The Respectfully Republican Conversation

Very good opinion piece.

Bush Derangement Syndrome

National Review Online: Is The Widespread Spite Against The 43rd President Rational?

Dec. 5, 2008

 

   

(National Review Online) This column was written by Jason Lee Steorts.

Yesterday I wrote some thoughts about the shallowness of the "Is social conservatism ruining the Republican party?" debate. I said it distracts attention from a number of distinctions that merit consideration if we wish to understand people's political allegiances. Today I'd like briefly to consider these distinctions' application to one issue and one man: the Iraq War and George W. Bush.

I will not try to justify any judgment of either, although my opinions will show through; let's save the justifying for another day. What I wish to do instead is offer some broad-brushstroke description of the way Bush and the war have come to be seen, in slow motion and over many years. These brushstrokes are the landscape upon which voters formed many more particular views. Consider what I say in the light of your own observations and ask whether it contains any truth.

I'll organize my comments with reference to the distinctions I introduced yesterday, though the order will be different.

Brand-name voting versus rational-analysis voting.

What I think is that the Iraq War ruined President Bush's brand and President Bush ruined the Republican brand. I think that's what sank us in 2006 and 2008. Sure, there were scandals, there was rampant spending and government bloat, there was a charismatic Democratic nominee, and in the final weeks of the '08 campaign there was a financial crisis that sealed John McCain's fate. But I think it was his fate. It probably would have been the fate of any Republican nominee.

Bush survived the '04 election largely by running a national-security campaign. The memory of 9/11 was fresh and Iraq had not yet descended into the sectarian bloodbath that turned "We can't police a civil war" into a pungent sound bite. (The Golden Mosque bombing, recall, happened in early 2006.) It helped in '04 that the Democrats nominated a man with the warmth and charisma of Massachusetts cod. The WMD hadn't turned up and there was a growing consensus that the war had been fought on a false premise, but the feeling was still: It's a dangerous world, and now is no time to rock the boat.

Then Iraq really went to hell. A perceived mistake became a perceived catastrophe, and most people just wanted to be done with it. They wanted to be done, too, with the man and the party who had brought it to them.

These attitudes were not, in my opinion, the product of rational analysis, because the impulse behind them was more punitive than corrective, more backward- than forward-looking. Was the Iraq War unwinnable in 2006? Manifestly not, as the surge has shown. Was there serious discussion in 2006 of whether the war was unwinnable? Not really. A relative handful of specialists debated the question, but in the main one side asserted yes, the other no, and that was that.

To my mind, this was a frightening thing. It would have behooved us, amidst all the recriminations, to spend some time on questions like these: How does one recognize an unwinnable war? Should we be thinking in binary alternatives - winnable versus unwinnable - or should we be looking at things probabilistically? Should we be making, that is, a cost-benefit analysis - and what is the right analysis here? What are the consequences of this defeat? Does it embolden al-Qaeda? Does it destabilize the region further? How about Iran - will it not gain tremendously from our loss? And that's not to mention the human cost: After what we have put the Iraqis through, should we not demand a very high standard of certainty that the war is in fact unwinnable before abandoning them? But that framework isn't suited to vengeance - and we were out for blood.

Social issues versus moral issues.

Say what you will about Bush's social conservatism, it was nothing new. In fact, it fell short of many social conservatives' expectations. New was: Halliburton blood for oil torture Guantanamo domestic spying extraordinary rendition - plus ample (and amply televised) doses of death death death death death.

Consider the remarkable traction of the slander that "Bush lied, people died." I had variations of it repeated to me by many well-educated non-extremists. None of them could justify it beyond pointing out that WMD stockpiles had not been found in Iraq. If you told them that the administration's claims about Iraqi WMD were consistent with the views of just about every intelligence agency in the world, and that there is a difference between a lie and a mistake, they hardly cared. If you explained that, had the administration really been after Saddam's oil, there were much cheaper ways of getting it, they hardly cared. They just knew Bush was a liar.

