Who knew that George W. Bush had such powers over the natural world? According to some pundits, Hurricane Katrina was Bush’s fault, as was the tsunami in Indonesia and now – if you believe James Ridgeway in Mother Jones – that Bush’s policy is responsible for the devastating effects of the 7.5 earthquake that decimated the poor country of Haiti.
But during the eight years of George W. Bush’s presidency, we could depend on such ridiculous musings as Mr. Ridgeway displayed. I haven’t done enough research to determine if Bush was the most reviled president in our nation’s history – that might well have been Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President — but it’s not that hard to figure out that his coverage by the media was historically the most relentlessly hostile.
I first started writing my op-ed columns during the Clinton administration and while I may have disagreed with most of his policies I never stooped to the insulting, vitriolic language routinely leveled at President Bush. What also amazed me was the lack of outrage by the president and his administration officials. There is always the possibility that I might have missed their fury because the mainstream media was unlikely to report anything other than leftist propaganda. But I was a columnist for the only New York newspaper that covered Bush honestly and without bias from 2002 to 2008, when we died as a print publication.
The late, great New York Sun had headline stories reporting on the WMDs secreted out of Iraq. Its editorials were generally supportive of the president except when he swerved from conservative principles. In all matters, however, he was treated with respect.
I was assigned to the New York section of the paper, so my subjects were restricted to local interests but I tried to cover issues that revealed the leftwing distance from the war on terror and the growing amnesia of what happened on 9/11.
On January, 2007 I received and email from a certain Tim Goeglin that read “Your Columns are outstanding. I had no idea who he was but the address had a .gov in it so I asked him where he worked. He answered the “White House.” Seems that Mr. Goeglin was a special assistant to the president and yes, I know he resigned in 2008 after admitting to plagiarism. Nevertheless, it was interesting to know that the president did read the New York Sun. According to Herb London, who was a regular visitor to the White House, The Sun was read by all every morning. Then why didn’t the White House utilize this publication to make its side of the issues public? We could have used more direct access and for goodness sake, how many other female Puerto Rican columnists represented the right wing? Besides me, none. I’ve written for El Diario recently and could have advised him how to reach the minority communities more effectively than the Democrat Party ever could.
Republicans have always been somewhat dense about marketing themselves. Perhaps the Bushes are too patrician and actually believe that their messages get through to the salt of the earth voters. No way when the entire media is geared up in full armor to destroy you. I summed it up in a column I wrote back in 2004:
I watched our president being grilled this Sunday by Tim Russert on “Meet the Press.” Mr. Bush is admittedly not very telegenic. He is not glib. Words do not mellifluously flow from his lips. He tends to “er” and “umm” a lot. He is a good man, a decent man, and when Mr. Russert brought up the ridiculous charge of the National Guard again, his response was, “It’s fine to go after me, which I expect the other side will do. I wouldn’t denigrate service to the Guard, though, and the reason I wouldn’t, is because there are a lot of really fine people who served in the National Guard and who are serving in the National Guard today in Iraq.
The trouble with both Bushes, pere et fils, is that they are too patrician. I would dearly have loved to see Dubya belt Mr. Russert during the hour-long inquisition for wasting his valuable time over the same dumb questions.
Oh that would have been a joy to watch.
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
129 Comments
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vince Humphreys and greychampion, BigJournalism. BigJournalism said: Rethinking Bush: Why Didn’t the President Fight Back Against the MSM? http://bit.ly/6RsRTv [...]
I will always be baffled by the Bush Administration's refusal to defend itself, even in the face of totally baseless vitriolic attacks.
His father was the same way, for instance letting an opponent call him a wimp, even though he was the youngest Naval aviator in the U.S. Navy during WWII, hardly wimpish conduct.
Perhaps it was class, or refusal to dignify these people – whatever – I believe you must deny the leftist media to define you, no matter how ridiculous they get.
Rest assured – watch Keith "Cow School" Olbermann for five minutes – the left wing media is ridiculous.
Why didn't Bush fight back against the MSM?
Frankly, he was far too busy with his Oath of Office, where he swore to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
I repeat- I would have loved to see Dubya knock the sainted Russert on his Arse
Some times, the best defense is a good offense. I'm not sure the Bush Administration understood this on the domestic front.
I never understood why Bush took the "We don't comment on anything." stand.
I didn't always agree with his policy (or the lack thereof) but the insane lies perpetrated by the media should have been addressed and frequently. Had they taken the time to set the record straight he may not have been as hated. (Remember how his numbers always bumped usually when he gave a speech? He wasn't even a good speaker either.)
Thats good though.
The more he blathers, the lower he goes………..
George Bush believed that as President of all Americans it would be disrespectful to the Office and to those he served to engage in a war of words with the media or any of his other critics. President Obama, on the other hand, is not at all restrained by the same rules of Presidential decorum and often scolds and criticizes those with whom he disagrees, even calling out private citizens by name for public rebuke. Ordering those who disagreed with him to "stop talking and get out of the way" is still one of my favorite Obama moments. If President Bush had ever said such a thing to the American people, he would have been accused of suppressing free speech and violating a variety of other Constitutional rights.
Not just Bush! The entire Republican party put the welcome mat on themselves and said, "Please, walk all over us MSM." And the MSM didn't just walk. It danced 'til it soiled itself.
Don't pick fights with people who buy ink by the barrel.
And when you go with your convictions you pay a price. That price just might be that your effort is recognized long after you are gone. President Bush – by not going after them, by not defending attacks by this POTUS – shows that he is a bigger man.
Messianic rhetoric? Mr. President left that one for his successor…if you can call him that.
President George W Bush was a gentleman. A southern country gentleman. Something that is lost on most folks today unless they are over the age of fifty and from or have been from the south. I for one find it very admirable!
