He's Back? Ah, But Dubya Never Really Went Away
Peter Robinson ·
Nov 11, 2010 at 3:43pm
Over on Powerline, our friend Paul Mirengoff offers an arresting, and astute, observation. To wit:
Question: What do the following three current news stories have in common?
Answer: They speak to the partial vindication, or at least the staying power, of policies at the core George W. Bush's presidency.
- Comment (15)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: He's Back? Ah, But Dubya Never Really Went Away
Throw in Guantanamo, outreach to India, embracing the Patriot Act, a big "nevermind" on KSM in NYC, Gates as SecDef, the embrace of General Betrayus, taking credit for whatever success TARP produced, ....
May '10
Re: He's Back? Ah, But Dubya Never Really Went Away
Told ya so. I invite all the Bush-bashers to weigh in. I sent my first hundred bucks to the Bush Center a couple of weeks ago.
I suggest that after everyone has finished attempted eviscerations of W as a RINO, big spender, etc. you get James Glassman on a podcast to speak for the defense.
May '10
Re: He's Back? Ah, But Dubya Never Really Went Away
It's an even simpler exercise to find three articles about Dubya's book tour which vindicate Republican complaints of bias - I know I've read glowing examples in The New York Times and The Washington Post, and that's without really searching.
However the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan play out in the long term, the media was successful in painting President Bush as a far-right buffoon who did things for the wrong reasons (or no reason) and was too stupid to realize it. Their rancor towards the man is bound to make readers wonder why the media still hates him - especially when contrasted with media treatment of President Obama.
May '10
Re: He's Back? Ah, But Dubya Never Really Went Away
I voted for Bush happily in 2004 (wasn't old enough in 2000) and knowing what I know now I'd do so again with little hesitation. That said, it's hard to argue that W wasn't a big spender. It's important to defend his record, but not to the point of insisting he was any sort of ideal conservative.
Jul '10
Re: He's Back? Ah, But Dubya Never Really Went Away
Duane Oyen: Told ya so. I invite all the Bush-bashers to weigh in. I sent my first hundred bucks to the Bush Center a couple of weeks ago.
I suggest that after everyone has finished attempted eviscerations of W as a RINO, big spender, etc. you get James Glassman on a podcast to speak for the defense. · Nov 11 at 4:18pm
Duane, it looks like someone needs to read their Frédéric Bastiat regarding the boondoggles in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A final note: talking about extending tax cuts now is precisely because he set those to expire.
Edited on Nov 11, 2010 at 5:06pmMay '10
Re: He's Back? Ah, But Dubya Never Really Went Away
Michael Tee
Duane, it looks like someone needs to read their Frédéric Bastiat regarding the boondoggles in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A final note: talking about extending tax cuts is precisely because he set those to expire. · Nov 11 at 4:36pm
Michael, as you know, I am not an Ayn Rand pay-tolls-to-walk-on-sidewalks libertarian, nor am I a radical isolationist. Post what you will, but I don't see a lot of point in arguing peripheral points that fundamentally derive from basic "political religion" differences. We will continue to agree to disagree.
Aug '10
Re: He's Back? Ah, But Dubya Never Really Went Away
Sep '10
Re: He's Back? Ah, But Dubya Never Really Went Away
I guess if all GWB knew about was every Texas longhorn, then knowing Texas longhorns is a worthwhile endeavor.
May '10
Re: He's Back? Ah, But Dubya Never Really Went Away
BTW, Michael, the statement below is incorrect. The tax cuts were 10 years because of a Byrd Rule issue requiring the reconciliation process. The WH and Senate leadership wanted them to be permanent, but were short of votes.
Michael Tee
A final note: talking about extending tax cuts now is precisely because he set those to expire. · Nov 11 at 4:36pm
Edited on Nov 11 at 05:06 p
May '10
Re: He's Back? Ah, But Dubya Never Really Went Away
I’ll do a longer, “defending W” post eventually, but I know this to be fact.