It is a special irony that the president who spoke in the most idealistic language since JFK has been branded a tyrant. Criticize his "freedom agenda" if you like, but don't tell me he didn't mean it. Decry his judgment if you like, but don't tell me he is unmoved by suffering. Is there a president in living memory who cried more in public than Bush did? There he was with wounded troops, tearing up; there he was on TV talking about a 9/11 orphan, his lip quivering. Compassionate conservatism, expanded welfare state, funding for AIDS treatment in Africa on a scale that dwarfed Bill Clinton's efforts - but it didn't matter, because everyone just knew Bush was full of malice.

Then lo, who should appear but a messiah? It was Barack Obama's genius to offer, not an alternative platform, but an alternative brand sold as a secular religion. "Hope" and "change you can believe in" would in other elections have been banalities, but in this election, context became content, and the content was contrastive: roughly, the Prince of Darkness versus the Light of the World.

Of course, Obama had some help.

Influencers versus influenced.

The elites and intellectuals (as defined yesterday), far from being immune to Obama's stylistic seduction, were uniquely susceptible to it. Much more than the public at large, they look down on Bush's Texas twang, his dropped g's, his "nucular," his Evangelical Christianity, his lapel pin. They prefer the ethics of the ACLU and the English of law professors.

That preference is relevant to understanding the psychotic hatred many of them directed at Sarah Palin. Sure, she made mistakes - but weren't they listening to Joe Biden's gaffes? His making up of facts in the vice-presidential debate? Biden, however, has trained himself to talk like them. Palin bears the cultural markers of a W. - the dropped g's, the "nucular," the Evangelical Christianity. If you hated him, you hated her in equal measure, and then you hated her a little more for reminding you of him.

That the influencers tended to see Bush as a jingoistic, fundamentalist idiot rather than a worthy adversary with whom they had profound disagreements inevitably influenced their presentation of his policies. They are supposed to specialize in nuance and subtlety; the assessment of a war fought against an appallingly cruel autocrat, on the basis of flawed but sincerely believed intelligence, would seem to cry out for such virtues. Their narrative instead combined the nuance of an infomercial with the subtlety of a morality play. Again, think what you will of Bush's policies - but don't tell me you arrived at a thoughtful view of them by reading the fulminations of Paul Krugman and Frank Rich.

The influencers convinced the public that the war had been a mistake but failed to get it thinking about how the mistake should be managed. They convinced the public that the war had been wrong but failed to get it thinking about whether we could right the wrong. And when the tide turned - when Iraq stabilized, and we started to win after all - they offered the public a yawn.

***

I have much sympathy for our 43rd president. I think a good, maybe even a great man has been vilified. It's fine with me if you disagree. But it is not fine with me, and it should not be fine with you, and it is not good for any of us, that the discourse surrounding this man has been so foolish.

I've dwelt on the foolishness because I think it is relevant to what I said yesterday about communication: about the need to justify our beliefs from the ground up, in a way comprehensible and persuasive to those who don't already hold them.

I am fond of Bush's colloquial, unpretentious English, and law professors bore me to death - but Bush is not a gifted extemporaneous speaker. Would the received wisdom about the war be quite what it is had it been justified with the suave articulacy and command of detail of a Mitt Romney? I can't know, but I suspect not.

Bush also seems to have made a decision to put on an air of certainty, even as the public's doubts grew. I recall his saying, in response to a question about this certainty, that the commander-in-chief must appear strong and confident for the sake of the troops. (I paraphrase.) That seems right, to a point. But the president must also reassure the people he leads that he understands their concerns. Here too I think Bush fell short.

After the failure to find WMD in Iraq, he might have done much more to control the terms of debate. He might have explained - again and again and again - that the war's justification depended not only on what Saddam had done, but on what Saddam might do. He might have said this in regular press conferences, not occasional speeches. He might have personally announced the intelligence discoveries in post-war Iraq, which left no doubt that Hussein intended to reconstitute his WMD programs as soon as U.N. sanctions were lifted. He might have talked in concrete terms about the strategic stakes, the price of losing. He might have told the public: "Look, we've made some great big mistakes, but they were honest mistakes, and we still need to win, and this is how we'll do it" - and he might have told them this long before the '06 midterm rout.