It is clear from the articles on this site that no one understands why the Republicans lost to a completely unqualified candidate. Bush and the Republicans didn't take care of the American people. If you criticize Obama a lot of the responses will be Bush did it first, and they are correct. When Obama said that Americans should teach their children Spanish the conservatives howled. No one mentioned that when Bush ran for Governor his campaign pledge was there would be bilingual educations in the schools. In the Post Katrina New Orleans Mayoral race when voters were being bussed in from out of town in the biggest case of election fraud in history Bush did nothing. Why, because he wanted the Minority vote and didn't care about the average American.
We have Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice because of Bush. During the confirmation process everyone was talking about how politicians were afraid to oppose her because of the "Hispanic Vote" . Which in reality is the illegal immigrant vote. Minorities, PLEASE, there are well over seventy languages spoken here. That translates to I don't know how many ethnic groups. We just don't vote as a racist block. And we are getting tired of being treated as second class citizens because we don't.
He should fought back, but then again most don't understand this a battle for the American way.
At the time when GW Bush took office I would read at least two to four newspapers a day, both liberal and conservative. I no longer trust the MSM and do not contribute to their coffers especially when, against the rules of the flag code, many have printed 'Old Glory" on paper with advertisements attached. The publishers that I contacted defended this corrupt policy of desecrating our flag. I no longer trust either AP or UPI. I also have an extra $50 every month to donate to conservative political causes. If I am going to read pure biased BS I am not going to pay for it. RIP NY & LA Times, I won't miss you, but I do miss honest reporting!
Yes, Bush was the most disappointing of the lesser of two evils who I ever voted for. He does seem like a decent man, and often knew what needed to be done, but just couldn't seem to get most of it done – from heading off the housing crisis to finding a speedy solution to Iraq. I don't know if he's too patrician to get down in the trenches and fight; I often wondered if he thought it unChristian. Maybe knowing you are right is good enough for God, but unless you can force the media to give you a fair shake, you're just another martyr – not a leader.
….He aggressively kept us safe. We can thank him for that and I do whenever I hear Mr. Obama, spout policies contrary to our safety, (Miranda rights to terrorists, closing Gitmo, indecision in Afghanistan, etc). Lets hope the current Pres gets a clue from the Tuesdays election results and guides the ship of State back on a more productive path. We all want America to succeed no matter who is President….
Hold on there, Disco Duck. You're lumping all Hispanics together. We are not at all the same and we don't all speak the same language. I was born here like many Hispanics and speak perfect English. Don't fall for the MSM trick of polarizing the country. The fact is, Hispanics don't have any genuine representatives . The media promotes La Raza because it suits its purposes but militant factions do not represent the majority who are very conservative with strong family values. The fact is that Republicans never campaign in minority neighborhoods. They might be very surprised if they did. We have Sotomayor in office because Obama put her there not Bush. If there is an illegal vote it's because Dems allow voted fraud and Reps don't fight hard enough to fight it.
Bush "bashing" by the propaganda-media, the Left, and Obama is getting REALLY old and tiresome!
I have always likened it to Squealer's propaganda and scapegoating of "Mr. Jones" in George Orwell's "Animal Farm." The scapegoating of President Bush is an obvious ploy out of the Marxist playbook; the Russian Communists' did exactly the same thing as did Hitler.
I respect President Bush, never once have I wondered about his love for our country or felt the need to count the number of times he used "I, my, me, mine" in his speeches because he is not a pathological narcissist.
I think one reason he did not get into a p*ssing contest with the msm (no caps on purpose) is that it would have been beneath the dignity of the office he held – as well as beneath the dignity of the man he is.
Not a lot wimps were not allowed to be Director of the CIA pre Church Commission like GHWBush was.
Everyone needs to remember that Bush did a great job for 7 1/2 years, except for protecting the Saudi royals by having the FBI cover-up every jihad attack in the US. It was only during the last 6 months that he began his Progressive assault on our form of government that is now carried on by Obama. The constant attacks on Bush by the socialist media certainly prevented anyone from predicting that on his was, out he would "save capitalism by destroying it", paving the way for the Progressives' destruction of the constitution. In 50 years, I have never seen a former president disappear like a David Copperfield assistant.
Hussein only has Fox to attack. Bush had to contend with the entire Big Media Complex, which was never as rabidly insane during previous administrations.
Ditto.
I agree that getting into a mud slinging competition with the media would be a waste of time.
On the other there are other methods such as commenting in general when the seriousness of the situation calls for it. I think he was mostly just a nice guy, too nice for my tastes at times.
To punctuate your point, the article you are both replying was written by a Hispanic woman.
This is a two party country, but this has been for 40 years a One Party media.
If you do not represent leftist ideals, every word…every utterance, every photograph, every motive, every intention…will be distorted as if reflected from a fun house mirror.
Do you have any idea what that must feel like, day after day after day? To be treated so unfairly, to have the deck so firmly stacked against your every breath? He wasn't held to a standard, he was hung from it.
Independents swing every national election in this country…but they have no more voice in the Fun House Mirror Media than do their Republican brethren. No man or woman of conscience should stand by and watch our information stream be gang raped every day, without lifting a finger to save it.
The Fourth Estate was supposed to be the town criers, the guardians at ALL of our gates. They have abandoned their posts. They have betrayed a quasi-public trust. They have squandered their integrity and they have weakened our ability to self-govern this land of ours.
Why didn't he (or the rest of the Republicans) fight back? Because the "truth cops" were crooked. When you are being beaten by a criminal, you call a cop. When the criminal is the cop…who do you call?
He didn't let us down…we let him down. We should have had the courage to yell "stop"…"not in our name". I may not have agreed with all of his policies but I always disagreed with his public daily hanging. Shame on them…and shame on us for not stopping them. Let's do it now, before they do it again to someone else.
I was not a fan of Bush because of his policy decisions though I served under and his father as my Commander and Chief. I begrudge some of his decisions including sending us to IRAQ. I do and will however always admire the personal feelings he had for us troops.
