Dubbed Over

Human Events ^ | 5/13/08 | D. R. Tucker

[MartinaMisc]

I never thought I’d say this, but I’m getting a little tired of George Bush.

Maybe it’s the cumulative effect of eight years of “Bush Derangement Syndrome” in the mainstream press. Maybe it’s the high gas prices, the stories of economic woe, the fear that anger over Bush’s mistakes might encourage people to vote for (God help us) Barack Obama. I don’t know what it is…but I’m just tired of the guy.

It’s the same feeling I had back in 2000 with Clinton. It was hard enough looking at Clinton’s face during the 1990s: by 2000, I would turn the channel whenever he was on and immediately flip to another page when I saw his photo in the paper. I couldn’t bear watching Clinton anymore—and now, the man I voted for in the name of putting a stop to Clinton’s malfeasance has become just as irritating.

I couldn’t look at Clinton in 2000 because every time I saw him, I saw corruption, dishonesty, double-dealing. I can’t look at Bush today because his face represents a Presidency that could have achieved greatness, but didn’t.

I remember how enthused I was in January 2001 when Bush took office. He was to young Republicans what JFK was to young Democrats: an inspiring, intelligent leader who would move America in a better, brighter direction. After eight years of Clinton’s perfidy, it was wonderful to have a President we could be proud of again.

I truly though Bush had what it took to match Ronald Reagan as one of the greatest Presidents of all-time. His work in Texas was every bit as impressive as Reagan’s work in California. He was surrounded by some of the most accomplished figures of our time: Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft.

[Caipirabob]

I remember how enthused I was in January 2001 when Bush took office. He was to young Republicans what JFK was to young Democrats:

Uhm, NOT Al Gore?

Well, just you wait, Mr. Tucker...it could always get worse...

[Mr Ramsbotham]

Bush did not understand the evil of leftism.

[freekitty]

I agree.

[backhoe]

Yup...

[EEDUDE]

“Bush did not understand the evil of leftism.”

He also did not understand the need to effectively explain to the American people the reasons for his actions.

He’s seems to have had the idea that he didn’t need to explain anything to anyone. Well I guess he didn’t, but it left many people feeling like he just didn’t care about them.

From a political standpoint this has been disastrous for our party.

[lexusppd]

I think if GWB had one overriding problem it was his desire to overlook the intent and viciousness of the left. In general people think others feel as they do in most areas and George Bush truly is a caring and compassionate man. Being so he believed if he showed an honest attempt to bridge the divide the liberals would meet him half way. He seemingly did not realize the left cares nothing about anyone who doesn't whole heartedly embrace their flawed agenda and will even turn on their own in a heartbeat as we are seeing now with the “dethroning” of the Clinton's and the dismantling of their political machine.

That said this article, IMO, goes to far in condemning the man. He doesn't get enough credit for the things he did such as the tax cuts and his job on the WOT, Iraq pre surge aside, is nothing short of an unqualified success given the most important measuring device that we have not been attacked since 9-11.

Yes we all are disappointed in some ways with this Administration but can anyone name a Democrat who would have even attempted to do the good things done by this president. If he were running today and the opponents were the same I would not hesitate to vote for him.

[lexusppd]

I totally agree that his failure to communicate more frequently with the American people hurt him a great deal.

[Westbrook]

Considering the caliber and political orientation of the remaining three presidential candidates, we will all be pining for the good old Bush days.

We can look for varying degrees of the following.

* Attacks on the 2nd Amendment.

* Attacks on homeschooling.

* Tax increases.

* Spending more out of control than now.

* A likely mahometan attack on a major US city.

Things will will deteriorate so rapidly, I feel confident in saying that the next president, be it McCain, Obama, or Hillary, will be a *ONE* *TERM* president.

[nathanbedford]

Here are two posts in which I try to capture the essence of George Bush's character and the ultimate cause for the failure of this administration as a conservative force. I have seen nothing from the man in the intervening years since these posts were published which changes my assessment:

Other reasons are less easily identifiable and more subjective in nature. One goes to the very essence of the character of George Bush. I've long published that he is not a movement conservative, in fact he is not a conservative at all but rather he is a patrician with loyalties to family, friends, and country. His politics are animated not by conservative ideology but by a noblisse oblige which, as a substitute for political philosophy, move him to act from loyalty and love of country. The result of this is that he does not weigh his words and actions against a coherent standard grounded in conservatism, but instinctively reacts to do what is right for family, friends, and country. Thus we get Harriet Meirs, pandering to the Clintons and Kennedys, prescription drug laws, campaign finance laws, runaway spending, and the war in Iraq. The conservative movement is left muddled and confused and the Republican Party undisciplined and leaderless. In these circumstances all manner of mischief is possible beginning with corruption and indiscipline in the ranks. To be effective, a president must be feared as well is loved. A President is more than just Commander in Chief and Chief Executive of the nation, he is the titular head of his party and he must rule it. If Bush was willing to pander to the likes of Teddy Kennedy, what did Senator John McCain have to fear from him? Bush has utterly failed in his role as head wrangler of the Republican Party.

