Count me now among those in the president's own natural constituency who, as Noonan reports, are "no longer confident about what he does...no longer fully comfortable in their judgment of his policies and actions, or the root thoughts behind them."
If anyone can tell me the president's political philosophy, I'd be fascinated to learn what it is. Is it intellectually coherent? Or is it, as all the evidence of actions seems to indicate, just a situational hodgepodge sprouting from his own personality, subject to strong influence from the better read intellects surrounding him?
George W. Bush once joked at a dinner for William F. Buckley that at Yale, Buckley wrote a book, and he, the president, read one. He never jokes about such matters anymore. He knows, I think, that advertising yourself as a lightweight thinker is not only unseemly for the most powerful man in the world, but also harmful to the nation's prestige for so high an office to be filled by a man who doesn't have an honest intellectual grounding in the political philosophy he purports to espouse.
On the left, it is much easier for a set ideology to apply with its easy ordering and formula.
On the right, conservatism has always been thought of as a set of first Principles and an aversion to the devil of ideology. The organic nature of politics is better understood.
I like the camparison that comedian made in discussing the last election.
Sure Kerrey is smart. He is chess player smart.Is he a light weight because he loves his nicknames and the one-on-one relationships it builds? I think that Peggy is missing the articulate ghost of Reagan, but then, don't we all.Bush is more a checker player smart. But you know what? In dangerous times, a checker player is what we need and the complexity of chess player thinking can be so complex you can't react and others will sense it.
Right now, I want a checker player in the White House. Those that mean to harm us will know that he will hit hard and they can't assume subtlety will aid them.
Bush will not be adjudged by history as adept. But he won't be judged as unsteady, lacking resolve or failing to see danger to our nation and face it. I also think that he will be evaluated as honest, both with the office and with the public.
It is a rare thing for a man (or woman) of clear thinking principles to work their way up the food chain to pursue high office. Bush is hardly the first to be subject to that criticism.
Your title says "A few questions" but you only seemed to ask one. A stupid one at that.
H*ll, I call her Condi and I don't even know her. More Noonan foolishness.
Most conservatives have been uncomfortable with GWBush over the last 6-months to a year. Independents lost confidence in Bush43 sometime right after the 2004 election. One wonders what level of support Bush would have if historic events had taken a different direction since September 11 2001. Would Dubya had pushed for limited government? Would he have controlled his liberal spending habits? Would he have properly addresssed immigration reform, long before 2006?
Peggy is right when she says, "Mr. Bush is a good man--that he's got guts and resolve, that he can take a lickin' and keep on tickin'."
Not for tha same reason that one might refer to Ms. Noonan as "Piggy".
President Clinton probably called Maddy Allbright that crazy old scumbag.
Seems a bit late into the second term for wondering whether Bush is smart enough to be president. Better luck in '08, eh?
And that's the entire reason for this stupid article. So Peggy could remind everyone she worked for Reagan and bask in his glow. She's a simpering fool.
Having watched her over the last few years, it appears to me that time and culture, civil and political are passing her by. Her need for an over-arching philosophy is simply a return to the old days when we weren't at war and events occurred at a much slower rate.
Although she is younger than I, she shows signs, like MoDo, of discomfort with the fast-moving modern world. She pines for the time in which themes could be debated and chewed upon with endless discussion and prognostication.
Those times are over. The new world is one of quick, smart action, of moving resources into play in order to protect ourselves and our children and in order to make our world safer through the development of democracy throughout the most troublesome areas of the world.
Time has passed you by, Peggy.
I would have argued with you, but you called him President, and George W. Bush.
You avoided all the cutesy names, and addressed him formally.
Your question was very rational and intelligent.
I wish more here on FR were like you.
For those of you who believe this is unimportant, here's a point I'd like to advance.
It's usual for the left to belittle the accomplishments, qualifications, and intellect of the members of this administration. Dr. Rice is sometimes belittled, and liberal insults to her personally erode the public's respect for the administration and its goals. Calling this distinguished lady "Condi," feeds into the disrespect of those who harbor contempt for her because she is black, because she is a woman, because she is young, because she's conservative, and because she's pretty. Since the president has continually and publicly referred to her as Condi, now the nation does, and when you use a diminutive for someone, especially a pretty woman, it diminishes public respect for her.
When I talk about her I always call her "Dr. Rice," to remind people that she's not just some cute black girl; she's a brilliant scholar and public servant, intellectually at least as forceful as anyone else in Washington. We'd further our own cause in the mind of the general public by doing the same.
You post an article whose main point revolves around the question "why does the president call the secretary of state 'Condi'?" And then you go on to say that you had a bad "feeling" about the President because he wouldn't enjoy reading a book on philosophy. And these items plus a few others leads to you questioning the Presidents intellect.
I looked it up and the definition of intellectual reads "rational rather than emotional".
I can tell you think of yourself as a person of great intellect. Sorry to tell you this but I feel dummer for having read this thread.
Yep, Bill Clinton never called his SOS maddy but he found no problem sticking a cigar up an interns vagina. No informality there.
I've been noticing this sort of article and Meme a lot in the last 2 weeks. I think the paleo-cons are trying to reassert their influence on the conservative debate.
I would be willing to bet $100 that, in private, The President calls her Condi, and she calls him Mr. President.
Next thing you know, they'll complain because he calls his wife Laura.
But, I am convinced. I too have lost confidence in W and next election, I will not vote for him >>insert eye rolling here<<
Why does President Bush refer in public to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as "Condi"?
Just a guess, he cannot pronounce the word "secratary."
Just as he has a problem with the tricky "nuclear"
Or maybe he has forgotten her title?
Because he's a warm-hearted guy, and he likes her as a person, as well as respecting her as SOS.
I got a bad feeling in the pit of my stomach when I learned that
You got a bad feeling in the pit of your stomach over a joke? Good grief.