends told me of the enormous consolation and strength he brought to his meetings with grieving families, I was not surprised. When the World Series opened in New York City and the President was invited to throw the first pitch, there was no surprise in his throwing (while wearing body armor) a perfect strike. He did not surprise me when he spoke eloquently from the National Cathedral, or again before the Joint Houses of Congress, when he laid out the Bush Doctrine. He did not surprise me when he did it again at West Point, or when he went visionary at Whitehall (Lauri points out the video can be found at this link. It’s worth watching!) There were no surprises in President Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan to battle AlQaeda. There were no surprises when he went after an Iraq which everyone believed had WMD, an Iraq that had tried to assassinate an American President, an Iraq whose NYC consul did not lower its flag to half-mast after 9/11. Actually, there was one surprise. He did surprise me by going back to the UN, and back to the UN, in that mythical “rush to war” we heard so much about. But then again, the effort in Iraq was never as “unilateral” as it had been painted. President Bush did not surprise me when, faced with the scorn of “the world community” and those ever-ready A.N.S.W.E.R. marches which sprang up condemning him and Tony Blair, he stood firm. A lesser man, a mere politician, would have folded under such enormous pressure. I was not surprised when Bush did not. (Aside - it’s funny how they just can’t get a good-sized crowd together for those protests these days, innit? Everything about Iraq was “wrong” and everything about Iraq is “failure and quagmire” and yet, somehow, we all breathe a sigh of relief that the job is done, that Saddam is out of power and that Iraq, save a very small piece of troubled land, is - in remarkably short order (and despite the wild pronouncements of John Murtha) - tasting its first morsels of democracy and liberty, and showing promise.) It never surprised me that Yassar Arafat, formerly the “most welcomed” foreign “Head of State” in the Clinton White House was not welcomed - ever - to the Bush White House. I wasn’t surprised by the, not one, but two tax cuts he got passed through congress, or the roaring economy - and jobs - those tax cuts created. I wasn’t surprised when he killed the unending farce that is the Kyoto treaty (remember, the thing Al Gore and the Senate unanimously voted down under Clinton?), or when he killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court, or when he told the UN they risked becoming irrelevent, or when he told the Congress and the world, “America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.” Not surprising. I wasn’t surprised at all to watch him - in a foreign and hostile land - go rescue the Secret Service agent who was being detained and kept from protecting him. Or to see him shoot his cuffs, afterwards, and greet his host with a smile. I was never surprised that he tried to “change the tone” or tried reaching across the aisle to invite onesuch as Ted Kennedy to help draft education reform, something none of his predecessors dared touch. Just as they never dared to try to reform social security or our energy policies. The feckless ones in Congress wouldn’t get the jobs done, unfortunately, but he is a president who at least tried to get something going on those “dangerous” issues. His senior prescription plan was unsurprising and it is helping lots of people. I was not at all to surprised to see President Bush forego the “trembling lip photo-op” moment in which most world-leaders indulged after the Christmas Tsunami of 2004 in order to get real work done, to bring immediate help to that area by co-ordinating our own military (particularly our Naval support) with Australia and Japan. Stupid, stingy American. I was surprised, actually, to see him dance with free Georgians. I didn’t think he danced. snip -- you just might want to read all of it |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #18 I could care less about a fine. If they go home and get in line to immigrate, that's fine too. Anything less is amnesty. Perhaps only partial amnesty, but amnesty. They get an advantage over the fools who followed the rules. That's not right. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-05-24 22:00 |
| #17 I'm with KBK - we on teh border want a big FUCKING fence and real penalties for smugglers and employers. Feds should quit winking at the games and cheap labor and do THEIR jobs or get out |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-05-24 21:56 |
| #16 Well said RWV. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2006-05-24 21:27 |
| #15 KBK, I really don't care about "amnesty" per se. What I care about is that we are "a nation of laws" and any time that our elected representatives at any level decide to selectively enforce the laws, we become less American. Any program that leaves illegals in place rewards them for brazenly and continuously breaking our laws. A "meaningful fine" is a joke. Many illegals have paid significantly more than $2K to be smuggled into this country. If paying $2,000 was all it took to get a green card and a place at the "back of the citizenship line" most of India, China, Korea, England, et. al. would be in the line tomorrow. The fact that our elected officials choose to pander to the only voting block they view to be in play to the utter disregard of our laws and any sense of fair play is a national disgrace and a recipe for anarchy. Once you selectively enforce the law, independent minded people will decide for themselves which laws they will obey. That being said, I still like and respect George Bush even though his immigration views are deliberately clueless. |
| Posted by: RWV 2006-05-24 17:43 |
| #14 RWV: He is dead wrong on amnesty, but I can live with that. What? You are in favor of amnesty? I didn't think so. Neither is Bush: "4. We Must Deal With The Millions Of Illegal Immigrants Already Here The President Opposes Amnesty. President Bush opposes giving illegal immigrants an automatic path to citizenship because it would be unfair to those who are here lawfully, would compromise the rule of law, and would invite further waves of illegal immigration. The President supports increasing the annual number of green cards that can lead to citizenship, but for the sake of justice and security, the President is firmly opposed to amnesty. President Bush Believes That Deporting Every Illegal Immigrant Is Neither Wise Nor Realistic. There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant and a program of mass deportation. President Bush Believes Illegal Immigrants Who Want To Stay Should Have To Pay A Meaningful Penalty For Breaking The Law, Pay Their Taxes, Learn English, And Work In A Job For A Number Of Years. The President also believes that there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record. Those who meet our conditions should be able to apply for citizenship but approval will not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law." Whitehouse Overview: Comprehensive Immigration Reform |