I wish I coud say the same for Obambi but I cannot. I only have disdain for the man because he always appears to look at my comrades in arms as less, and I think he sucks as a president.
So Bush was 'Borked' by the MSM, I get it. It was apalling the way the MSM vilified him, and they continue to do so even now. Only they do it now to provide cover for thier boyfriend Barry.
But having said that, I will not join in his diafication…
I pretty much supported every thing he was about for the first six years of his administration. What followed after that was a pivot to progressivism.
Do you honestly believe that George Bush Jr. was the most vilified person in politics or of all the presidents? Have you not read all the books, articles, and did you forget Chris Matthews and company with their horrible, down and dirty attacks on Bill Clinton and Al Gore in the 2000 campaign against Bush Jr.? If you have forgotten go to The Daily Howler and click on How He Got There.
How soon so many forget or spin the truth. The Republicans are just as disgusting and guilty as the Democrats. Our country will never pull together as long as there is this partisan "my team against your team" rhetoric.
Bush's biggest mistake was not fighting back against the MSM.
That gave the progrissive movement a foothold.
We never been the same since.
Both President George H W Bush, George W Bush, and Ronald Reagan did not defend themselves. Niether did Eisenhauer. The only Semi-Modern Republican who defende himself was Richard Nixon. It is the job of the Party to defend the President. It lowers the office of the President to constantly defend itself against mostly baseless accusations. For Democrats of the modern variety no ball is to low to swing for. Since the MSM is predominately liberal/democrat this is expected to be normal. It is not normal at all. It has become the norm only in the last 30 years.
President Bush and Laura Bush had class — and that's the difference between CLASS and CRASS.
I still love the comparison I heard somewhere.
What is the difference between Obama and God?
God Doesn't think he's Obama.
In not defending himself against the press, he let the vitriol spill over onto the people who supported him and thought well of him. And it enabled those vile liars. I wonder if he ever thought of it that way? I do believe he had a strong sense of duty and in many ways did a terrific job on our behalf. But whenever the press maligned him, they maligned me. It was a very painful eight years.
Thank you for pointing up one of the great failings of the Bush Admin. Indeed, it was the one aspect that simply drove me up the wall during his terms.
Consider the Valerie Plame affair. For months on end the President was battered relentlessly by the media about a meaningless event. Her husband was exposed as deceitful; answering questions secretly before Congress differently than what he said in public and the media suppressed it (although the Washington Post did finally reveal it). I believe that President Bush could have responded in but one sentence and destroyed the negative environment surrounding the affair:
"Clandestine CIA operatives do not drive the family car into the Company parking lot for 5 years and remain under cover."
History always has the last laugh. It will laugh with George W. Bush.
It will laugh at his distractors.
Is this a SERIOUS article??? Why did'nt he fight back?! ummmm, MAYBE just maybe because he knew he was wrong on all of his policies? Do a impartial search, to see who is being rated as THE very worst President in American history…………..WHY do you suppose that is?? Hmmmmmmm
I like mine simple, if your really telegenic and suck up to the media real well and words flow out of your yap all mellifluously then there is a pretty damn good chance you need to get yourself checked out and make sure your not a damn tosser.
I do miss press conferences with Don Rumsfeld a very great deal however.
lulz, sure clint, that's why, he didn't fight back cuz he knew he was all like… wrong and stuff. pfffft
It was simply more than patrician, it translated into weakness and ultimately failure of his leadership. Its a simple thing, but without it, it devastates your credibility and stature. Stand up for yourself in public, dont back down from cowards.
Dont let cowards throw trash on your name. I consider it a fatal flaw in this Presidency.
Chris Matthews eats the big one
The immortal quote from Blazing Saddles "The sheriff is a N*gg*r. The sheriff is a dad blame N*gg*r."
THIS article is dead on in its accuracy. I think that the Republicans, in general, allowed the state run media to define them almost every day with precious little response from them. I think when we argue that Bush should have stood up for himself we are really saying that Bush should have been defended by others. And Cheney, Rumsfeld and the like were so much sharper than the press corps that although they could have done a good job of it, it really ought to have been several other voices firing back from throughout the Republican ranks (including academics as well as members of congress and the like) every time the media and liberals tried to frame Bush with one of their tiresome narratives!
Bien dicho mi amigita. Tambien he sentido frustracion con mi Hero W. This was my single biggest disappointment of the white house.
I think President Bush will one day be considered one of the 10 best we ever had and may be in the top five. God Bless you.
Southern and Clint
Gentleman. It is a term with which neither of you can possibly be familiar. There may be disgust for Republicans who are as guilty as the Democrats. Bush, however, is not one of them. He is not eloquent like his successor and he may have used "er" and "um" too often. He could form a thought without reading it from a teleprompter. I would rather be led by one who can make a decision and act from what he truly believes to be the right thing than to be led by one who has to read what he thinks from a teleprompter. Miscues and misstatements without the prompter abound. Chris still has that "thrill" running up his leg.
I admire Bush for not falling into the mud pit with the bashers. I was told growing up to pick my battles but to make sure that those battles were really worth it. Fighting with the media is useless. Tunnel-vision is so obvious and I'm a registered Democrat! I have lost respect for the media since they seem to follow our current president around like dogs in heat.
We need more officials willing to be open and honest and not point the finger even before their mistakes have completely hit the fan. Besides, everything wrong in the Obama administration is still Bush's fault. If you doubt that, listen to the Orator himself. He needs to grow up and own up to his screwups. Like Tiger, he needs to clean house and rid himself of the enablers who are driving him further into oblivion.
Why should patriots 'pull together' in the wrong direction? It IS our 'team' against yours!! And we WILL win.
The answer to your question is the point of the article. GWB is "being rated" by people unqualified to do so. History will be much kinder to the last man to hold the office as a *qualified* president.