Other subjective reasons for the debacle involve Bush's personal character. He is essentially a non-confrontational man who would rather operate through collegiality than through power. This is reinforced by his Christian belief and he will almost literally turn the other cheek. So, his loyalty to family and friends affects his appointments and produce mediocrities like Brown at FEMA and Ridge at Homeland Security and Harriet Meirs. It makes him shrink from prosecuting the crimes of his enemies even to the point of overlooking real security lapses committed by The New York Times. It makes it very difficult for Bush to discipline his troops and fire incompetent or disloyal subordinates. Instead he soothes them with the Medal of Freedom.

George Bush is a singularly inarticulate man. When he is not delivering a prepared speech, his sincerity and goodness of character come through, but his policies often die an agonizing death along with the syntax. The truth is that Bush has never been able, Ronald Reagan style, to articulate well the three or four fundamental issues which move the times in which we live. One need only cite the bootless efforts to reform Social Security as an example. His inability to tell America why we must fight in Iraq to win the greater worldwide war against terrorism, or how we are even going to win in Iraq, has been fatal to the Republicans' chances in this election. Of course, one can carry this Billy Budd characterization too far and it is easy to overemphasize its importance, but it is part of the general pattern which has led us to this pass. It is a very great pity that the bully pulpit has been squandered in the hands of a man so inarticulate. That the bully pulpit was wasted means that there are no great guiding principles for the country, for the party, for the administration, for Congress to follow, or for the voters to be inspired by. If the voters went into the booth confused about what the Republican Party stands for, the fault is primarily George Bush's.

..............................................................................................................................................................................................................

Here is the second post written many years ago:

I too have written such e-mails in my head. The problem is not really that George Bush would not read them but that he would not heed them. The problem with George Bush is that he is not primarily a conservative, he is primarily a Christian, and he does not have a calculus that is congruent with yours or mine, even though both of us might be Christians. George Bush sees partisan politics as petty and ultimately meaningless. We see partisanship as the indispensable stuff of freedom. At election time the Bushes will hold their nose and dip into partisanship. But it is not in their essential nature to wage war for tactical political advantage.

George Bush wants what Bill Clinton wanted: To fashion a legacy. He does not want to be remembered as the man who cut a few percentage points from an appropriation bill but as the man who reshaped Social Security. I've come to the conclusion that the Bushes see politics as squirmy, fetid. It must be indulged in if one is to practice statesmanship but it is statesmanship alone that that is worthy as a calling.

They are honest, they are loyal, they are patrician. There would've been admired and respected if had lived among the founding fathers. But it is Laura Bush and Momma Bush who really and truly speak for the family and who tell us what they are thinking and who they are. There's not a Bush woman who does not believe in abortion. They believe in family, they live in loyalty, they believe in the tribe, but they do not believe in partisan politics.

I believe it is time for us to decide no longer to be used by the Bush family as useful idiots and instead to begin to use the Bushes as our useful idiots . I say this with the utmost admiration and respect for everything the Bushes stand for. Who would not be proud beyond description to have a father or an uncle who was among the first and youngest of naval aviators to fight in the Pacific and to be twice shot down. Not a stain or blemish of corruption or personal peccadillo has touched the family(except for the brother whom I believe was cleared of bank charges). They are the living embodiment of all that is good and noble in the American tradition.

But they are not conservative.

[Irishguy]

i agree...reagan was all about communication and explaination and in a very simple manner....

i always remember his final speech when he talked about people floating at sea who were looking to get to america...the classic `Hello, American sailor. Hello, freedom man.’

it was such a simple message...this is what we have achieved America, we are back...

To be fair to Bush, i think the real benefits of Bush will not be seen for years. It will be very apparent in years to come that the early risky decisions on Iraq were correct. It is now a case of when, no longer if, we get democracy in Iraq...the shock waves that will have on the middle east will be a turning point. Imagine 250 million people in the Middle east with hope? its a big ask, i know, but with great risk comes great reward...and thats the risk bush took. He has accepted short term negativity on the war, on himself for a win in 20 years...i suspect when we look back, bush will be seen as a very very different president. he has his faults and he has made IMHO mistakes,...but then again dont we all?