Contrary to popular myths about GWB being intellectually lazy, most of which were immortalized by MSM snark (Maureen Dowd, referring to VP Chehey as Bush’s “adult supervision” in a NYT column), he was actually very involved in development of policy. As an experienced MBA executive, he would delegate authority without undercutting the lead delegate, but he worked the big issues personally in detail, seeking out knowledgeable people of all backgrounds.
I know of a situation where a standard academic PhD think tank expert in Washington was invited to a WH meeting regarding foreign policy. After the fact he/she told colleagues how the reality was far different from her image of the man. He/she said that the meeting had up to 20 similar experts there from local think tanks and universities, VP Cheney sat in back and took notes, and Pres. Bush ran the session, showing a knowledge of the subject matter, quizzing each guest on areas of expertise, and asking excellent follow-up questions. This person left saying “I’m a Democrat, but I had the wrong image of him.”
Re: He's Back? Ah, But Dubya Never Really Went Away
Having Jim Glassman on a podcast to talk about W is indeed a good darned idea, Duane. Consider it on top of the Stack of Stuff We'll Get To.
Re your latest post on Dubya, though, I have to push back, just a little. He was indeed--is indeed--impressive in small groups. But you can't govern the United States by talking to a dozen people at a time. I subscribe to Karl Rove's view--the central confession in Rove's book--that the Bush White House lost control of its own communications. Which is tantamount to losing the very ability to govern.
Edited on Nov 12, 2010 at 2:46pmRe: He's Back? Ah, But Dubya Never Really Went Away
There was a great quote in one of Steven Hayward's books from George Will on the subject of Gerald Ford. I don't have it right in front of me this minute, but it was to the effect that "the first duty (or most important characteristic, or something along those lines) of any president is to be articulate." You cannot lead or persuade without that. This was W's greatest failure, despite his many admirable qualities and instincts. (Interestingly, it is also turning out to be one of Obama's great failures as president -- he can inspire those who are already with him -- even more than W -- but he has shown a singular inability to persuade those who are not already Believers. You have to be able to persuade the persuadable. Reagan was so good at this.)
May '10
Re: He's Back? Ah, But Dubya Never Really Went Away
Peter Robinson:Re your latest post on Dubya, though, I have to push back, just a little. He was indeed--is indeed--impressive in small groups. But you can't govern the United States by talking to a dozen people at a time. I subscribe to Karl Rove's view--the central confession in Rove's book--that the Bush White House lost control of its own communications. Which is tantamount to losing the very ability to govern. · Nov 12 at 2:44pm
Edited on Nov 12 at 02:46 pm
Peter, I obviously didn't communicate well. The point of my post was not political communication, it was a counter to the oft-repeated screed that Bush was an intellectually incurous dolt being manipulated by Cheney, et al.
Clearly, they blew the communications strategy. Josh Bolten, architect of the Scott McClellan for Tony Snow switch, was desperately needed about 3 years before he showed up.
The worst error was the defensive reaction to the 16 word SOTU controversy. That was the time to dig in and push back instead of surrendering, even though the MSM had the long knives out regardless of the facts.
Re: He's Back? Ah, But Dubya Never Really Went Away
Duane Oyen
The point of my post was not political communication, it was a counter to the oft-repeated screed that Bush was an intellectually incurous dolt being manipulated by Cheney, et al.
Clearly, they blew the communications strategy. Josh Bolten, architect of the Scott McClellan for Tony Snow switch, was desperately needed about 3 years before he showed up.
The worst error was the defensive reaction to the 16 word SOTU controversy. That was the time to dig in and push back instead of surrendering, even though the MSM had the long knives out regardless of the facts. · Nov 13 at 8:25am
Oh, I gotcha. And I agree with every word. (Steve Manacek put it better than I did.)
May '10
Re: He's Back? Ah, But Dubya Never Really Went Away
Looking forward to it, Duane. It's needed, and it'll definitely generate a comment or two. I'd recommend three cups of coffee before posting.