Replies

Well, I have not yet had a chance to read this 12-page article, as I am about to fall asleep, having stayed up all night to do some school work on a project for my students.

However, I did see this article mentioned on Dem sites, where it seems they are already cursing out the NYT, and crying their eyes out that the NYT Sunday Magazine's cover would feature our nation's president two days before his state of the union address.

The Dem posters hated this NYT article. I guess that means people here will like it....

OK, here's the part, below, that's got the Dem posters writing letters to the editor of the NYT. [And, BTW, the author of this NYT article states in the article that his own father owned an oil company.] -- Excerpt from the NYT Sunday magazine:

What Bush is striving for, on the evidence of the choices he has made so far, is bold in its ambition: markets unleashed, resources exploited. A progressive tax system leveled, a country unashamed of wealth. Government entitlements gradually replaced by thrift, self-reliance and private good will. The safety net strung closer to the ground. Government itself infused with, in some cases supplanted by, the efficiency and accountability of a well-run corporation. A court system dedicated to protecting property and private enterprise and enforcing individual responsibility. A global common market that hums to the tune of American productivity. In the world, America rampant -- unfettered by international law, unflinching when challenged, unmatchable in its might, more interested in being respected than in being loved.

Dubya has been a very pleasant surprise, even when he's acted on policies that I've disapproved -- because he shows both a willingness to learn and the courage of his convictions. That combination of moral confidence and personal humility is more powerful than any arrogant SOB's know-it-all attitude, no matter how smart or knowledgeable he might actually be.

I don't really like the idea of anyone having as much "power over" as the President of the United States has, but perhaps the Bush Administration will succeed in persuading the country at large that federal power (in particular) needs to be kept under firm restraint -- by exhibiting such restraint, compelling similar restraint on Congress and the judiciary, and then letting the results speak for themselves.

A free people can lose its freedom muscles, simply by not exercising them. I think that describes what's happened to us this past century. We eschewed personal initiative and responsibility, and called for government angels to bear us up, lest we dash our foot against a stone. Thus, we forgot how to walk -- many of us, at any rate -- and had to accept being carried. And he who is carried loses his choice of destination.

But functions not completely lost will return with use. If Bush and his team, with a bold program of tax cuts, regulatory scalebacks, and appointments of strict constructionists to the federal bench, can prod us into motion again, we'll relearn our freedom skills quickly enough to please the staunchest libertarian: me.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit the Palace Of Reason:
http://palaceofreason.com

The WashPost has an article today comparing Bush and Clinton (and Bush to other presidents), and not quite sure what to make over a guy who doesn't thrive on photo ops, public appearances, trips to McDonald's, etc.

Excerpt:

The president and Laura Bush decided one night this month that it was time for a night out in Washington. Shortly after 7 p.m. on Jan. 15, they walked through the doors of the Cactus Cantina on Wisconsin Avenue NW and into a dining room filled with about 250 unsuspecting locals. Their table was near the back, away from the windows. She got the fajitas. He got the cheese enchilada.

Such adventures have been rare since the Bushes moved into the White House two years ago. Asked for examples of similar forays, White House staff members and keen-eyed presidential observers often pause, in a head-scratching sort of way, before proceeding.

"Well, they actually haven't done much of that," said Noelia Rodriguez, the first lady's spokeswoman. "They pretty much every night have dinner together when they're at the White House. They spend a lot of time reading. And he might watch some sort of sporting event, especially during baseball season."

Everyone concurs that the president hasn't exactly set the Washington area ablaze with public appearances. They're quick with explanations: a steady workload of international crises, heightened security concerns following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a presidential personality that's more comfortable at Camp David or a Texas ranch. Friends of Bush say he knows what he likes -- open spaces, intimate gatherings with family, Tex-Mex food -- and is content to stick with those things instead of exploring a city that he has made plain doesn't feel like home to him.

All of this seems right to Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), who often finds herself in disagreement with Bush's policies. If he presented himself as a man-of-the-town with scores of photo ops and drop-ins, she said, it would look hokey. "I think the president is right not to spend a lot of time in a largely Democratic city where he'll be criticized for using it as kind of a prop," she said. "I think he's doing it right. He comes out when it's relevant." rest of article