This is how Bush lost me, specifically his failure to respond to the lurid and totally false accusations about the Federal response *prior* to when it was the FEMA’s turn (which is several days after *any* event). Nothing about the National Guard and Coast Guard response that rescued more than 10,000 from drowning, how they kept them alive, took care of their medical needs (even delivered babies), etc. etc.
The press was particuarly vile here, there was NO way they could miss the steady stream of helicopters dropping off people a few blocks away (especially the huge Chinooks).
Wildbil didn't mention that the National Defense Authorization Act was passed with Bush objecting to the changes to the posse comitatus via a signing statement. Plus that whole issue is moot as it was repealed in 2008.
If you don't defend yourself you leave others to define you. Whatever the reason is, the fact remains, Bush was not effective at deflecting false accusations and insinuations by a biased press. This is the time the MSM really showed their true colors. They worked themselves into a frenzy of Bush bashing and started to believe their own propaganda. This fed upon itself and any shred of objectiveness they may have once imagined for themselves was cast aside in favor of patting each other on the back to see who could bring down their agreed upon enemy first.
* Bush offered himself up as the sacraficial lamb and in doing so disrobed an already unpopular MSM. The MSM, energized by their new found power to destroy, then made no bones about touting their favoured son BHO. The informed American people know the truth but who is going to stop the educated elite from now defining history itself? Andrew Breitbart is going to need some help…
I think Bush was genuinely shocked and embarrassed when WMDs didn't turn up in Iraq. IIRC, it was only when it became clear we weren't going to find any that the media turned on him so relentlessly. Now, WMDs were hardly the only, or even IMHO the main reason we went to war there, but they were emphasized too heavily as justification. I think he felt he was in for some justified criticism on that front, and from there things spiralled out of control.
Cowboys like smoky old pool rooms, clear mountain mornings
Little warm puppies and children, girls of the night
And them that don't know him won't like him and them that do
Sometimes won't know how to take him
He ain't wrong, he's just different but his pride won't let him
Do things to make you think he's right
I often thought I was at a football game shouting defense, defense!
George W. Bush is first and foremost a Christian.
I respect President Bush's noble desire to "turn the other cheek," however misguided that may be. But we are in a war of ideas and the stakes could not be higher. The other side will clearly say and do anything. And notice too that they are pretty good about supporting those on the same team, unlike Republicans who love to criticize each other whenever possible to show how "enlightened" they are from fellow Neanderthal conservatives. It is equally frustrating to see our current Republican leadership continue to lie down against MSM attacks. Mitch McConnell, hello? Anybody there? One reason I think people were so energized about Scott Brown is he articulates conservative positions simply and boldly, and he doesn't position himself as a Dumb Dora Doormat. Our ideas are based in reality and not Santa Claus fantasy. We conservatives give more to charity, have a better racial record and are the true party of hard-working Americans against the elitist snobs and their lobbying, back room deals and corruption. But if nobody knows that, does it matter?
That would have been a full time job, and he would not have been able to be our Commander in Chief!! Kinda like the reason Palin left her post in Alaska!! She could NOT do her job for fending off all the frivolous law suits!
What the hell is MSM ??
George W. Bush didn’t push back against the media, in my opinion, because he knew that he wouldn’t get a fair hearing from them no matter what he said or how he said it, and public communication wasn’t one of his long suits anyway.
Also, I think Bush and his people were taking the long view…that it would be history that judged their actions in a more evenhanded and unbiased manner.
All that being said, certainly the only contemporary verdict that mattered was delivered by the record turnout in Bush’s 2004 re-election.
Although Bush certainly made his share of bone-headed missteps, on the whole I was pretty happy with his administration.
He was certainly an improvement on his predecessor, and in light of his successor’s performance to date, he’s looking better and better by the day, is he not?
Hank,
Your quote from Wille Nelson nails it. It has bothered me for a good while that W did not defend himself. Your explanation not only fits, it is somewhat satisfying.
Who's we? If you mean ethnic groups, it pretty apparent they do just vote as a racist block. I am excited that more and more p of c ( "people of color") are conservative, these days. Too bad they don't have THEM on MSNBC. Any one Rep. or conservative p of c puts the d of c to shame and for that matter the white dems. They really think over the issues and are able to articulate their views. Say what you will about Glen Beck but he has done a great service to the Black community having a forum with Black Republicans periodically. It's only because the Dems treat p of c like second class citizens and say "we're gon'na give you this and this, etc". they vote for them. For some reason they accept the second class citizen status as if the benefits are the Dems to give. It's the peoples money….at least it was before the gov. took it from them and now the Dems are trying to create a huge bureacracy to keep the money rolling in for their party but alas, some Dems got it right on Tuesday.
Bush didn't defend himself because I feel he just doesn't care what others think about him. He strikes me as a conscience man.
People tore Bush up about the campaign debates because he didn't use all of his speaking time. I remember turning on a Bush/Kerry debate just as Bush said something to the effect of, "I am pro-life, and this is what I have done to pursue this agenda." And he sited some legislation, such as eliminating funding for foreign abortions, counting a fetus as a murder person when its mother is murdered, etc.
John Kerry goes in to a circular diatribe about how he's "personally opposed" to abortion because he's Roman Catholic. He was even an alter boy. Abortion is not a good thing. He doesn't like abortion, yadda yadda yadda…But he still wants to keep it legal and funded in every way.
This single exchange solidified my vote for Bush. A man who knows who he is, isn't ashamed of it, and who isn't going to try to convince me we agree when we actually disagree.
continued: When the people take back the gov. by educating themselves on the issues it will be a great country again! This is the key to getting out of the "second class citizen" status. Quit accepting it and take responsibility for your own life. It's apparent in this country you can be anything you want no matter what race.
Either Bush could have been caught on tape walking on water. The headline in the MSM the next day would be BUSH CAN'T SWIM.
