Why I Like George W. Bush

Regular readers of Blue Dog Reaganite know that the site splits its twice-weekly commentary into responding to current news and taking a bigger picture look at the issues. Earlier this week we looked at the election returns. For our big-picture piece, I’m going to take up a topic that seems tied to that—the presidency and person of George W. Bush.

As the returns rolled in, one of the talking heads on Fox (I forget whom) opined that the one common thread between defeated Democratic candidates Creigh Deeds and Jon Corzine (Virginia and Jersey, respectively) was that they each tried to make Bush their opponent. That it didn’t work suggests that the age of scapegoating the former president of all the country’s problems is over.

For people that really believe Bush created the so-called mess we’re in, this is probably not fair. If you believe the former president spent eight years creating something right next door to The Great Depression, destroyed America’s standing in the world, built a fundamentalist Christian theocracy, and ran the planet right up to the point of a meltdown, it’s indeed unreasonable to think Barack would undo all of that in a matter of months. But I’m not one of these people. I’m willing to put myself in what’s a distinct minority and say unequivocally that I like former President Bush and I’m going to spill a few words and tell you why.

George W. Bush was first and foremost a leader. And the reason he’s unpopular today is that he did not sit around obsessing over whether every move he took was going to be well-received, be it here at home or abroad. In the wake of 9/11, Bush’s popularity soared into the stratosphere. He had complete support for the military strike against the Taliban and Afghanistan, including from the Left. If all he cared about was his personal political standing, he would have just stopped right there and coasted into re-election. But he cared about more than that, he cared about the security of this country and became genuinely convinced that Saddam Hussein and state-sponsored terror was a greater long-term threat to our security than whether bin Laden was at large or illegals were coming across the border. In an act of leadership, he forced the issue of Iraq onto the public stage in October 2002, in time for the November mid-terms and demanded that elected officials be accountable to the voters.

Democrats went ballistic, accusing Bush of playing politics with national security. But where were their priorities? This was their chance to bring a mature anti-war case before the American people. If they won, the invasion question would have gone away. Instead, Senate and House Democrats cut and ran, fudged the issue and lost anyway. They lost because they deserved to lose. I didn’t necessarily buy the president’s priorities on the national security agenda—mine are outlined below about three posts down—but I appreciated that he cared more about national security than his personal political security. And that is the highest compliment that can be given a Commander-in-Chief.

His second term provided Bush more chances to rise to the occasion and do what he believed the right thing was, even if it wasn’t always popular. After some initial stumbling in 2001, when he cautiously let the government into the area of embryonic stem-cell research, he stood tall and moved us back from the brink of medical experimenting on human life. In the tragic case of Teri Schiavo in 2005, where she was being starved by a leech of a husband and having it allowed by an agenda-driven judge, Bush made a futile, but worthwhile attempt to intervene and save her life.

On the economic front, he pushed forward with a plan to modernize Social Security, allowing workers to invest a portion of their payroll tax dollars into the stock market—which for whatever its current troubles, is a better long-term investment than the government’s trust fund. If you doubt, ask yourself how many liberal congressman and pundits have given up their stock portfolios. That Bush was abandoned by his own cowardly party in Congress does not decrease the nobility of the effort.

Bush continued to push forward with securing Iraq, even as public support predictably declined, as the occupation entered its difficult phase. In 2006, his party began to act like the Democrats had in 2002, running for the tall grass and started to second-guess and invasion they had enthusiastically supported. And like the Democrats of ’02, the Republicans of ’06 lost because they thoroughly deserved it. They blamed Bush for all their problems, failing to practice the personal responsibility and accountability they freely demand of everyone else.

And the president was successful in areas where he didn’t have to fly in the face of public opinion and a weak-kneed Congress. He nominated two first-rate judges to the Supreme Court in Samuel Alito and John Roberts, along with a host of quality men and women to lower federal courts. These judges will secure his legacy not just for four years, but for forty years.

There were weaknesses—he had a misguided approach to illegal immigration, was way too lenient on the question of big spending. And some of his low popularity was due to an unwillingness to take the time to communicate to the public the reasons for his actions. Courage is admirable, but self-indulgence is not, and too often I got the impression that W didn’t communicate his ideas simply because it wasn’t part of the job he liked.

But the good points far outweigh the bad. George W. Bush was not a great president like Ronald Reagan, but he was a good one. He was man of decency and above all, a man of honor who put his country ahead of himself. That’s why I like him.

I'll always look back fondly on President Bush's years in the Whitehouse and the morality and clarity of those years.

Laura and George: "The Lady and the Gentleman".

How lucky we were!!! Thank you God!!

Saca;)

Well said.

News Flash!!

George Bush was not elected to the role of Superman and we should stop looking for men in tights to lead this nation.

President Bush’s popularity really only started going down after years of liberal media lying.