In March of 2003, the American people had a very clear idea of why they were going to war, and that idea was: WMD. When the question became instead whether to stay at war, they never heard anything like the best possible affirmative answer. Giving the best answer is all the more important when you're up against cultural gatekeepers who despise you and the policy you're justifying puts a lot of blood on TV. Neutralizing those disadvantages would have been beyond the power of any president, but I think Bush could have done better, and I think we should learn from his mistakes.

All right, that'll do for today. Return tomorrow, if you'd like, for the final installment of these ramblings, in which I'll tell about my uncomfortable relationship with opinion journalism.

Two interesting articles Shirley.

 Summer quoted:

A former U.S. ambassador to Canada says it's an "important statement" that president-elect Barack Obama will make his first foreign visit to Canada after his inauguration.

Obama is reviving the longstanding tradition after it was broken by President George Bush, who chose to visit Mexico instead.

I hate to burst your bubble Summer, but Obama had a meeting with the Mexican president yesterday. I guess your media still is drinking the Obama koolaid. I wonder how the canadian press will feel when oblahblah kowtows to the labor unions and gets rid of free trade as he promised them.

Oh yeah, he promised everyone the sun and the moon, we will see how many excuses he comes up with for not being able to fulfill his promises. Now that he is beginning to understand that we cannot close Gitmo because no one wants these criminals, he is saying that he will not have time to deal with it for a while. He promised all these tax cuts to convince that poor lady from detroit that she will not have to worry about her car payments anymore. Now he is saying the economy is too weak for tax cuts. He is a master politician. Just promise the folks everything and then use your charm to convince them they really do not need it when you cannot give it to him. We will be seeing a lot of this.

Summer may have some bubbles, but I don't think you hit one Vivre.  The first sentence clearly says the first foreign visit AFTER the inauguration.  The media reported his Mexico visit as well as his European tour before he was president elect.

To me it seems like a factual article, not evidence of KoolAid.  I don't know whether Obama will try to get rid of NAFTA or not.  It wouldn't necessarily be to Canada's disadvantage in the long run, but certainly would be in the short run.  However I agree with Bob Rae, there is really no going back to put the genie in the bottle, it's entirely too entangled now. 

Good gosh Shirley, must you always post a novel?       Actually, I am stalking everyone on this thread.  I have an agreement with a few pilots that are in the Airforce---see, I caught them stalking me, and I promised no to report them, if they would fly me around the country.

How else, would I know about IBC, and how else could I have gotten that slimfast to rock. 

And ya'll thought I was just another pretty face.......

Creedence Clearwater, Black Oak Arkansas

You are all showing your age.LOL

Joy to the World

All the boys and girls

Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea

Joy to you and me. . .

Oh, I remember hearing that song, driving down the street with my hunky high school heartthrob, as he sang loudly. Those were the days my friend, we thought they'd never end . . .

This is a poor recording but you can still walk down memory lane

Alice's Restaurant

Oh I was watching some tapes of Hillary --- talk about bad hair days!!

----------

Shirley, I just don't understand where people get off crying for Bush to be criminally prosecuted.  I also don't understand the venom of some people over there, the hatred.  Why was it ok to hang an Obama poster but it is racially insensitive to hang a McCain/Palin poster, that it made this person sick?  How does she think the Obama poster made some people feel?  Some people are sick about his election too ... 

I have visited some political boards and there is not the same hatred. I think that the other boards I have seen have more middle of the road Dems ... because not EVERYONE is spewing out their guts about Bush. 

Rocky, I don't know why some people have Bush Derangement Syndrome.  Perhaps it's because he stood firm for what he believed.  The war is a biggy just like the article said.  And now that it's going better we hear nothing about it.  There's still violence in Iraq, but not to the degree it was before the surge.  I want the war in Iraq and Afghanistan to succed for the sake of the people who live there.  Not for us (the U.S.), but for them.