Or, as Ann Coulter said, "If Bush found a cure for cancer, the MSM would be complaining about unemployed laboratory rats>"
We have submitted ourselve to this childish way of winning for our parties. "He did this>>>he did that, he's a so and so ', etc.. It's because the media have politicians at they're mercy. They give them 60 seconds to make their point. It's rediculous but their sponor wants his money's worth. Obviously the majority of media is left. If they have their choice of who to give the 60 seconds to they chose the left. The right does the same thing. Too bad they don't have as many cable channels to do it with. At any rate, most of the public don't bother to find out what the issues are until it costs them money. They get their politics from the sitcom or late night comedian with the highest ratings. Where does that leave the politician?
Brown is a good looking politician and people are willing to listen to good looking people.
We've been brainwashed that way. It used to be the guy with the white hat and these last 20 years it's looks that says you're the good guy. Then the media attack if they don't like your politics and say you're stupid. You watch, pretty soon they'll start making Brown look stupid by printing unflatering pictures of him and small sound bites. Let's just hope he's a good speller. Look what they did to vice-president "what's his name" because he mispelled patato. There ya' see, we can't even remember his name.
NOBODY said Katrina was Bush's fault – they said the POOR RESPONSE TO IT was Bush's fault.
You hit the nail on the head. Well said.
Some rise above the fray…. others (with a capital O) incite it
Yes, there is a patrician streak in the Bushes, and that counted for a lot in the inept White House communications operation in both Bush 41 and 43. However, I also sense that Bush 43 had little or no interest in a host of domestic concerns, except his ambition to cozy up to Sen. Kennedy on education "reform." See where that got him.
Bush 43 let the federal budget get out of control, ignored the decline in the solvency of states and municipalities, ignored the Wall Street excesses permitted by his SEC and the dopey bank regulators, and gave mere lip service to reforms of Fannie May and Freddie Mac. He also endorsed the silly political correctness that ran rampant through the government (remember "Islam is a religion of peace"), which has led to the corrupting of our armed forces so that the Fort Hood shooter was promoted rather than cashiered, as he should have been. No one associated with the 9/11 catastrophe was punished, and the FBI subsequently was allowed to run rampant over civil rights with no oversight from the White House.
Bush 43's sins were many, and we will be living with his tarnished legacy for decades.
When Obama is off the teleprompter he uses a verbal pause all the time. No one says a word about it. If Bush was a better speaker he might have avoided some of the criticism. He has the thickest skin of anyone I've ever seen.
This is a problem with the Republican party, in general, not just the Bushes. Not only do they not defend their positions, they don't effectively communicate about their policies. Conservative politicians need to tell the country about the benefits of conservative policies; benefits that accrue to every man, woman and child. They need to effectively explain why we need to be on offense, defending the country from the Islamic zealots who want to kill us; why low-tax, low-regulation policies increase business and therefore jobs; why reducing the size of government increases the size of the economy. It is infuriating to watch, year after year, Republican politicians come before microphones and act like they are deaf and dumb!
Bush said that he was going to change the tone in Washington. I think he intended to do this by leading by example and not getting caught up in the banter with the Democratic party and the MSM. The problem is that this made it easy to attack him relentlessly. Although, I am not sure that if Bush relented and played their game that the tone in Washington would have been better. A gang war is not necessarily more tolerable than a one sided assault. I was actually very proud of the Republican party and how they behaved.
That said, I am not at all proud of many of the Republican party's political/social commentators (Savage, Hannity, Levin, etc.) Even though they have interesting topics and discourse, I find their vitriol and disrespect towards liberals unacceptable. They give liberals a reason to write off conservatives and conservative ideas in the same way that I tend to want to write off democrats due to Olberman. I have mostly quit listening to republican commentators, except to drop in for a minute to see what the topic of the day is. Then I search the web for respectable articles on the topic.
Thanks for this piece Ms. Colon. We used to send emails to President Bush and VP Cheney encouraging them to 'fight back' against the goofy comments and accusations, even if they had to use 'surrogates' to do it.
They didn't. .
I've wondered if President Bush held his fire against the Wacko Dems ,and their co-conspirators in the MSM, in order to get war funding for the troops passed in the Senate and The House with a minimum of interference. I'd really like to know.
I do fault Bush for this refusal to forcefully communicate the truth and take the Democrat news machine head-on. Allowing lies to be promulgated without forceful denial–imagine if the Bush White House had revealed Pelosi's involvement with interrogating KSM–is always a very bad idea. Even when faced with opponents who are merely wrong, rather than intentionally lying, a POTUS cannot allow lies to stand unrefuted. And when the opponents, like Democrats, are practitioners of the Big Lie it is even more important to provide the rest of us with leadership and truth.
Bush did not fight back because that would have required energy. He is a perfect example of lack of energy in the Executive.
"Energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government" – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 70, 471–80, 15 Mar. 1788.
I admire him for not getting down in the mud as the left would have just racheted up the filth. President Bush knew who he was and didn't have to keep trying to convince people he was someone else. He did what needed to be done when it needed to be done. He's my hero.
Things are looking up!!! Check out Allen West running in Florida. He is exciting and super smart.Ffind the audio of him answering Helen Thomas' question about why the muslims hate us. He is a history major and a superb orator. Just—WOW!
Bush just wasn't a cry baby like Obama. For some reason Rep.s are just not media savy. They need to realize "Politics is War". They don't have to tell their every thought to the enemy or answer every question. Just use the media, the way the Dems do, ignore their questions and give them good sound bites. Republicans need another Lee Atwater, he knew how to handle the media and the public. Most people don't read anything anymore….just headlines. Give them a headline and you'll win every time. Look at the Brown campaign, he never took a bad picture, let the media print the headlines with the help of Coakley….the rest, as they say. is history. Everyone agrees, he ran a great campaign plus he had a lot of help with offensive policies of this administration.
