Skip to comments.
The Misunderestimators Are Back
New York Post ^
| 2-17-04
| John Podhoretz
Posted on 02/17/2004 6:20:13 AM PST by jmstein7
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:19:36 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
THE misunderestimators are back, dripping with their old familiar condescension and contempt for President Bush.
Liberals who were forced by bitter circumstance over the past two-plus years to face the truth about the very formidable George W. Bush are now retreating into their old comfortable ways.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: 2004; gwb2004; podhoretz
1
posted on
02/17/2004 6:20:13 AM PST
by
jmstein7
To: jmstein7
"George W. Bush wakes up every morning trying to figure out how to make America safer and the world better"Thats a great line.
2
posted on
02/17/2004 6:25:14 AM PST
by
The G Man
(John Kerry? America just can't afford a 9/10 President in a 9/11 world. Vote Bush-Cheny '04.)
To: jmstein7
Occam's razor bump.
3
posted on
02/17/2004 6:27:02 AM PST
by
stylin_geek
(Koffi: 0, G.W. Bush: (I lost count))
To: jmstein7
Lying,cheating,stealing,anything to accomplish their goal of being in power again. It is hard at times though to not know they are not, what with the lily livered Republicans we have.
4
posted on
02/17/2004 6:27:43 AM PST
by
Piquaboy
To: jmstein7
He still often seems to be impersonating a commander in chief . . . And rather well, it might be added. As far as military campaigns, he's 2 for 2. What's Kerry's record?
5
posted on
02/17/2004 6:27:54 AM PST
by
Kenton
("Life is tough, and it's really tough when you're stupid" - Damon Runyon)
To: jmstein7
American history is too unpredictable, and the future (obviously) unknown. But just four months ago, had a couple of things worked out, the GOP seriously could have thought about gaining six seats in the Senate. Now, with no challenger of substance to Reid, virtually no one in Illinois or Arkansas, and Murkowski struggling in Alaska, we will be lucky to add one or two seats.
That said, as a historian, all one needs to do is look at 1864, when Lincoln's prospects were so dim that he likely wasn't going to even get the nomination of his own party. He had started to form a "third" party . . . then just as suddenly, two months before the election, came the news of Atlanta's fall, the capture of Mobile Bay, and the destruction of the Shenandoah Valley, and Lincoln's political opponents went away.
While this is the clearest example of political fortunes turning dramatically in a short time, there are plenty of others. Taft was a shoe-in until TR decided to run as a third party.
So it's way too early, either way, to start figuring this election. Kerry WILL MAKE SOME MAJOR GAFFES. There will be dirt. We still my (quite likely, in my view) turn up WMDs and capture/kill Osama before November. Unfortunately, there will probably be another (small) terrorist attack on U.S. soil. There will be some transfer of power in Iraq.
How any or all of these play out is TOTALLY unknown. For example, the capture/death of Osama, if too early, might falsely reassure Americans that the war on terror is over. On the other hand, another attack might remind them, just enough, that Bush MUST be the leader.
6
posted on
02/17/2004 6:29:35 AM PST
by
LS
(CNN is the Amtrack of news.)
To: jmstein7
They are still consumed by the example of Bill Clinton, a president who could talk for four hours about a $20 million program to deny deadbeat dads a driver's license while Islamic radicals ... I remember a day when Clinton was doing a photo op with a car seat for babies. There was some bad news that day which he ignored. Someone called it "government by itty-bitty." Can anyone help me with the details?
To: LS
We capture Osama bin Laden when we capture him. While it may be a terrific morale boost, and definitely a blow to the hopes of Democrats everywhere, Bush's success or failure in office is not predicated on that one fact. It is in smaller, more direct effects that impact on the individual lives of Americans that Bush is given his greatest ascendency and empowerment. Approval numbers are good for the way the economy is managed, given that only three years ago we were stumbling badly, and had not even hit our lowest point by then. It is as if the captain of a great ship had just grazed an iceberg, and managed to keep the ship afloat and running on a near-even keel, never flinching even in the worst moments. Sure, people have died, and great ruin came to parts of our country, but we are recovering, a fact seemingly lost on the craven whining cowardly rabble that couldn't find their way to a lifeboat in a drill.
We may still need the lifeboats. But now we know how to get to them. And use them effectively. Do we want to fire the captain now? And replace him with one who would steer right back at that iceberg?
To: jmstein7
Another tour de force by "The Pod". I still chuckle when I remember him walking off the set of "Crossfire", leaving Michael Kinsley stuttering, stammering, and bug-eyed with dismay.
To: jmstein7
George W. Bush wakes every morning trying to figure out how to make America safer and the world better ... Amnesty for illegal aliens isn't the way.
10
posted on
02/17/2004 7:35:34 AM PST
by
jimt
To: Kenton
Bush is 2 for 2. Kerry's 0 for 1. I guess if Bush had gone to Vietnam, we'd have won that one, or if Kerry had stayed away, we might have had a chance. Actually, the second line of reasoning is actually true. Since his time there built up this resonating hatred for our country, expressed by claiming that all the soldiers over there were commiting atrocities and war crimes, and his organization was cited by the regieme there in Vietnam as the main reason they held out hope, then yes, if Kerry had stayed away from Vietnam, we might have won. (Can ANYONE do a better run-on sentance??)
Paul
11
posted on
02/17/2004 8:17:52 AM PST
by
spacewarp
(Visit the American Patriot Party and stay a while. http://www.patriotparty.us)
To: jmstein7
bump.
12
posted on
02/17/2004 9:07:01 AM PST
by
headsonpikes
(Spirit of '76 bttt!)
To: jmstein7
Take Jonathan Alter, declaring in Newsweek that Bush "has never fully inhabited the role of president of the United States. He still often seems to be impersonating a commander in chief . . . Bush acts on instinct and faith, not facts and information. That makes him resolute but not judicious, bold but not wise." Over at Time magazine, Joe Klein complains bitterly that the president once told Sen. Joseph Biden, "I don't do nuance." But, whines Klein, "the struggle against Islamic radicalism is a festival of nuance. It is not quite a war, and it doesn't yield easily to simple notions of good and evil, friend and foe."
The chattering classes indeed.
What pompous, envious idiots.
13
posted on
02/17/2004 12:00:06 PM PST
by
happygrl
To: jmstein7
How much more presidential could Bush be? Well, he could raise taxes. In fact, he couldn't possibly seem presidential in Alter's eyes unless he raised taxes. He could suborn perjury, obstruct justice, maybe find some new uses for a cigar. That would probably make him more... I don't know... manly, for Alter et. al.
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson