Posted on 07/23/2005 7:41:38 PM PDT by flixxx
Bush Bashing Fizzles
This summer, one big story is replaced by another--the London bombings July 7, the speculation that Karl Rove illegally named a covert CIA agent, the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, more London bombings last week. But beneath the hubbub, we can see the playing out of another, less reported story: the collapse of the attempts by liberal Democrats and their sympathizers in the mainstream media--the New York Times, etc., etc.--to delegitimize yet another Republican administration.
This project has been ongoing for more than 30 years. Richard Nixon, by obstructing investigation of the Watergate burglary, unwittingly colluded in the successful attempt to besmirch his administration. Less than two years after carrying 49 states, he was compelled to resign. The attempt to delegitimize the Reagan administration seemed at the time reasonably successful. Reagan was widely dismissed as a lightweight ideologue, and the rejection of his nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987 contributed to the impression that his years in office were, to take the title of a book by a first-rate journalist, "the Reagan detour." As time went on, as the Berlin Wall fell and Bill Clinton proclaimed that the era of big government was over, it became clear that Reagan was a successful transformational president--something the mainstream media grudgingly admitted when he died in 2004 after a decade out of public view.
You think they'd learn. But for the past five years, the same folks have been trying to undermine the presidency of George W. Bush. The Supreme Court's decision in Bush v. Gore was denounced as an outrage, and Democrats noted, accurately, that Bush did not win a plurality of the popular vote in 2000. The nation rallied to his support after September 11, but Democrats held up his judicial and other nominations even if they had to violate Senate tradition to do so. Coverage of Bush during the 2004 campaign was heavily negative; for months the mainstream media mostly ignored the swift boat vets' charges against John Kerry and broadcast accusations against Bush based on forged documents eight weeks before the election. News of economic recovery in 2003 and 2004 was pitched far more negatively than it had been when Bill Clinton was president in 1995 and 1996.
Now the unsupported charges that "Bush lied" about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have been rekindled via criticism of Karl Rove. A key witness for the Democrats and mainstream media was former diplomat Joseph Wilson. Unfortunately for his advocates, he turned out to be a liar. A year after his famous article appeared in the New York Times in July 2003 accusing Bush of "twisting" intelligence, the Senate Intelligence Committee, in a bipartisan report, concluded that Wilson lied when he said his wife had nothing to do with his dispatch to Niger and Chairman Pat Roberts said that his report bolstered rather than refuted the case that Saddam Hussein's Iraq sought to buy uranium in Africa. So despite the continuing credulousness of much of the press, it appears inconceivable at this point that Karl Rove will be charged with violating the law prohibiting disclosure of the names of undercover agents. The case against Rove--ballyhooed by recent Time and Newsweek cover stories that paid little heed to the discrediting of Wilson--seems likely to end not with a bang but a whimper.
Court intrigue. So, too, with the political left's determination to defeat Bush's first nominee to the Supreme Court. Democrats, with much help from the press, argued successfully in 1987 that Robert Bork was out of the mainstream and in 1991 brought up spectacular charges that cast a pall on Justice Clarence Thomas. They seem almost certain not to have such success against the obviously highly qualified John Roberts. They may try to argue that Roberts is "out of the mainstream." But the vote on Roberts's nomination to the appeals court was 14 to 3 in the judiciary committee. Who is in the mainstream now?
The bombings and attempted bombings in London have brought home to the American public that we face implacable enemies unwilling to be appeased by even the most emollient diplomacy. Yet, mainstream media coverage of Iraq has been mostly negative. But mainstream media no longer have a monopoly; Americans have other sources in talk radio, Fox News, and the blogosphere. Bush's presidency is still regarded as illegitimate by perhaps 20 percent of the electorate. But among the rest, the attempt to delegitimize him seems to be collapsing.
They're so much fun to watch...
Way ta go Michael. We can ALWAYS count on you to put eveything in perspective and to speak the truth. Thank you Michael Barone. You are one honorable man!