[Polybius]

He also did not understand the need to effectively explain to the American people the reasons for his actions. He’s seems to have had the idea that he didn’t need to explain anything to anyone. Well I guess he didn’t, but it left many people feeling like he just didn’t care about them.

It also left people believing exactly what the Left said about him, whether it was true or not.

We, on Free Republic, discussed these until our typing fingers were raw:

Can anybody ever recall George W. Bush ever saying a single word about them?

Ever?

[raybbr]

bflr

[Coldwater Creek]

Before the next four years are over, the Bush haters will be wishing for him back!

[AmericaUnited]

Before the next four years are over, the Bush haters will be wishing for him back!

If we get the Marxist (Obama) and his ilk in, those words will be so true.

[Niks]

I will miss him. He kept taxes down, he kept this country safe from attacks, he gave us two great justices. He tackled the toughest problems. I think he will remembered as a great president in the future.

Clinton left office with high poll numbers, but what did he do for the country?

[Tut]

Well, I didn’t need to be told a bunch of times things that only need explained once nor did I need MSM to tell me what Bush really said or what Bush really meant to say.

It seems to me that a lot of people are just plain lazy and too stupid to think for themselves and need to be lead by liberal around by the liberal media. The same media that publishes our national secrets in their papers, the same media that capped all over our troops while they’re fighting a war, the same media that boasts our enemies accomplishments and trashes this country every chance they get... just so they can play their part installing liberal leadership in D.C. and their liberal agenda.

[EEDUDE]

Help me out here: what does “mahometan” mean?

[lexusppd]

Bush always liked to throw the long pass. I believe his strongest asset and the one that most fanned the flames of hatred towards him is his complete disdain for what the media said about him. No politician I am aware of could have or would have withstood the daily assault made upon them by the joint efforts of the press and the liberals. Bush committed himself to performing the most important job of a president, the security of the nation and the safety of her people. In this he was undeterred by the continuous assaults on him. It is this strength that so drove the opposition mad because when looking at his strength they saw the weakness within themselves knowing they never could have stood against the pressure as he has done.

The left truly are self haters and can only direct their hatred outward because the idea of living with it is simply to painful for them.

[BufordP]

...However, in the waning days of his Presidency, one can objectively look at his White House tenure and give him a B-, obviously better than the Ds and Fs of his Democrat predecessors, but clearly below the A+ of the Reagan years...

I give him a...

D +

[ByteMercenary]

“... of naval aviators to fight in the Pacific and to be twice shot down.”

This is a bit off topic but is anyone else tired of the assignment of ‘hero’ status to someone who has essentially failed on the field of battle? Getting shot down is not the goal of aviators (Bush, McAmnesty, etc). Getting lost on the ground and being captured is not the goal of our foot soldiers (soldiers in Bosnia). Dropping a hand grenade and blowing off your feet is not ‘taking it to the enemy’ (Democrat ex-Senator(???)). Yet these are examples of incidents that resulted in medals being awarded and/or ‘hero’ status. Yes I applaud their service and sacrifice, but my idea of a hero is Audie Murphy, Paul Tibbets, and others like them. These guys inflicted serious amounts of death on their enemy and came home without State Department intervention.

Now before anyone starts flaming, most of the men and women in my family have served. My oldest son is deferring college to do a stint in the Coast Guard. This is not an anti-military rant, just an observation. Of course being too effective in today's military could end your career ...

[stravinskyrules]

Nathanbedford stated Bush's failings brilliantly above, however you've presented the other side of the coin very well.

We will miss this president in that he's serious in rarely pandering to polls, but in doing what he felt was right and the rest be damned.

I have found it quite refreshing after 8 years of BJ Clintons preening in front of the cameras 24/7.

Most importantly, can anyone honestly say that 9/11 didn't transform this president?

It was his mission, his tunnel vision after 9/11, to deliver payback and some type of strategic solution to this problem (if he succeds or not only time will tell).

After looking upon the ruins of lower Manhattan, he was going to let no one stand in his way to do what needed to be done; no cries of torture, ACLU whining, bitching about rendition, kidnapping suspects overseas....he pulled out all the stops and I salute him for it.

[sergeantdave]

I can fault Mr. Bush for many policies, but in one instance I blame so-called conservatives for one over-riding fact - as a group they sit on their hands and expect someone else to fight their battles for them. Case in point is the proposal by Bush for the “Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI).”

The Bush people proposed the HFI around 2002. In a nutshell, it would have turned control of our national lands to local councils selected by local citizens. In other words, anglers, miners, loggers, hunters and other conservatives would have been in control of what was done in our national forests.

