« Video of the Day | Main | Save Us, Al Gore! »

The Party and the President

I am still not at all happy with the idea that John McCain is likely to win the Republican Party nomination for President of the United States. The man's hypocrisy regarding Free Speech is unacceptable, his fatuous buy-in to the Global Warming lie is disturbing, and his regular habit of attacking Conservatives in his policies and statements is insulting. The problem is, if McCain gets the Republican nomination and I do not vote for him in the fall, then I am effectively supporting the Democrats' nominee, either the criminal Hillary Clinton or the vacuous and completely unqualified Barack Obama. Not at all a good situation.

But with that said, there is a bigger problem. George W. Bush has his faults, but he was a good President, and he could have been great if the Republican Party had backed him more often, instead of stabbing him in the back on so many key votes. The reason they did this is simple enough; a mix of territorial greed and personal hubris. More than a couple leading Republicans got it into their head that they mattered more than the President of the United States, and they did all the could to punish President Bush for putting the nation first.

The Democrats do this too, of course. One reason the 2006 mid-term elections turned out not to be so earth-shaking, is the non-stop feuding between Pelosi and Reid and Dean and Schumer and so on. And it's not a new thing; the Congress under Clinton started out under control of the Democrats, who nonetheless saw no reason to respect President Clinton's role as the nation's leader.

Most Presidents, actually, have found Congress much more often an obstacle to their plans and policies than an ally. Reagan stands out because of his ability to go over the heads of Congress to the American people, but frankly no one today demonstrates such skill. No, Obama does not have that skill, because he lacks the moral weight and rhetorical wit to carry the day past the first wave of resistance. No, Hillary Clinton's shrill and cackling delivery will not achieve success with the people. McCain's angry bark will reflect a bitter, narcissistic man, not a leader.

The one thing I am sure of, for the 2009-12 term of our next President, is that the years will be rancorous and ineffective in the main, except where exceptional need or duplicitioous greed compels or sways some new venture. That, and that we the people will get the bill for it.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (22)

I agree, I like Bush also! ... (Below threshold)

I agree, I like Bush also!
McCain should be ashamed, he said he couldn't debate Huckabee because "he had a hard and fast schedule" It's more than an insult to America. Serving BBQ to the media instead of a debate? What a joke. Just like his nomination. I pray Huckabee beats Mccain in Texas. Even though I'm conservative, I used to like Mccain because I thought he was honest; before the media bias and his endorsers stood up and I realized how this whole thing seems rigged.. Where did our democracy go? I'm glad Huckabee is still in the race, I pray I can point him out to my kids and say with pride "look, there is our President." If McCain is the nominee, I'm dropping out of the GOP.

Let's see where to start...... (Below threshold)

Let's see where to start...

How about with the 'Bush coulda been a contender, but it's all our fault for having stabbed him in the back'? Or perhaps the jaw dropping claim that the issues we care about aren't as important as Bush's legacy? Or that Bush was punished for putting the nation first?

Yeah, we should have been quiet when he nominated Miers, tried to give amnesty (but we're not going to call it that) to 10+ million illegals, signed into law the very anti-free-speech bill that Drummond (rightfully) blasts McCain for supporting, refused to do anything about pork spending, stood by while domestic spending increased at a rate Democrats love, totally screwed up almost 4 years of the Iraq war, did nothing while Iran continued to build nukes, and abandoned one judicial nominee after another without bothering to fight. Yeah, that's putting the country first. Silly us for not realizing that.

Hey Steve, how's the weathe... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Hey Steve, how's the weather on whatever planet you're on?

Bush tried to fix Social Se... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Bush tried to fix Social Security, Steve. Remember what Congress did?

Bush tried to reform the IRS, too. Remember Congress' response?

Miers may or may not have made a good justice. Reagan gave us O'Connor, so maybe you want to put a dagger in Ronnie for that?

Bush did more in the real world than you seem to be aware of. No surprise, since you blame him for crap that only exists in your head.

Bush did put the nation first, something you seem completely unable to even comprehend. Good luck with your fantasy life. Whatever we get for President this fall is waaaaay down from the man doing the job now.