Keep in mind that he rebuilt the military that Clinton had decimated. He put our surveillance capabilities back in place. He was busy with more IMPORTANT business than what the MSM whined about. And for 8 years the democrats did nothing to help with anything–just bashed him. I left the democrat party in 1952 because I could see no more Harry Trumans and I was right!
President Bush knows who he is and doesn't have to keep propping up his own ego with self congratulatory rhetoric. I often wonder if Clinton and Obama are such rhetorical perverts because their father figures left something to be desired. I'd be interested in a psychological study about that!
He didn't fight back because he wasn't a big Cry Baby like Obama. Just wait in three more years you'll see OBAMA taking the place of George Bush as the worst President in history. It's like the deficit… does anyone really think the answer to Bush is to elect someone 3x worse. How does that solve the problem? We're bankrupt in more ways than one if we think like that. Every stupid answer Obama's people give is "we inherited the problem". Yeah, he was suppose to fix it not make it worse. Even the people who voted for him know the answer to that.
OBAMA WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY!
A wonderful comment, bleachers!
We need more to see the light like you did in '52….Something is happening right now…What with the MA earthquake on Tues., they are still sifting thru the rubble in DC….
It wasn't. He offered help on Friday before the storm and the Gov., Sen., and Mayor refused to evacuate or let the Guard come in. Their reactions were too little too late.
He was in a political position that required him to 'sell' (or defend) his policies and he steadfastly refused to do so. It's a job requirement. He was elected to lead and leadership requires effective communication. His inablity or disdain toward communicating led to a diminished ability to lead the country in a time of war which caused the country and himself even more problems. Having that idiot McClellan as his spokesman harmed him even more at a time when he needed the best person available.
I watched as the media went at him hammer and tong day after day, month after month. I defended him until the conventional wisdom became set in stone and people began to scorn and question my reasoning ability. Because 'everyone knew' that Iraq was a 'quagmire'. And 'everyone knew' that 'Bush lied'. Et cetera, ad nauseum.
When I heard him say, speaking of his legacy, (paraphrase) "I'll let the historians work it out", he finally lost me too. If he didn't care enough to engage in his profession, what was there left for me to defend?
Bull pucky, John, as any good Texan would say.
Remember when classless Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were always coming out to villify President Bush with the help and encouragement of MSM? I'm so glad President Bush is top quality–though he must have to bite his tongue a lot.
Am I the only one who thought Bush was right not to defend himself?
I also felt the same-team criticisms that Bush was responsible for not being persuasive enough to be wrong and even insidious.
On the first point, his defending himself wouldn't have helped and would probably have made things worse. How do we react every time Obama does something like that?
And on the second point, the persuasiveness point, it relies on people not being responsible for finding out facts and making up their own minds. It puts the responsibility on Bush, who then can be blamed for everything. Grow up people! But that's the same with Bush defending himself, isn't it? If he's defending his policies or he's defending himself, he's doing it against people who were choosing to see things a certain way. How is Bush supposed to be responsible for someone else's willful behavior?
Look at the whole "Bush lied" thing. He didn't lie about anything, but people who listened to the whole explanation and whole laundry list of reasons to remove Saddam didn't care about any of the reasons other that "Oh no, Saddam has weapons of mass destruction!" That this was the only argument that was persuasive to them doesn't create a new reality where it was the only argument made. Nor does it let anyone off the hook for making themselves minimally informed about the abuses of Saddam in Iraq. Nor does it let anyone off the hook for suddenly having total amnesia over the reputational beating that the US took over the sanctions on Saddam including the supposed deaths directly attributed to America of thousands upon thousands of Iraqi children.
George Bush was not responsible for that memory black hole and couldn't have been responsible for that memory black hole. People CHOSE to ignore what they wanted to ignore. Arguments that we were killing Iraqi children with the sanctions auto-magically morphed into adamant claims that the sanctions were working wonderfully.
And if the people who should have been voluntarily informing the population in this free society chose not to do so, they shouldn't be taken to task by the government anyway. All else being equal.
The fact that it wasn't only makes it worse. Bush knew and understood that anything he said or did would be opposed by the media.
Why do you suppose people never learned how much Bush was involved in lending US help to combat AIDS in Africa?
Lets not let our memories be instantly erased so that we don't remember what it was like and the constant and automatic opposition to anything Bush did that means he was RIGHT if he wanted to help Africa to do so as quietly as possible or that would be twisted and opposed as well. And it would have been.
Why, because George Bush is not a Cry Baby like Obama. Everyone's not going to agree with you……who wants a snivler for President….whine…whine…going around appologizing to the rest of the world…bowing down….. giving terrorists a platform…help! who did ya'll elect? even the dems are sorry now and it's only been a year….in 3 more years it'll be "OBAMA, THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY!" they'll say, " well,he was half white ", and then he'll really be historic.
It got so bad even the "right" wouldn't defend him in the face of non-stop withering fire from the Lame-stream Media. They ran away from him instead of running to support him. With no support, he had to withstand the criticism of the entire world press alone. Had I been an advisor to him, I certainly would have told him to hire a very aggressive, very smart and clever staff to, one by one, bat these flies away and get the truth out there. He never did that and the entire GOP suffered for it. Unanswered false criticism goes down as fact. A guy like John Bolton would have been the perfect guy to head that up.
Class. either you have it, or you don't.
There is also the old classic of 'blood in the water' and/or once you respond to an attack (ie, even if you refute it), it gains traction and they attack with the same line MORE.
That was the old thinking… but after the Bush admin it has to be reconsidered….
I felt so much safer under GW's administration than I do this one. I haven't felt this way since Jimmah Carter, where when you wake up in the morning and wonder what the daily surprise will be. Where you fear if you children will be able to buy a home due to an unstable market, or what kind of deal O will cut with the devil that will have repercussions for years to come…..I could go on to ad nauseum.