With conservatives in control of the fedsdral lands, it would have been the end of the eco-fascist movement. You would have had more hunting, more fishing, more logging, more jobs for rural Americans and you could have told the eco-fascists to go to hell when they tried to stop logging or close roads or oppose mines.

It’s more complicated than what I wrote, but you Republicans blew it. Everyone did. And it hasn’t changed. I can go to local town meetings or planning councils and I’m the only small government advocate there. The room is populated by a half dozen screaming moonbats who advocate varying degrees of communism or fascism over our lives. Where are your voices, conservatives? Why are you silent?

We really, really need you at these local government meetings.

[Dixie Yooper]

Help me out here: what does “mahometan” mean?

An earlier name for muslims, also used in Afghanistan with the mohajadeen. Are you familiar with Google?

[John Galt's cousin]

bump to read later

[EEDUDE]

Yep, familiar with Google.

Tried looking it up in Wiktionary with no luck.

I usually go there first for the definition of a specific word. I’m sure I would have found it with Google though.

Thanks!

[Dixie Yooper]

The only times I ever use the Wiktionary is if Google takes me there. That's not to say I'm not in there a lot.

[Recon Dad]

He’s seems to have had the idea that he didn’t need to explain anything to anyone

He is so poor at communicating any message. I also think he had extremely poor support around him.

[Recon Dad]

No politician I am aware of could have or would have withstood the daily assault made upon them by the joint efforts of the press and the liberals

He never fought back and if you don’t they roll over you.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

I also agree with the writer. I really think Bush’s main motivation for running and becoming president was to vindicate his father after Senior’s loss to Bubba. He also brought his father’s great weakness: wanting to be liked and wanting to be seen as compassionate. The Libs took him to lunch on that score.

W was missing the core that Reagan had — and more importantly, he was missing the ability or confidence to communicate his message and defend his policies. He could have unleashed Cheney for this task but then everyone would have concluded that Cheney was running things. To this day, I’m anxious every time I see Bush heading to the microphone for a speech or news conference.

[TheBattman]

[ReleaseTheHounds]

Well said. W’s inability to communicate and defend his policies has crippled him. The fact that he is not a conservative probably contributes to that “inability to communicate.”

As soon as I heard the phrase “kinder and gentler America” from the first Bush campaign, I knew we were in for trouble. The era of Ronald Reagan was over.

[iopscusa]

President GW Bush was the best by far over Gore & Kerry...the blame as usual is the infestation of Leftist and Rinos in power.

[snowsislander]

Help me out here: what does “mahometan” mean?

I see from later postings that you have already received an answer, but just to mention what I think is a valuable Internet resource, the website http://www.onelook.com does a credible job finding the definitions of words in a large number of English dictionaries with just one request.

In this case, it came back with these results:

We found 8 dictionaries with English definitions that include the word mahometan:
Tip: Click on the first link on a line below to go directly to a page where "mahometan" is defined.

General (7 matching dictionaries)

1. Mahometan : Infoplease Dictionary [home, info]
   
2. Mahometan, mahometan : Dictionary.com [home, info]
   
3. Mahometan : Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia [home, info]
   
4. Mahometan : Online Plain Text English Dictionary [home, info]
   
5. Mahometan : AllWords.com Multi-Lingual Dictionary [home, info]
   
6. mahometan : Webster's 1828 Dictionary [home, info]
   
7. mahometan : Free Dictionary [home, info]
   

Computing (1 matching dictionary)

8. Mahometan : Encyclopedia [home, info]
   

[pt17]

Bush did not understand the evil of leftism.

Bush did not understand a lot of things and I don't have time to list them all. I guess he was 50% OK (not great) and 50% disappointing. Maybe history will judge him better based on things we have no knowledge of at this time.

[bert]

It is possible that many conservatives have unreasonable expectations. They expect things that are simply not possible.

[shadowgovernment]

“I totally agree that his failure to communicate more frequently with the American people hurt him a great deal.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>......................
oh on so many issues he communicated just fine:
open borders
big government programs expanded with mr ted kennedy ala no child and drug benefits
free trade and support for law of the seas
non enforcement of laws (think mr berger)
pardons for drug dealers & Liddy (of MR MARC RICH's team)but not for border patrol men
He communicated plenty too much for me
perhaps if he spoke in Spanish we would all understand better?

[ThePythonicCow]

Well said, sir.

The best Presidents, while they had skills with people, were driven by ideas. When the moment of crisis came, they would seek solace, and understanding of what was right.

Bush (a good and honest man) and Clinton (a sick and corrupt man) are both smart, but they are both driven more by their connections with other people than by their grounding in a few fundamental concepts.

