Paradox W
Anyone else reading Decision Points, the Bush memoir? I'm almost done and really enjoying it. Very well-written for one of these things -- former Bush speechwriter Christopher Michel was, I believe, the invisible hand. I'm finding it a deeply pleasant and nostalgic experience to remember what it was like to have a president who cared more about the office and the country than himself.
I am struck, however--I should say struck again--by Bush's frustrating refusal to engage directly with his enemies in the news media. They treated him like garbage, made scandals where there were none (Valerie Plame), gave credence to critics and criticisms (Cindy Sheehan) that did not deserve it, covered the war on terror in a way designed to insure its failure (the NY Times called it a quagmire after three weeks) and covered Katrina with what was tantamount to hate speech. And yet, though Bush does try to explain himself in the book, he never really confronts the media's rabid and despicable animosity.
Bill O'Reilly asked W about this in their recent interview and Dub said essentially he didn't want to lower himself to the media's level. The problem with that is that the media coverage - as he himself admits - weakened his presidency. It seems a paradox to me: holding yourself above the media fray while admitting you've been wounded by the unbridled media attacks. Reagan did it better. Chris Christie does it better now. It's simply part of a modern presidency: the imperative to put some of these mad dogs down.
- Comment (30)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Paradox W
Bush was unable to defend his principles because he didn't have any principles.
When you're a big-spending, Ted Kennedy-compromising, Compassionate Conservative who believes Islam is a religion of peace, you keep your mouth shut and your head down.
May '10
Re: Paradox W
I think it is a function of different styles. Reagan was larger-than-life, and able to use humor to go over the heads of the media. Christie has a short record of being confrontational- we shall see how it wears, and succeeds or fails, over time. Bush was a very successful governor for four times as long as Christie thus far.
I think that what shocked Bush, after starting out weakened by the Florida vote issue, was how unlike Texas Washington is, in ways that he had not seen before despite his father's experiences. The Left was prepared to bring down the country purely to vitriolically get at him, something that simply doesn't happen even now with the Right and Obama.
If you are not a pit bull, you simply are not. W is a classy Christian guy, and he can't escape that character, even now.
May '10
Re: Paradox W
I think I agree with Kenneth on this one. I agree that Bush may be a classy individual (more so than Obama, who seems less capable of self-deprecation) but when it comes to policy, this a non-essential characteristic. Even omitting his war spending, Bush was still a prolific spender.
Edited on Nov 29, 2010 at 4:44pmMay '10
Re: Paradox W
A case could be made that Bush was a hedgehog, with regard to the war on terror. However, as Michael Barone pointed out in his column about the book, we know Bush read Eliot Cohen's book Supreme Command, but did not follow any of it's lessons. I don't know what his principles were either. Mr. Bush nationalized the commanding heights of the economy and it is to his shame.
Aug '10
Re: Paradox W
Kenneth It would be fair and illuminating if you consider the bookends of Clinton and Obama , the gigantic attempt by the Dems to steal the election and , failing that , create a myth that he stole it , to frame one of the toughest presidencies since FDR. Look at what the GOP gave us before then - His dad, Ford, Nixon, Eisenhower, and Carter gave us Reagan . Problem is the party not the players . Until that aligns with what's needed, we are truly adrift . Now how do you really feel about someone who chose Cheney versus one who would choose Biden ? And how does a Californian recognize a Republican ?
Oct '10
Re: Paradox W
I do agree that Bush did not to enough defending of himself when the media archetype was to vilify him for anything and everything.
I don't like all of Bush's policies, but there were some national defense ones (the main ones that the Left hates, but which Obama is now stealthily continuing) that I was totally in his corner for, and I wish he had done more to defend why they were necessary.
We've gone from a President who wouldn't take on the media at all to a petulant President who does nothing but whine about how badly he's treated; even though he's not badly treated at all, except by Fox.
Can't we have a happy medium?
Oct '10
Re: Paradox W
I'm reading the book too and enjoying it very much. It's an insightful look from a perspective that I would like to have known during his time in office. Even in the book he tends to hold back a bit regarding his critics, which makes it all the more intriguing when he does call out people by name. It seems like those are the instances that bothered him most, and he's taking his chance to punch back. I just finished the chapter on the surge and was interested by his take that it might have failed had he done it sooner. Food for thought in my opinion. I'm looking forward to Condi's book too.
Nov '10
Re: Paradox W
I get the impression watching old Reagan press conferences that the media was never as vitriolic with him as it was with George W. Bush. The only two areas where I think President Bush would have done well to openly push back on were the Valerie Plame affair (uhhh... has anyone heard of Richard Armitage? Does anyone realize he is a Democrat?) and the notion that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda (Bin Laden's deputy, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was in Iraq long before we invaded).
But these are more Rove's failures than they are Bush's.
Edited on Nov 29, 2010 at 5:37pmJul '10
Re: Paradox W
The best discussion of Bush's principles, and how they did and did not fit in with the development of American conservatism (and I don't mean libertarianism), was in a talk given by Bill McClay at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. He gave it the title "The Evangelical Conservatism of George W. Bush: Or, How the Republicans Became Red".