I didn't agree with all of GW's policies, many were to liberal for me, but I knew he had a handle the security of the country…..unlike the maleficent Mr. O.
The upside of the press bashing him and fawning over O, is we know that the once great MSM is senile. I still admire his gentlemanliness. Finally, if he had gone after them, the MSM would have add fueled to the flame, which I strongly suspect they wanted since many of them are so found of Alinsky……
Except that it would be ungentlemenly and improper for Bush to ever open him mouth and respond, however, it would be great for him to publicly innumerate King Obama's policies that have ruined our nation whenever the RATS make a blame Bush comment. Bush should know….
The easiest explanation I have for GWB not fighting back was this: when Governor of Texas, he WORKED WITH Democrats for accomplishing his goals. He ASSUMED that working with the likes of Upchuck U Schumer, Barney Fag, and Ted Kennedy was like working with a yellow dog democrat in Texas. Fraznkly, GWB is too nice a guy. Hes a class person. Unfortunately , Schumer and Fag have more a** than class and I wont begin to disgust the swimmer. It would be nice IF we had more men like GWB in government. Unfortuantely, watch 30 seconds of Kieth the Uberdork or Ed “sgt” Schultz and you will begin to understand why we dont.
"Main Stream Media"
Well said. I think GWB has faith in the people that really count in this country to see the truth and eventually scorn the ignorant fools in the press that remind me so much of a swarm of yapping, useless, little dogs running along grabbing the socks of leaders we'd have loved to see kick a swath through them . But, as gentlemen do, he kept working and ignored the distractions.
I sure miss him. There was a time I didn't care what Washington did. Now, Washington is a threat.
Bush did all he could that was legal.
What he was critcized for was illegal for him to do, so he was criticized for NOT BREAKING THE LAW.
President Bush was NOT allowed to pre-empt the (dereliction of duty) efforts of Mayor (Schoolbus) Nagin and the dopey Governor Blanco. Also, by the time those weenies 'allowed' Bush to help…it was impossible to get supplies, etc. to the desperate residents, there, because of the weather conditions, and impassable roads.. Those dummies were warned about Katrina's severity…and went into a massive 'dithering' mode.
Of course, it was much easier to jerks like 'Shep' Smith and the 'sometimes jerky' Geraldo Rivera…and other news readers in the MSM to savage President Bush. For better or for worse…events like these hurricanes and earthquakes don't happen all the time, and even the best laid plans and computer models can't mimic the real thing.
A politician who cannot communicate is a politician who cannot do his job. He did not have to go head to head with the MSM, he could have revived the Fireside Chats.
I was going to say "Or go online with his side of the story without reference to what the news media was saying", but I don't recall going to the White House web site to see what was being said there.
Thanks for that insight. You gave me a new way of looking at this.
You bet! I'm a fan of the smart, no-nonsense, plain talking John Bolton. And he is despised in some circles for those qualities.
It wouldn't have made a difference.
If he started up Fireside Chats to talk to people about what he was doing that was good, it would have only told the MSM what to care most about and what to attack most. All the information was out there. Anyone who didn't hate him already knew what was going on.
That's why I brought up Africa and all Bush did there and never told us about. Did he figure that his enemies would oppose him for the sake of opposing him if he made the aid being sent to Africa about him in any way? If he *did* he was probably right about that. I'm convinced that the need to oppose anything Bush did for no other reason than that Bush did it, would have meant opposing aid and progress in Africa and humanitarian work there, that watching people DIE really would be preferable to Bush's enemies than finding even a single thing with which to agree with him.
The delivery method of the information is irrelevant to that.
And people who demand hand-holding and a cheerleader from a president deserve Obama.
And affirmed.
Because it's as true as it ever was, and probably was doubly true for Bush.
Dubya's book will be out soon. I am sure it will be presented at a most opportune time. That would be a northeastern way of handling the moron who purchased the oval office in '09.
George W. Bush may not have been the most reviled President in recent memory. That 'honor' probably belongs with Richard M. Nixon. However, George W. Bush is almost certainly the President most unjustly reviled. And the reason for it has always been simple – Big Media tried with all their might to steal the 2000 election. They almost succeeded. But the fact that they failed set their opposition to 'W' in stone and they resolved to destroy his Presidency. They tried. Hard. And they came awfully close to succeeding. Never was a Bush Administration action (other than a brief round of pseudo-applause for the deal with Teddy Kennedy to empower the 'education' establishment called No Child Left Behind, cheered or even complimented. Obscene terms and base insults were paraded daily – Cindy Sheehan was treated as a wise sage instead of the sad, unhinged fanatic she really is. And when the Bush Administration decided to enforce the terms of the ceasefire with Iraq, the media anger (anger increased by the end of their own lucrative little deals with Saddam – see Eason Jordan) boiled over.
The facts are that Bush never had a large Congressional majority and after 2006 he had a minority. yet he was able to get large parts of his agenda made into law – especially on the domestic front. And even on the foreign front, the Democrats agreed to invade Iraq, invade Afghanistan and utilize any and all interrogation methods. There is no serious debate on that score. And he was not a social conservative to the extent that many other Republicans were. He was a moderate. Yet the media demonized him and allowed the Bushitler comparisons that were constant. they glamorized those who fantasized about killing him and never once treated him with any respect. The media should be ashamed of themselves. But of course, they long since abandoned any idea of shame in return for their role as Democrat lapdogs and dispensers of propaganda. Pity – I would like a real Press in this country.
My husband agrees with you generally: that Obama was elected because of Bush, that Bush "irretrievably" tarnished the Republican brand. I've countered, repeatedly, that there's little else he could've done, both because – "bully pulpit" or not – Bush didn't (and never tried to) control the media, and because he had FAR too much respect for the office he held to abuse it by getting in a brouhaha with the press. We'll never settle it; we've agreed to disagree.
And don't we miss that now?
