Posted on 05/04/2002 11:41:03 AM PDT by Pokey78
I'm not at all surprised that polls are finding that president Bush's mind-boggling levels of public support cannot be fully explained by the war effect alone. That model was always too crude.
Some leaders will experience an uplift during times of national crisis, but if the public never really respected them, and if the war highlights their weaknesses as much as their stengths, then, as soon as tensions ease, the bubble bursts.
Not so with Bush.
I think the model here is a different one: what the war did is show Americans what kind of man they elected. His calm, determination, ordinariness, sense of humor and sense of grief, resonated. We bonded. That bond will last and be converted into other things.
It does not mean that everyone will agree with his specific policies; but it does mean that his popularity can be used to put extra oomph behind those policies, whatever their popular support.
The best analogy is with Margaret Thatcher during the Falklands War. For her entire period in office, she never won an absolute majority of votes, and always had a strong, if divided, opposition. In polls, most Brits disagreed with her on most issues. But they respected her character, her grit, her steel under fire - and it was the war that revealed this more than anything.
Bush is not like Thatcher. He's far more likeable. He is clearly, in my view, what he would call "a good man."
I came to this realization during the campaign - especially compared to his callow rival.
The media did their best to cloud this view. The New York Times continues to run an incessant campaign against him - from op-eds to news stories. But this time, the public woke up from their usual (and defensible) preoccupations, took a good, long look for themselves, and liked what they saw. Even Californians.
The public looks through ideological litmus tests to, yes, character. And they're right.
That's why I'm not going to join the chorus of conservative criticism of Bush's recent Middle East diplomacy. Sorry, I know he's not a sell-out. I trust him.
For me, this underlying trust helps balance out my occasional worries about policy wobbles or tacks. The same goes for many others, I think, far away from the Washington hot-house.
And it will last.
The understatement of the year!
ML/NJ
Good words about a good man.
I agree. But if I were Bush, I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable with such a compliment from an unashamed homosexual, as Sullivan advertises he is.
I simply don't trust the moral judgments of unrepentant homosexuals (just as I don't also of unrepentant (a la Clinton) adulterers.). If one is morally confused about sex, one is likely to be morally confused elsewhere too.
(I'm still torqued about CFR, but am waiting while it plays out).
"Don't cry for me, Sergeant-Major" by Robert McGowan is the best "soldiers" view of the escapade.
It is quite strange to look back 20 yrs.(May 21st 1982-landing at San Carlos water) I remember it was cold and wet all the time,yet it was the jokes and comradeship that stick in the mind.
Q.What is the best contraceptive in the world?
A.Excocet Missiles, they kill seamen at 40 miles.
Please note:- when this joke is repeated in a Royal Navy Mess, lead with the jaw.
As far as you posting it so unsuspecting Freepers might not "know" what Sullivan is about, that's a total specious statement.
I think you like to post stuff like that because you don't like homosexuals.
His POLITICAL writings have NOTHING to do with his sexuality, unless he's writing about sex.
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.