Unfortunately, I think too many politicians pay attention to the media and mistake it for the voice of the people, then adjust their actions accordingly. For example, who wants redistribution of wealth? The media. So the Republicans go for increased spending and taxes, thinking that’s what the constituents want, and end up being thrown out. As a result, we have the government the far left and the media want. Politicians need to understand that the voice of the media is often at odds with that of the people.

I remember quite well the media antics that tried to paint Bush in the most unfavorable light possible at every turn. Even on his inauguration day they followed the slime Klintoon around while he refused to just go away.
If Bush had a huge flaw, it was that he allowed Americas most dangerous enemies to go unchallenged while he remained above the fray. And by that of course I mean the traitorous bastards that currently control all three branches of government.

This commentary seemed ‘spot on’ until the last paragraph.

The fact that Ronald Reagan was a great president does NOT preclude George W Bush from being considered a great president as well — which, by the way, he was:
http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/bushrecord/index.html

I don’t think Bush can be considered a great president. He was quite good, and had a chance to be great, but he lost the American people the last three years, and mostly due to an inability to communicate what he was doing and why. Communication is an important part of the job. He did rather well with it for the first 4.5 years and then completely lost it. He made some of his best and most courageous decisions during that last three years...judges, the surge, etc. Despite that his support basically bottomed out and he cost his party and the country dearly in 2006 and 2008. I still rate him as a good or very good president for his entire 8 year body of work.

Any time I reflect back on the good and the bad of the Bush Presidency, I always have to go back to the first few months after 9/11. God certainly knew what was coming our way and gave us the right man at the right time to lift this country up again after such a brutal attack.

And unlike the current guy occupying the white house who throws like a girl, Bush could pitch one right down the middle when it counted the most.

You must watch this video....

President Bush Visits Yankee Stadium

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evb489N11Q4&feature=related

“Speaking of President Bush, where did all the war protests go? I mean, we’re still at war, right?”

The nightly news use to have an update each night on the total number of soldiers that were killed in Iraq since the war began. That update ended right after Obama was sworn in. And what about that captured soldier that disappeared from his post a few months ago? There has been no news on him.

Have you forgotten the second term of Ronald Reagan? I remember it well — I was in graduate school and found myself defending the President on a daily basis.

After the Republicans lost more cumulative seats in 1986 than they did in 2006/08 (was this Reagan’s fault?) and the Iran Contra scandal broke (again, was this Reagan’s fault?)*, the President experienced the worst one month JA drop in Gallup history. This, combined with President Reagan’s worsening ‘short-term’ memory problems, forced Reagan’s ‘handlers’ to keep him hidden from the press for almost two years — during this time, he was only permitted to speak at highly controlled, scripted occasions . . . Fortunately for Republicans, the Democrats nominated Dukakis in 1988 and we were able to hold the White House; however, by 1992, Reagan had lower post-presidential job approval ratings than Carter — both were under 50%.
[*NOTE: I didn’t even mention the Bork debacle in 1987.]

Does any of this make Reagan merely a good or very good president? NO, despite his second term problems, Reagan was a great president . . . The same can be said of President George W Bush.

It was a different time, wasn't it? Seems like a thousand years ago.
I read that when Bush and Rudy were in the motorcade going to the still smoking World Trade Center rubble, that it was passing hundreds and hundreds of rescue workers and emergency personnel - waving flags and cheering loudly for the President and chanting USA, USA, USA. Rudy pointed at them and said to Bush, “see those people cheering, none of them voted for you.”

Will we ever see that kind of America again?

“and mostly due to an inability to communicate what he was doing and why. Communication is an important part of the job.”

ilgipper, I think Pres. Bush was a great president and would give almost anything to have him, or someone like him, back in the White House. However, I agree with you here. Probably his weakest trait was his inability/lack of communication with the American people. Look at Dick Cheney now, and the positive effect his “blasting” the White House is doing. I wish they had done this during 43’s two terms.

It seems to me that Pres. Bush began to withdraw the summer he was at Crawford and Cindy Sheehan protested outside his ranch for weeks. He eventually moved his vacation spot to Camp David, but at the time I said I hope her idiocy didn't affect MY safety. Being president of the U.S. (if done conscientiously) is one of the hardest jobs in the world. Pres. Bush needed the down time and relaxing clearing brush from his ranch gave him.

My motto is ‘Never fall in love with a leader nor pledge allegience to a party’.
I did not vote for GW in 2000, because I did not think he was up for the job. I was unsure of his character. But throughout his Presidency, he displayed as much character as any man I had ever seen. With all the stones and arrows directed at him, he remained firm.
What always endeared me to him was his display of emotion when with the troops and whenever introduced at an event, the applause always made him blush. I miss that!
He tried to unite a country that has been coming apart at the seams since Coolidge took office. The Progressives see any conservative as a threat to their agenda of destroying individual liberty and economic freedom.

He held the line, albeit breifly, on the march on the road to serfdom.

“Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. … Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the ‘new, wonderful good society’ which shall now be Rome’s, interpreted to mean ‘more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.’” –Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

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.