I voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004. Never crazy about the guy but with choices like Reverend Gore and John (Lurch) Kerry, he looked pretty good. He’s definitely disappointed me a few times. His appointments of Harriet Miers and Alberto Gonzales were pretty obvious mistakes — made up however by stellar appointments such as Roberts, Snow, and Bolton (although that last one is sadly undone). And now his America-destroying pro-illegal stance... Well, on with my point.
What’s wrong with Bush, really? I’ve thought for a long time that his worst quality is that he’s just a ridiculously bad public speaker. The only reason he did well in the debates against Kerry is because he was debating Kerry. I guess the Dems decided to play weakness against weakness... Good plan.
But I do believe though I’ve come to understand what I don’t like about Bush — He doesn’t fight back. He’s weak. He’s a microcosm of modern America. He’s got enough gumption to do what he thinks is right, but he is disappointingly silent in his own defense (and, yes, I do watch Fox News). He’s attacked by the main stream media 24/7, but when has he ever reamed any of his attackers a new one? In recent memory I can remember only incident even remotely close — when he chided those attacking his immigration "reform" as spouting "empty rhetoric." Sadly, he was attacking his own party and political base. Thanks, G.W... Why can’t he get some balls when the libs attack him? You’ve seen those White House Press briefings... Ostensibly an opportunity for the press to ask questions, it has turned into a spear chucking, foot frying, monkey poo flinging contest to see which “journalist” can score the most points. The reporters' so-called questions are merely attempts to trap, discredit, and embarrass the White House (funny, it wasn't like that during the Clinton presidency...). Why does the White house even bother with this weekly flogging? At least Tony Snow knows how to deal with these hecklers (although sadly he’s forced to carry water for Bush on this sickening immigration "reform" giveaway).
At any rate, the problem with Bush is that he has just enough backbone to begin to do what’s right but then he is weakly, foolishly, and ineptly silent in defense of his policies to the American public. The "Great Communicator" he's not. And, in my opinion, this is EXACTLY what invites attacks against him. The libs know they can fling poo and Bush (like Jesus?) will just turn the other cheek. That’s why he’s like a microcosm of American foreign policy (and why I don’t think Jesus would make a good President). We’ve proved to our enemies that we can’t stand the heat in the kitchen. That’s what the whole Mogadishu / Black Hawk Down lesson was about. Bin Laden has said so! Show weakness and you’ll continue to get attacked (this of course is not a new lesson from history but a very old one). Fortunately Bush knows this about Iraq. But somehow he doesn’t know this about the DNC.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Actually, I think I completely disagree with you on this one. What you are asking is for Bush to "grow a pair" and take on his critics. I seem to remember that the former President Clinton had a bit of a hair-string trigger and was certainly not shy about biting back at his critics. I also remember that the net effect was to make him appear to be an ill-tempered whiner. Even his acolytes in the press would find fault with this behavior.
Bush, for all his shortcomings (and they multiply by the day) has taken this lesson seriously. I suspect that it has a lot to do with his Chistian faith (turn the other cheek, etc.) but the result is to silently denigrate his critics with an attitude of "they are beneath my contempt, not worthy of a response". And surely we could agree that if he was to vocally take on his detractors it would create (or more correctly, the media would be sure to create) a brouha that would not acrue to his benefit ....
Re Pat Riot's comment:
"hair-string trigger"? I think you mean "G-string trigger"!
Well Mr. Riot, I will also point out that Tony Snow has been very successful in "growing a pair" for Bush by proxy. Whereas whenever Bush's previous Press Secretary, Scott McClellan, held a conference it was like dumping chum in shark invested water. The feeding frenzy would commence. I'm not saying that Bush should be nasty, nor that he should be petulant (like Clinton), but simply that he should hold his own. I don't think that he does and I believe this encourages attacks.
..
George Bush can't win because no one in the press voted for him.
Watching too much court tv I noticed how the cops will talk about a suspect - the perp was too emotional in one epeisode and in the next episode with another perp, he was cold and unresponsive.
Bush has been profiled and the dnc runs with it. No matter what he does, he's the perp. George listens to his lawyers and says noting.
It might be nice if he strapped on some balls but someone will kick 'em.
I am disappointed with the conduct of the war, especailly with Afganistan and this bs that anything less than amnesty for illegals is bigoted. My great hope was that George Bush would unify repulicans but he is now splitting the party.
If the republicans loose more in congress next go 'round then the right will be in the wilderness for another 20 years. GW had his run and it's now up to the rest of the party to make something happen but I'm not enouraged.
two cents _ _ jB
..
Post a Comment