So...this is an interesting article...should we refer to him as "Geithner the non-taxpaying blah blah blah" or just let him slide and accept he made a mistake or didn't realize some things or WTF ever! LMAO!

Source: Treasury nominee failed to pay taxes

By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE, Associated Press Writer Brett J. Blackledge, Associated Press Writer - 26 mins ago

WASHINGTON - President-elect Barack Obama's choice to run the Treasury Department and lead the economic rescue effort disclosed to senators Tuesday that he failed to pay $34,000 in taxes from 2001 to 2004, a last-minute complication in an otherwise smooth path to confirmation.

Timothy Geithner paid most of the past-due taxes days before Obama announced his nomination in November, an Obama transition official said. The unpaid taxes were discovered by Obama's transition team while investigating Geithner's background, the official said.

The transition official requested anonymity because the source was not authorized to discuss Geithner's situation.

Obama reiterated his support Tuesday for Geithner as senators who are considering the appointment quizzed Geithner behind closed doors.

"He's dedicated his career to our country and served with honor, intelligence and distinction," incoming White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said. "That service should not be tarnished by honest mistakes, which, upon learning of them, he quickly addressed."

Geithner failed to pay self-employment taxes for money he earned while working for the International Monetary Fund from 2001 to 2003, the transition official said. In 2006, the IRS notified him that he owed $14,847 in self-employment taxes and $2,383 in penalties from 2003 and 2004.

Transition officials discovered last fall that Geithner also had not paid the taxes in 2001 or 2002. He paid $25,970 in taxes and interest for those years several days before Obama announced his nomination, the transition official said.

Geithner also didn't realize a housekeeper he paid in 2004 and 2005 did not have current employment documentation as an immigrant for the final three months she worked for him, the transition official said.

Geithner is the second Obama nominee to face controversy. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson withdrew his name on Jan. 4 as Obama's Commerce secretary after questions surfaced about an ongoing federal investigation.

Sherri, I was going to say the same thing that ilj said.  Some programs are called Summer Camp because the parents go to work and the kids have to stay there all day.  Field trips, arts and crafts, etc are provided.  But kids have to go to After-school programs during the school year and Summer Camp when off track.  I certainly take the tax deduction, too!

Let me tell you a little about my dh.  He fills out our income tax and he reports ALL income.  Last year all he worked contracting was somewhere over $700..not much more.  He called the company because they hadn't sent his 1099 (or whatever he needed..shows you how much I know).  Anyway, they check and said they must not have sent him one and that they wouldn't send him one....I guess due to the amount he made.  The man put it on the income tax ANYWAY.  He said he didn't want to be audited and it would be his luck that he would be.  Honest?  Yep. 

The other day I took a 30 day prescription to Wal Mart because I had to mail off my 90 day one.  The lady at the pharmacy was kind enough to ring up the other two or three items I had because no one was behind me.  I looked at my receipt and the script wasn't on it.  I thought something wasn't right.  I turned around and told her..she checked the bag to see if it was in there..it was and she didn't charge me.  She thanked me and I told her I didn't want to get her in trouble..she said she would have been in trouble...that $10 would have come out of her pocket.

So, Geithner, IMO knew exactly what he was doing even when hiring an illegal.  He's not stupid (I don't think..yes he was..HE WAS CAUGHT!).

Shirley

AlwaysHope, SherriG, Vivre, those are great ones!  I am sure there are still many more out there that if someone posts them we'll be like "oh yea!"

And EVERY Thanksgiving at noon sharp, we listen to Alice's Resturant.  LOL

OMGosh!!   Okay, due to chemo brain, when I try to think of something I knwo, I get blocked so help me out ladies.  It is the song they (here in the south) call "the beer drinking song" and country music gurus call it the perfect country/western song and goes "I was drunk the day my mom got outta prison. I went to pick her up in the rain, but before I could get to the station in my pick-up truck, she got run'd over by the danged ole train....and I 'll hang around as long as you will let me......"

Someone PLEASE tell me who this is...!!!!!!! 

You Never Call Me by My Name 

There you go Moody.