Even my liberal college professor next door neighbor has started griping about the dems.
I actually have converted him to Foxnews!
He doesn't know it yet,but my next coercive act will be loaning him my copy of Zell's new book,Deficit of Decency!
The donks are in retreat!
THAT is when I'll know it's the beginning of the end of this particular scandal, and after a brief recess, they will try to start another.
If they and their media pals put half the energy into attacking the terrorists that they do attacking Bush...
Lies matter very little to Democrats and liberals when they want to cook up something. I honestly believe they no longer attach values such as true and false to their words, or the words of their supporters.
Coverage of Bush during the 2004 campaign was heavily negative; for months the mainstream media mostly ignored the swift boat vets' charges against John Kerry and broadcast accusations against Bush based on forged documents eight weeks before the election. News of economic recovery in 2003 and 2004 was pitched far more negatively than it had been when Bill Clinton was president in 1995 and 1996.
Thanks for posting this! Truly a good read!
bump
The DUmmies have linked this, the dummie funnies are quite a show. They have no idea how clueless they are.
They call themselves reality based when they are would have you believe that diebold is controlling elections.
They are a pathetic crowd.
The Theory being circulated is that the dems want to make it as thought these two terms didn't exist, so states Rush.
This may be True to the extent they pursue it, but on flip side an administration that emerges from an eight year term with a clean track record having survived the Liberal War machine would be a singular triumph of a proportion they cannot weight. It would DESTROY them if then followed by another Republican above board administration. They took down Nixon. Reagan had minor scandals. 41 was limited to one term. Their effectiveness has leveled off increasingly and G.W.B's presidency may just mark the second to last nail.
Provided the next Republican nominee shares his vision in the WOT, the Vietnam syndrome will be shattered for good. Win a long hard war without retreat and their childhood is discredited.
Tax increases have already been discredited.
The people are becoming extremely opposed to legislative Courts. Effect change there and much of the power will be gone.
The MSM's credibility falls lower everyday.
IMO, for all their efforts we're going to find when his eight years have concluded that it is Liberalism in shatters searching for a way to redeem its legacy, as Bill Clinton still to this day wanders in an effort to escape Monica.
The sound of the "other shoe dropping" is what many are awaiting.
That ineluctable "truth" that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
As the Dems and leftists "death-spiral" winds ever downward, what can rational citizens look forward to?
And to what awful outcomes will the perpetrators of world-wide terror be reluctantly brought to face-to-face?
That shuffling sound is the noise of gleeful hands being rubbed together.
Great article!
Thanks. I always like Mr. Barone's articles. I wish he were on Fox News more often.
It is of paramount importance that the next president is a republican. A conservative republican. The dims running Hillary! may help us. She may have played in upstate NY, but I don't think she's going to play in Peoria.
The only hope for the Democrats is to purge themselves of the influence of the Clintons.
It is odd indeed to talk in terms of "hope" for Democrats.
But you are right. Disregarding their idiotic leadership, most dems are probably decent well meaning citizens.
This may sound a little "Mary Poppins", but those idiots are our idiots.
In time of war and calumny we need unity to win.
The Democrat Party is a moral vacuum -- like the Clintons, personally. They really stand for nothing anymore. If someone can come along and articulate some new, practical, positive ideals for the Democrats, they may have a chance to avoid going the way of the Whigs. But this would mean re-creating the Democrat Party into something entirely different than what it is today.
Essentially, the Democrat Party should be thrown on the ash heap of history. Its glory days are over, and it really stands for nothing constructive or vital to the health and well-being of the nation.
"It is of paramount importance that the next president is a republican. A conservative republican. The dims running Hillary! may help us. She may have played in upstate NY, but I don't think she's going to play in Peoria."
She's already trying to distance herself from the 'Rats that are trying to "Bolton" Judge Roberts. By endorsing a Bush SCOTUS nominee, it makes her appear to be the voice of reason.....
A voice of reason in a lunatic asylum.
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.