Posted on 11/11/2009 1:00:56 AM PST by cold start
Prior to my first live interaction with George W Bush, I thought of him as an amiable, laidback guy with little in the top storey and the typical Texan's broad brush approach to life with a disdain for detail. I had always rated Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, in that order, as the most cerebral US presidents in a long time and Bush came way down in that pecking order. With no intellectual pretensions and the hate legacy of Iraq, there was pretty little to like about Bush. Except that, from a purely selfish Indian perspective, no US president had reached out and done so much for our country.
I reckon that a majority of Indians if they ever thought of Bush thought the same way. Recently we were all proved wrong. For one hour, he held a large audience in Delhi spellbound, cheering him wildly, eating out of his hands and giving him a standing ovation. Not a word by Bush was out of place, not a joke humourless, not a sentiment out of sync. And this was no ordinary audience it was articulate, sceptical, knowledgeable and ready to tear apart any icon.
Bush came across as extremely well-informed, competent, persuasive, a great orator, a man who spoke from the heart, with a wry, self-deprecatory outlook on life, and full of visible love for India and Indians.
The first thing this tells you about public life is the power of perception. With all the education, information technology and power of analytical scrutiny available to us, it is time democracies and the masses who form their backbone start thinking and reacting more rationally than on mere perception. The first i fault on this front is myself.
Second, it tells you the power of speaking from the heart more than the head. Whenever one heard Bill Clinton he is one of the most consummate orators in English globally one is dazzled by his brilliance but always left with a lurking doubt about his sincerity. Bush comes across as someone honourable, speaking honestly from the heart and even on issues where one may violently disagree with him, one goes away with the feeling that he is genuine about his convictions.
Third, while India and Indians have showered unconditional love upon Clinton and Obama, the man who really loves India and all things Indian is Bush. Forget the civil nuclear agreement, though that by itself exceeds what any single previous US president has done for India. But Bush was the first to meaningfully and in real terms de-hyphenate the Indo-Pak relationship. He was the first to realise that US relations with each country stand on independent and distinct foundations and that a country of the size, diversity and depth of India can hardly be clubbed with Pakistan as far as US foreign policy is concerned.
Additionally, it was the Bush administration, more than any other, which sent a clear and unequivocal signal to China that the US was prepared to reach out and support a countervailing power of the size and potential comparable to China, in China's own backyard.
His sincere support to women's causes is self-evident and explodes the myth about him being anti-Muslim. Apart from his telling repartee regarding the four women in his life, it is clear that girl child education and in particular that of the Muslim girl child is a theme very dear to Bush's heart. His educational initiatives in his own country are female-focused and include a comprehensive project devoted to female education in the Middle East, which will be physically located in that region.
The one abiding image of the Bush administration in my own mind was that of lack of compassion and empathy, an absence of a human touch. Having heard Bush, I can see how wrong i was. Perhaps it is the company Bush kept especially that of Dick Cheney, his former vice-president that was responsible for part of that buccaneering, unemotional and heartless persona we saw. Beware of perceptional politics.
The writer is an MP and national spokesperson of the Congress party
It is the fault of the American press for manipulating our Presidents images. They can make the public at large hate you or love you.
This is a man who was raised up by God for this moment in history, who still has The Lord's hand on his shoulder, yet remains genuinely humble.
How I miss him.
Ya gotta read ths.
This confirms for me that President Bush’s legacy, like that of Ronald Reagan, will be much different after 20 years. Those who hate him now will wonder how they missed his greatness.
Some of us were able to discern long ago. It’s reassuring that others are as well. The world WILL be missing George Bush as much as I do before the next three years are up.
I think they’d be surprised if they actually had Cheney over for a visit, too.
Now maybe this guy needs to meet Dick Cheney.
I disagree mildly. I think the blame lies in an evil, biased and corrupt media.
They know how to manipulate the words and images to achieve their own agenda-ed objectives.
The American people are in total darkness, trusting in the media for the truth and not getting it.
But the rest of your note is spot on.
An odd sentence. How does supporting women's causes show one to not be anti-Muslim?
One can make a decent case that pro-woman = anti-Muslim.
Quite a large number of Muslims agree.
My sentiments exactly!
The NY Times says Einstein is stupid
ping
Funny thing is even on FR I still see blame on Bush for Obama's election. The blame, imo, lies squarely on an uneducated, bribed, and an outright stupid population.
Even Ronald Reagan himself wasn't perfect. You usually find yourself voting against the greater evil, tho - and Reagan was my chance to vote for a president. This past election, of course, I found myself voting for the VP candidate, who functioned as a clothespin on my nose WRT the fact that I was actually voting for (UGH!) John McCain. Not that a Republican vote for president means much of anything in New York . . .But it has to be said that (SCOTUS nominations apart, a big caveat) George W. Bush was John F. Kennedy with a Texas, rather than a Harvard, accent. Yea, unto the tax cuts.