I really don't care who's f... (Below threshold)
Gary Gulrud:

I really don't care who's fault the GOP is at this point. All I know is that 90% of all politicians for every party are looking for some one elses vote but mine. The GOP has had it in the past and has done especially poorly of late. It is no longer a question of standing on the sidelines in the next election. I mean them harm.

DJ, it's the sign of a pure... (Below threshold)

DJ, it's the sign of a pure fanatic that you just can't comprehend why everybody else can't/won't see things the same way you do. Bush's approval ratings are as low as for any President... and you think that is an indication of our stupidity. You just can't comprehend that so many Americans, of both political persuasions, don't think Bush has been the greatest thing to hit the Oval Office since... ah, what am I thinking, Bush has been the greatest President EVER! To you, Bush's screw ups have all been minor and inconsequential, someone else's fault, or pale compared to all of his triumphs.... and it annoys you immensely that 70% of America just doesn't see things as clearly as you do, that we've let our petty insecurities, our lack of education and our selfishness and greed blind us to the greatness that is George W Bush.

And as for Reagan, O'Connor was one of the relatively few exceptions to his solid conservativeness, so, yes, he does get a pass, while the pitiful few things Bush has gotten right are the exceptions to his disaster of a Presidency.

"refused to do anything abo... (Below threshold)
Brad Schwartze:

"refused to do anything about pork spending,"

steve sturm, if you can explain to me why a winning political party should be concered about pork spending, especially when spoils after political victory is a universally accepted concept, I would love to hear it.

... and Steve, if you think... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

... and Steve, if you think Approval Ratings have diddly to do with how good a job a President really did, well that's just sad what it says about your level of insight and mental development.

Billions in debt, ... (Below threshold)

Billions in debt,

"Fiasco" in Iraq until Gates and Petraeus took over to try to correct the mistakes made by Rumsfeld,

Armed services stretched to the limit, unable to cover any major new crises,

Dollar tanking, fiscal crisis, inflation, gas at $4.00/gallon (see billions in debt),

Name of the USA now associated with incompetence and torture around the world,

What's not to like about GWB?

What's not to like about GW... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

What's not to like about GWB?
--------------------------------Obviously GWB is much better when compared to the liberal alternatives of "killing babies and the disabled, not terrorists".

Liberals like Obama want to absolutely ban waterboarding of known high level terrorists even at the risk of thousands/millions of Americans killed. At the same time, they want to ensure surviving aborted babies to be left to die in the most inhumane way. Bush at least freed 50 millions people from the modern version of Nazism and give them hope of freedom. Liberals want to turn the terrorists loose in Iraq for more genocide. Israel needs to watch out too.

About debts, liberals cannot even control their culture of pork right now. How are they going to deal with SS and medicare/medicaid (34% of the total budget)? If liberals have their way, we will need to spend trillions of dollars just playing defense.

LoveAmerica,GWB ha... (Below threshold)


GWB has not stopped abortion.

So you can chalk that up as another failure.

For me, that should be a matter for the states to decide, anyways.

Bush's failures were mainly... (Below threshold)
Dave W:

Bush's failures were mainly media-contrived. There was a period of time where it was something new every day that was Bush's fault. It's the old "Throw mud and see what sticks". The democrats and liberal media are amazingly good at it. Bush failed at a few things, backed things like miers and the amnesty bill that were utterly unacceptable. The one thing about the man is that he has always done what he said he was going to do. He's been pro-open borders since he got elected prez. He ran on "compassionate-conservatism" in 2000. He's always done what he said he was going to do in regards to the war.

One thing that liberals should have loved is when he let Kennedy write the education bill. Somehow that was a failure just because Bush was attached to it. This is exactly what we on the right refer to as BDS. No matter what Bush does, it is bad as far as you libs are concerned. On the right, we recognize that Bush has problems and there are issues we take with some of his policies. I would say the biggest reason why Bush has had as much support as he has over the years is because of the sheer amount of ignorant, incomprehensible criticizm that he receives. It isn't just disagreement with policies. The only policy arguments that have taken place have been right-wingers debating right-wingers on the vast majority of issues. The left refuses to acknowledge issues, or they point to made-up issues like global warming. even on global warming the lefties will not debate. They actually call people like me "deniers" in an effort to discredit and make me be quiet.