The great Presidents, such as Washington and Reagan, could take the lonely stand, as well as articulate it, and accomplish it.

[RightOnline]

I happen to agree with you 100%.

[McGruff]

Well, just you wait, Mr. Tucker...it could always get worse...

Agreed. I'm not optimistic about the future.

[shadowgovernment]

“It is possible that many conservatives have unreasonable expectations. They expect things that are simply not possible.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>...................
NO.

the GOP and Demorats are one big government party today..
there was no trying to change anything..if not for 9-11 Bush would have even less support today.
If you are a conservative voting for current GOP pols is
supporting the devil you hate most. crazy to expect new results from the “old hold your nose” lesser of two evils being pushed today to get Comrade McCain elected.

[TADSLOS]

You nailed that one shut with eloquence as usual. :::Clapping out loud:::

[Westbrook]

A Mahometan is a proselyte of the pedophile, polygamous pirate, Mahomet. That is the way it was spelled by Thomas Jefferson. I rather like his spelling, because the Mahometans hate it.

They are also known as Musslemen (Mulcimanos, in Portuguese)

Today’s politically correct term for them is Muslim, but I prefer the older terms, because they hate them.

[pt17]

It is possible that many conservatives have unreasonable expectations. They expect things that are simply not possible.

The things I wanted Bush to do were mostly quite reasonable and readily doable (e.g., veto some pork now and then, don't fight a PC war in Iraq, etc.)

[Arrowhead1952]

Before the next four years are over, the Bush haters will be wishing for him back!

If we get the Marxist (Obama) and his ilk in, those words will be so true.

If we get either Marxist and their ilk in, those words will be so true and "moderate" voters will be as sick of them as we are. I have a feeling that there will be a revolt against the liberal establishment. One of the biggest problems with the American public has is that they continue to listen to the BS networks which has its own liberal agenda to have a dim in the WH next year.

[EEDUDE]

Thank you. Looks great. I’ll bookmark it.

[Randy Papadoo]

There’s the old saw that “A man is judged by his accomplishments and the company he keeps.”

Bush 43 was a mediocre student, IOW, not an intellectual.
His early adult years were spent in the oil business, like his father, and then he bought part of a baseball team with other patrician friends and investors. I don’t know where he got his money to do that. Perhaps his father h elped.

He apparently made a lot of money when he sold the team. He never, TTBOMK, did much himself in the team’s administration. The team was more like an investment, just like real estate. Thus, he made a lot of money without doing much except letting time pass.

Texas politics is insane, yet he attained the governorship of Texas. The Texas governor has only limited responsibilities.

When he ran for president, I actually felt, and stated this to several people, that I thought Bush was going to accomplish something great during his presidency. Not because he was great man(he wasn’t), but more the vibes I felt coming off him. And 9/11 put him in the driver’s seat to lead the country in a time of real crisis.

I believe he tried his best, but I was very wrong.

Even the Iraq invasion seemed necessary, for all the reasons we know so well, some of which didn’t materialize.

But Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t finished, and won’t be under his administration, meaning that he gets no credit for his leadership in these critical efforts.

Accomplishments? Not too many, as noted in this thread already.

What about the company he keeps? nathanbedford listed them, people like Brown, Miers, Gonsalves, Wolfowitz(sp?), his closest advisors and incompetents all, but his friends. Rumsfeld and Geo Tenant, both going down under loads of bullsh__ trying to defend the terrible mistakes they had made. Know what? Bush is still friends will all of them, even though they let him down and ruined his reputation via their abject misfeasances.

George Bush does have admirable personal qualities, but the only conclusion I can make, not at all based on the early lib taunts, is that he is obtuse, and he never quite got it.

[EEDUDE]

“Today’s politically correct term for them is Muslim, but I prefer the older terms, because they hate them.”

That’s a excellent reason for using it. LOL!

I recently finished reading Bernard Lewis’ “What Went Wrong?”

I now understand the phrase “egomaniac with an inferiority complex” in a cultural sense.

Muslims are arguably one of the most primitive cultures on Earth. Prior to the time of the “Prophet” that wasn’t the case.

They just can’t understand why the rest of the world has passed them by, and it makes them kind of grumpy.

Anything to further irritate them is worthwhile!

[lexusppd]

Agreed. I suppose he believes in the “turn the other cheek” way but unfortunately in Politics silence is no different from acquiescence.

[Verloona Ti]

They also hate the 'moslem' spelling and pronunciation, because it sounds like an Arabic word for 'evil person'. Which is why I use that word only to name the creatures.