I was born in a country where white Christian men were considered the norm in the conduct of affairs. Full stop. It was stunning to see an old video from the Kennedy era, in which Jacqueline conducted a tour of the White House. In it Jacqueline pointed out the cabinet room where, as she put it, "the men" conducted business. It was just the air we breathed. There certainly was room for change in that - but by the time of the Reagan Administration the Democrats accused Attorney General Edwin Meese of functioning as "a lawyer for white men" - and by then white men actually needed a lawyer. We still do.
And in fact, the signal failure of Jack Kemp to perform that function in the '96 VP debate with Al Gore is what destroyed Kemp's reputation as presidential timber. All Gore had to do was damn Kemp with the faint praise of being different from other Republicans on race, and Kemp was eating out of Gore's hand. It was pathetic. Yeah, Kemp was different from most white men - in the circles in which he traveled he could afford to be. The rest of us get our hands bitten off if we try to pet that particular dog.
And frankly, I think that Sarah Palin has great potential primarily because she - as a woman married to a non-Anglo man - is situated to, and has the temperament to, function as a lawyer for white men. Even considering her affinity for Title 9, which discriminates against men in college athletics. It is a plain statement of the bald truth that women's athletics are discrimination against men. For example, although Palin is known as a basketball guard she dismisses the thought of playing basketball against Obama - and rightly so. The physical size factor alone . . . One advantage college women's coaches have in conducting practice is that they can recruit as strong a squad as they want their "A" team to scrimmage against, by the mere expedient of rounding up a bunch of mediocre male basketball players anywhere on campus.
So in fact, in the absence of discrimination, there would be scarcely any women in college athletics. At all. Now if Palin could get Obama the smoker into a long-distance footrace, that would be a different question entirely . . . after that she probably could beat him at basketball!
But the general point is that the middle class cannot afford lower class/upper class (i.e., "liberal") mores. The middle class aspires to more than the lower class, and they don't already have like the "limousine liberal" does. The middle class needs the Republican Party to protect it from the other two classes. And not all Republicans are willing to do so. Such people may be nice guys, but we don't need them in political office.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!
I agree and miss him too. He is one of the most honorable presidents and his love for this country and people could never be in doubt.
I’ll bet he didn’t use a teleprompter at this speech!
Good grief!
Obama hates white women because of his mother abandonning him when young. Didn’t you know that?
Excellent point, and so often overlooked.
This goes way back in history, BTW. The aristocracy have always been able to indulge themselves, insulated by their wealth and power from the consequences. The poor don't get any more poor when they misbehave.
I don’t know that, and I don’t see how it’s relevant to either the article or my post.
The media, at least 80% of them, hold the same opinions as President Bush's most ardent critics. These same media types believe they're so intelligent and better informed than "the people". Their position can then be summarized as: "I'm smart. I disagree with Bush's positions. Therefore Bush must be dumb." That's their position and they've stuck with it for 9 years now.
Funny thing though. They all think Obama is smart. "Off the charts" IQ. Yet, when asked to provide any evidence, they have no SAT scores, transcripts or LSAT scores to go on. They have to admit all he's ever really accomplished is getting elected President. By that measure, George W. Bush is twice as smart.
In truth, they're afraid to question his intelligence because that would mean questioning their own. Plus they would instantly become racists.
There is no question about the media being complicit however, answer this for me: Who did you vote for? And how did you make your decision to vote that particular way?
In a day and age where we literally can put our hands on information in nano-seconds, TV/Radio alone cannot be blamed. That to me is the most frustrating thing about the situation. That people couldn't discern right from wrong, evil from good and most importantly: Liberty from Tyranny. The facts were under their noses and still they chose to ignore what was so evident and vote a marxist in.
We are generally from the same era although, I was a small girl when Kennedy was in but history,imo, shows the JFK was a sincere man in his attempts. He was a hawk although from what I've read was against Vietnam but the man made no secret about his love of Liberty. He was of the old branch of Dems that still understood Liberty. And unfortunately he looks to be the last.
And yes, the world was white however, not exclusively so. The people of color that did become prominent in one field or another, did so by the sweat of their brow. No sense of entitlement other than the one that we as all Americans have: working hard will acheive much. No longer is that true and the middle class is the class needing protection but it's precisely those of us in it, that are being targeted until we end up with nothing at all.
Well it's going to crash down and drag even those in the upper class down with it. Even those that voted for the marxist.
Sarah Palin has what it takes: A backbone and the hell that she has been put through, even before hitting the national stage, has shown her to be extremely tough. If she runs I will support her. She has guts and she loves Liberty for all people. And she knows right from wrong. These are not complicated theories from Harvard or some other crappy Ivy League school. These are simple ingredients for success.
Thanks, great little piece that more Americans should read.
Well, what can one say.
At least this guy is man enough to analyse and admit the truth.
Bush’s essential points are totally unappreciated by the Americans of Indian origin, who most certainly put Obama on a pedestal.
I’m glad that India didn’t follow lemming like, in the kneejerk hatred of Bush, and this appearance of Bush was a highly effective pre-emptive(;>>) strike of his empathy(!) and understanding that may well help India gaze upon Obama with a philosophical eye, repeating the ancient mantra, “this too shall pass”.