Clinton was ridiculed because he had no dignity – of person or of office. Gore was ridiculed because he was so OBVIOUSLY not Presidential material (the big Tipper-dip kiss, anybody? What was that?) Clinton's big accomplishment as President was to keep his hands off the wheel of the economy – far more a centrist President than Hillary Rodham would've been, I believe, based on their styles, though I think Clinton was probably seriously constrained by the Gingrich revolution. Gore – well, look at Gore today and tell me he would've been a good President. As VP, he did NOTHING of note.
Bush was compared (unfavorably!) with Hitler and Satan; he was blamed for natural disasters; he was simultaneously mocked as stupid and vilified as an evil genius ("Chimpy McHitler"?). He was called a "cowboy" without EVER having said anything remotely as arrogant as "We won." (The closest he came to that was the post-9/11 "Bring it on," which captured pretty much perfectly the tone of the nation on that day. President Obama, who purports to be my President too, might've captured the tone of his supporters with his playground taunt, but he certainly wasn't being any kind of Presidential at the time.) Bush was – and is to this day! – scolded for claiming "Mission Accomplished" when he never said or implied it; he always emphasized the long and difficult struggle ahead. He was Cheney's puppet, Rove's puppet, the Sauds' puppet, Halliburton's puppet – and at the same time, the architect of the destruction of the West, all by his own self. He, single-handedly, destroyed the reputation of the United States around the world, if we listen to the press.
Who forgets? Who spins the truth?
[...] course all of this begs the obvious question: President Bush left office a year ago yesterday. Why are we hearing about this now, instead of [...]
Sorry folks but George's mother never let the boys go out into the street to do some of the required learning young men should have.
Say what you want about Democrats (and I was once one of them) but most of them have taken this course. This is why they are good at making machines.
Humorous cartoon on media bias at http://drawfortruth.wordpress.com/
That no completed, working WMD turned up is quite so. But I remember very clearly a short clip that appeared once Saddam was in custody and the fighting had stopped. It was the interior of a space apparently the size of an airplane hanger. And it was filled in every direction with . . . centrifuges.
You may be aware that the making of fission bombs depends on separating U-235 from its isotope U-236. And you may also be aware that there is no way of chemically distinguishing between the two; only that slight differential in mass allows separating the two, and concentrating the fissionable isotope. What do you suppose Soddam's technicians might have been up to? (Keep in mind that he had already gassed to death whole communities of his own citizens.)
Thought question for the day: Had we waited. . . at whom, do you suppose, would a fission bomb have been leveled?
I was always proud that President Bush stayed above the fray. To have answered, defend himself, would have served no purpose, other than to intensify and require further response. His time was too valuable to be drawn into that kind of worthless charge and counter charge. It would have been a mistake to give any credibility to the left wing media and those they support.
Isn't it funny, really, but only funny in the moment, how, after Brown's election in MA, liberals such as Charles Schumer and President Obama himself, immediately came out and said they guess the people have spoken, and they would have to rethink this healthcare issue. Well, they will rethink the issue only long enough to figure out how to get something passed. Then see what they do to it if somehow does. They will attempt to find some way to put back in whatever was taken out, and then some. This has to be defeated, and so do the liberal democrats, at every opportunity. They will destroy our country as we know it. Yes, our healthcare system needs some fixes, and I hope all those Republicans, moderate Democrates, Independents, and any other groups who see the handwriting on the wall, get something together to present at first opportunity.
Sara Palin has the values most of us remember as the foundation of our country. She knows who to support in their election and re-election, who has our country's best interest at heart. I said on one of the Fox news sites, soon after Sara Palin resigned as Governor of Alaska, that she was not "finished in politics", as even some of the conservatives were charging. She had just redefined the rules. Well, look at her go. I am watching and waiting with great anticipation.
I agree. Maybe someday we will all know what it took to keep our country safe.
In regard to Bush and decisions made after 2006, I do believe that is when the Democrats got the majority. That makes me think back to when the republicans(Sen McCain and others) brought up many times over the years that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in big trouble. Who was it that said they were not? Liberal Barney Frank , that's who. The citizens of this country have finally begun to get the picture.
boy oh boy sure do miss you President Bush ! thank you very much !
Cowboy Logic said: "Frankly, he was far too busy with his Oath of Office, where he swore to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic."
Then why did bush allow terrorists to murder 3,000 people on 9-11?
Mago said: "I didn't always agree with his policy (or the lack thereof) but the insane lies perpetrated by the media should have been addressed and frequently."
Mago, what did the media lie about?
I guess that means southern gentlemen go AWOL, snort coke and drive drunk – all things bush did.
Lorben said: "I didn't agree with all of GW's policies, many were to liberal for me, but I knew he had a handle the security of the country…"
If bush had a handle on the security of the country, why did he allow terrorists to murder 3,000 people on 9-11?
HiPlainsDrifter said: "[bush] aggressively kept us safe."
If that's true, why did bush allow terrorists to murder 3,000 people on 9-11?
eor said: "Keep in mind that he rebuilt the military that Clinton had decimated. He put our surveillance capabilities back in place."
eor, do you have any proof of this?
eor said: "And for 8 years the democrats did nothing to help with anything–just bashed him."
If this is true, why did the Democrats support bush's unnecessary war in Iraq? Do you have any examples of the Democrats "bashing" bush?
Because he wanted to give bridge trolls something to think about, so their pathetic lives would have some semblance of meaning…
Flim Flam I presume? Oberst Mostrich?
Bush gave us the worst of LBJ and Hoover rolled into one. He saddled us with two military quagmires and an economy on the brink of ruin. Any one of those disasters would have qualified Bush to be a terrible president. All THREE of them make him the worst president in US history. And that's not even counting ignoring dozens of clues that could have prevented 9-11, warrantless wiretaps of US citizens, the criminally slow response to Katrina and the outing of Valerie Plame.