Read the whole thing, but here's a useful snippet:
Many of the very positions that make some of his fellow conservatives suspicious of Bush -- his “compassionate conservatism,” his relatively favorable view of many Federal social and educational programs, his sensitivity to issues of racial injustice and reconciliation, his softness on immigration issues, his promotion of the faith-based initiative, his concern with issues of international religious liberty, his African AIDS initiative, and above all, his enormously ambitious, even seemingly utopian, foreign-policy objectives -- are positions that are best explained by the effects of his evangelical Christian convictions, and by his willingness to allow those convictions to trump more conventional conservative positions.
Re: Paradox W
BTW, I had tons of problems with Bush and his presidency, but to call him a man of no principle is wholly unfair. Just because his principles weren't necessarily mine or yours doesn't mean they were non-existent. Bush was a decent man elected in good times and then thrust into a terrible era that called for greatness. How much he did or didn't answer that call will be decided by history. But for us, the electorate of the day, the alternatives - Crazy Guy and Horseface - were completely unacceptable.
Jul '10
Re: Paradox W
There is a kind of Patrician caucus within the GOP that observes the rough and tumble and presumes themselves above it. Bush pere et fils are members of the inner circle. Contrast Reagan, who knew how to orchestrate the fray while remaining grandfatherly and (mostly) aloof.
When W said he was Conservative, it turns out he meant a Huckabee Conservative rather than the Goldwater/Reagan variety. Noblesse Oblige Republicans with a Baptist twang. He did what was in his heart without appreciation for the consequences. Which folds back into that Teddy Roosevelt thread, methinks.
Aug '10
Re: Paradox W
A Skull and Bones brother of John Kerry . What did you expect ? We should be thankful he survived that .
Jul '10
Re: Paradox W
I'll never forget when I first found myself maxing out by contributing to George W. Bush. Shortly before I had seen the horrific magazine cover, I think it was Time, featuring a merged photograph of Clinton and Gore, and labeled "Clintongore" and I found myself concluding that back Dole had not been an aberration. I loathed the idea of 8 more years of Clintongore and resolved to contribute the maximum to whoever could stop Clintongore. George W. Bush was the only candidate available. I maxed out immediately. I could never bring myself to watch his speeches and watching the debates was out of the question. On Election Day my coworkers taunted me that Bush could possibly win the popular vote, but lose in the Electoral College. They later regretted that joke, but I later enjoyed tooling around with my "Sore Loserman" bumper sticker as the Supremes stopped Gore's theft of the election. In the end he stopped my Clintongore nightmare, and became the nightmare that left the screeching leftist democrats and their media fellow travelers sniveling for nearly 8 years. Why would he need to take them on directly?
Nov '10
Re: Paradox W
I haven't yet read my copy, which arrived just before Thanksgiving and the descent of my children and their families, but I am looking forward to some quiet hours in which to take it up. I commence with a disposition to agree with President Bush because he is, to me, a quite likable man. I know that he spent far too much, but I remember that it was at the instance of his Congressional party and Democrats. And, I recognize a certain Utopianism in his foreign policy (although that latter may be found in the some of the writings of the Founders).
What impressed me during his terms in office and does now is his basic decency and his apparent lack of the self regard which corrupted his predecessor and cripples his successor. He is not perfect, but he seems to be a damned good man and a fellow with whom I'd be glad to share a foxhole or spend an evening watching a football game and visiting. I'd pass on an opportunity so to do with either of Messrs. Clinton or Obama.
Sep '10
Re: Paradox W
I have not read the book but once upon a time I swore I would never vote for anyone, especially a Southerner, who could not pronounce New Clear. He is older than I am. He must remember the abomination that was Jimmy Carter's Presidency, indeed the abomination that is Jimmy Carter and still he said Newkyoular, over and over and over. It is a metaphor for his failings. He could not sell the war and he could not or would not smack down the big spenders. That said he was dealt a very bad hand and I think history will treat him better than many now think.
Jul '10
Re: Paradox W
Seriously? I would prefer Alan Keyes over Bush in 2000. Keyes studied under Bloom and Mansfield. His first campaign manager? His roommate, a guy named Bill Kristol.
Jul '10
Re: Paradox W
Michael Tee
Seriously? I would prefer Alan Keyes over Bush in 2000. Keyes studied under Bloom and Mansfield. His first campaign manager? His roommate, a guy named Bill Kristol. · Nov 29 at 7:39pm
Yep. My dream ticket in 2000 was Keyes/Cheney....Lynn Cheney.
Jul '10
Re: Paradox W
To say that Bush was unprincipled is to put him in the same category as opportunists such as Kerry, Spector and Charlie Crist. I do believe that to be unfair. Bush's reluctance to lower himself or the Office to the level of the media's attacks is based on principle. He stands by the decisions he made, and I believe they were made with the best interests of the country at heart. That doesn't mean I agree with all of them, but I do not doubt the man's sincerity.
Coming as he did, between Clinton and Obama, I still have the same opinion that I had when he was elected in 2000: Finally, some adults in charge. I look forward to reading his book.
May '10
Re: Paradox W
Alan Keyes is a bit of a nut but at least he's articulate.
Jul '10
Re: Paradox W
Well, by today's standards, Madison, Jefferson, Adams and Franklin would be a bit nutty, too.