And I’m hearing that Americans visiting India are being given an earful in some cases by their Indian hosts about Obama’s perfidy, an Indian perception, of course, but amazing all the same how quickly its happened.
There is no question about the media being complicit however, answer this for me: Who did you vote for? And how did you make your decision to vote that particular way?I disagree mildly. I think the blame lies in an evil, biased and corrupt media. They know how to manipulate the words and images to achieve their own agenda-ed objectives.
In a day and age where we literally can put our hands on information in nano-seconds, TV/Radio alone cannot be blamed. That to me is the most frustrating thing about the situation. That people couldn't discern right from wrong, evil from good and most importantly: Liberty from Tyranny. The facts were under their noses and still they chose to ignore what was so evident and vote a marxist in.
I think a little humility is in order. I actually had to have it pointed out to me that journalism was biased!In my defense, I had been subjected to a propaganda campaign promoting the absurd premise of journalistic objectivity for my entire life, and my father before me. And that campaign is still going on, and it's still pretty effective.
My fantasy - and it is a fantasy, I fear - is that a case is taken to the Supreme Court which points out the harm which "objective" journalism has done to the country. The Associated Press transformed the newspaper business from basically opinion journalism to (patently fraudulent) "objective" journalism. A lawsuit against the AP could easily point out that the AP has been held by SCOTUS to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and could easily point out the sine qua non of actually trying to be objective is to avoid making any claim to actually be objective (That is, any effort at objectivity must begin with an open evaluation of any reasons to believe that the striver might not be objective - the very opposite of the preemptive claim of objectivity which is characteristic of the journalist. And reasons to suspect journalists of subjectivity are not particularly obscure - journalism's "If it bleeds, it leads" tendency and it's "Man Bites Dog, not Dog Bites Man" tendencies not least. Those tendencies directly cause a bias against conservatism).
“My fantasy - and it is a fantasy, I fear - is that a case is taken to the Supreme Court which points out the harm which “objective” journalism has done to the country.”
My fantasy is similar. “Journalistic Malpractice.”
Doctors and Lawyers have some special privileges in our society because of their profession. Their education and experience allows them to do certain things that ordinary citizens can not do.
But accompanying these privileges are certain obligations they must adhere to. If they violate their professional obligations, they are subject to malpractice accusations.
So it is with Journalists. They have “Press Passes” and special privileges that ordinary citizens don’t have. So, along with the privileges come obligations. I would maintain that one of the most important obligations for a Journalist would be to present the facts in an objective and unbiased manner. Also, they have to investigate the whole story, not just present details that are congruent with their agenda, avoiding other facts.
So if a Journalist strays from the obligations of his/her profession, the Journalist is subject to malpractice accusations, just like the other professionals.
They have their perks, but they also have their responsibilities.
I’m really surprised that so far, no greedy lawyer hasn’t thought of suing AP or NBC for “Journalistic Malpractice.” But I bet it’s just a matter of time. The thought of lawyers suing Journalists makes my mouth water...
They have their perks, but they also have their responsibilities.
I’m really surprised that so far, no greedy lawyer hasn’t thought of suing AP or NBC for “Journalistic Malpractice.” But I bet it’s just a matter of time. The thought of lawyers suing Journalists makes my mouth water...
Writing shortly after 9/11, I discussed the idea of action against broadcast journalism in this FR article:Why Broadcast Journalism isSubsequently I kept that thread going with replies for years, and finally realized that it was too unwieldily and made others.
Unnecessary and IllegitimateMore recently I have been updating this thread:
The Right to Know. . . which has been well received by some. You might be interested.
I’m really surprised that so far, no greedy lawyer hasn’t thought of suing AP or NBC for “Journalistic Malpractice.” But I bet it’s just a matter of time. The thought of lawyers suing Journalists makes my mouth water...
Actually, there is a good reason why it hasn't happened. It's illustrated by the story of the lawyer and the layman who whose boat sank and who were drifting at sea in life vests. They were horrified to see a fin protruding from the surface, and circling them. At the crucial moment, though, the lawyer swam over to the shark and used sign language to communicate with the shark. He then swam back to his friend, and the shark swam away. The layman said to his friend, "That's amazing - why didn't he bite you? The lawyer replied, "Professional courtesy."
In reality journalists and lawyers - and others of the usual "liberal" suspects - are all in the complaining professions - and they all notably go along and get along with each other.
I concur completely.
HG......thank you for your response and by it, I'm assuming you may have voted for someone other than the limp wrisp that was on the ticket. We are now in a potential tyranny. It is greatly hoped that you have recognized that if that was the case. If, however, you voted for the limp wrist, be assured many of us are 'out here' watching. Bless you and your family.
Ty.....Although, I fear that we are in the minority (at this point). The Republic is truly under threat.
Hear, hear. Interesting, although a somewhat quaint style of writing.
Ping
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.