| Posted by: KBK 2006-05-24 17:19 |
| #13 "Subtract the 9/11 reactions from the mix, and he was adaquate." Words fail. Yeah, if we subtracted the Civil War reactions from the mix, Lincoln would've been merely adequate. Same for Washington and the Revolutionary War. Frickin' pikers. And don't get me started on Teddy. Now if Bush was big into investigating crop circles, whoa, lookout! I love perspective. |
| Posted by: Whavith Slagum8219 2006-05-24 14:56 |
| #12 #7 I voted for President Bush twice and, were it not for the 22nd amendment, would vote for him again. I think that 100 years from now, he will rank with Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Polk, Roosevelt, and Reagan as one of the great American presidents. He is dead wrong on amnesty, but I can live with that. Posted by RWV 2006-05-24 11:04|| Front Page|| ||Comments Top ...but your children and grandchildren might NOT be able to. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-05-24 14:34 |
| #11 "Polk" ? What did he ever do What he said he would do. Mexican American War and Oregon Territory Treaty established us as a continental nation. He served one term only. For my money he was the only good President between Washington and Lincoln. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-05-24 14:25 |
| #10 Last year, when the Supremes allowed New London, Cn. to forcefully steal the Kelo property, Bush should have blown a gasket Respectfully disagree. This administration is, for good reasons, really pushing the boundary of executive powers. Having him criticize a SCOTUS decision would just be a red flag for critics. It's a horrid decision, absolutely horrid. But he was right not to comment in public IMO. And re: Chavez, our hands are somewhat tied after the Venezuelan military flinched and didn't really back the attempt to overthrow him in 1992. I met the US military attache who made the news during the coup attempt, btw .. he had lots to say about the mess in the country and is married to a Venezuelan who hates Chavez. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-05-24 14:12 |
| #9 Bush has made big omissions: His failure to veto McCain/Feingold was one disaster. Last year, when the Supremes allowed New London, Cn. to forcefully steal the Kelo property, Bush should have blown a gasket, but he failed to make a ripple. The practice is now in full swing at a town near you. He took absolutely no action to help the Venezuelans to defend their democracy against the commie dictator Victor Chavez. he could have, but he failed. Among the greatest presidents ? Subtract the 9/11 reactions from the mix, and he was adaquate. I am a right winger. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-05-24 12:14 |
| #8 "Polk" ? What did he ever do (aside from inventing a pattern of dots, I mean...) |
| Posted by: Carl in N.H. 2006-05-24 12:12 |
| #7 I voted for President Bush twice and, were it not for the 22nd amendment, would vote for him again. I think that 100 years from now, he will rank with Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Polk, Roosevelt, and Reagan as one of the great American presidents. He is dead wrong on amnesty, but I can live with that. |
| Posted by: RWV 2006-05-24 11:04 |
| #6 Yep, the immigration thing is where I really break from him. I would've ram that issue down the dems throats and shown them for the wimps they really are. In the process thrashing McCain, Hagel and any other rino's in the mix. Other then that and wasting money on africa he's done pretty much what I expected & shown good resolve on the WOT. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2006-05-24 10:49 |
| #5 Agreed, Bush is not surprising at all. Doggedly determined, principled, stubborn (some would say to a fault), sentimental, personable, and many other things, but not inconsistent or surprising. I've never seen a President so completely unconcerned with the popular current. However, I think he sometimes mistakes the popular current with the legitimate will of the people. The immigration issue is such a case. Overwhelmingly, both Republicans and Democrats (not the politicos, but the average joe) are in opposition to Bush's approach. Lately he reminds me of the Lincoln quote: "My old father used to have a saying: If you make a bad bargain, hug it all the tighter." |
| Posted by: mcsegeek1 2006-05-24 09:23 |
| #4 Bush hasn't surprised me either. I think he's been the most consistent president we've had in a long while & I can only guess what the pressure has been like for all the senior people in the White House since 9/11. |
| Posted by: was a lib sort of once 2006-05-24 06:19 |
| #3 I've come to appreciate that boring can be better. So he doesn't get the awe of entertainers or MSM pundits. That makes him MORE appealing In an age of postmodernism, when people are trampling over each other to get to and live in the gray area because they have been brainwashed by our education and infotainment industries to believe that doing so makes you automatically oh-so-smart and a good person to boot (they're wrong, of course), it's refreshing to find someone who sticks to their guns. People who reflexively label any and all steadfastness as closedmindedness are immature at best and dishonest at worst. Some things are worth standing for like a rock. I'm better off with someone with whom I disagree and is a known quantity. I disagree with W on any of a number of issues, but he there's a constancy there which I respect. In fact, I think that this is a big part of why people have left the Dems for the Repubs. The devil you know, and all. The Repubs generally wear their faults on their sleeves. You many not like their POV on something, but it is more often than not a known quantity. The Dems have the sneaky Gramscian thing working everywhere, always. The majority of voters have figured this out, and realize that this is not good from an investment of time and energy standpoint. You are never sure what you're going to get. Look at the packaging of Clinton - the guy presented as a "moderate" who got into office and tried to convert 14% of the private sector economy to socialism and made possible sweeping gun control changes. The Dems will for the foreseeable future pretend that a candidate for prez is moderate, then run hard left when in office. They'll NEVER say what they really want to do. See Kerry's "go to my website" in the debates. Widely promulgating what they actually wish to do is electoral suicide for the Dems, and they are all too aware of this. It's a good thing when the President isn't too exciting or up on pop culture - or politics. I don't want one that is. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2006-05-24 06:17 |
| #2 She does have a point. I do like Bush's foreign policies and I never liked his domestic policies, but since I am more concern about our war I can live with his domestic policies. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2006-05-24 05:40 |
| #1 The Anchoress is one of my more favorites reads when I have a little time to devote to other blogs. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-05-24 01:35 |