Bush hasn't been a bad president. He hasn't been nearly as bad as the libs think he is, and he isn't nearly as good as the left thinks that we think he is. We just stick up for people when they get smeared. Even if it's John McCain being smeared by the NYT. I can't stand McCain, but that article had a rallying effect to it.

DJ: how can I argue with yo... (Below threshold)

DJ: how can I argue with your logic? You say Bush did a great job and define the criteria by which he is judged, so, by definition, he did a great job. Most Americans disagree with you, so, again by definition, they're not only wrong and stupid, they're probably ugly too. Do you use this logic elsewhere, such as with movies (the movies you like should win the Oscar, the car you buy should be voted Motor Trend's car of the year, the restaurants you go to ought to receive the highest Zagat's ratings... and anyone who thinks otherwise is too stupid to realize their own shortcomings?).

And Dave, there's sticking up for someone being smeared, and there's firmly planting one's nose up Bush's rear end.... guess which I think DJ is doing?

President George W Bush IS ... (Below threshold)

President George W Bush IS (not was) a GREAT (not good) president.

In a point-by-point comparison with Ronald Reagan, GWB emerges MORE conservative and MORE effective . . . period.

As to the 'not popular' nonsense perpetuated by an MSM that grossly overrepresents Democrats/Democrat-leaning Independents in every poll, know this: According to the Battleground and LATimes/Bloomberg polls (the only pollsters that still report 'personal approval' ratings for the president -- the rest of the pollsters dropped it when Bill Clinton couldn't get above 40% approval), GWB's personal approval rating remains at approximately 60% -- again, contrast this with BJ's 40% (and Clinton was the 'popular' president?!).

LoveAmerica,GWB ha... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:


GWB has not stopped abortion.

So you can chalk that up as another failure.
Bush signed the ban on partial birth abortion and parental notification. Obama consistently against providing medical care for surviving aborted babies. He regretted not intervening to make sure that Terry Schiavo to be starved to death (he was not even asked specifically about it. He was simply asked about one thing he regretted in his legislative career). You can support him if you want, but at least be honest about his extremist "killing babies and the disabled, not terrorists" ideology.

DrDeb, Using libera... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Using liberal logic, they are proud of Bill Clinton and not Truman because Bill Clinton had higher poll numbers than Truman. Chalk it up as another example of the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of modern liberalism.

"Most Presidents, actual... (Below threshold)

"Most Presidents, actually, have found Congress much more often an obstacle to their plans and policies than an all."

That would make one of those checks and balances things I learned about in third grade.

That would make it a good thing.

DrDeb, I hope you live long... (Below threshold)

DrDeb, I hope you live long enough for the books to be opened, the documents declassified and the judgment of history to be made.

If you look at the objective measures like debt and the strength of the dollar, it's pretty clear that GWB will be far down the list of presidents, down with Millard Fillmore and Warren G. Harding.

To say he was better than Reagan is laughable. While I didn't approve of Reagan's deficits either, the USA was stronger at the end of his presidency.

It's a useful exercise to compare Bush's visits to Iraq vs. Ahmedinajad's:


No advance news of travel to Iraq, highly secret.

Visits lasting only a few hours.

No overnights.

No road travel outside the wire.


Visit announced weeks in advance

Travel on roads outside Green Zone

Overnight stay.

Comparing those two types of visits tells you who is really running the show in Iraq, and who the Iraqi government really is allied with.

Iran is the real winner in Iraq - they have a huge export market there, along with lots of tourism to the shrines.

KBR, Blackwater, Parsons and other contractors are the secondary winners - feeding at that $12 Billion per month trough of money borrowed from China and Saudi Arabia, which "we the people will get the bill for." Or our children.

The USA not only has a much weaker dollar, it is a much weaker country than before.

I hope the next president can restore America's power, fiscal health and reputation after the disastrous Bush years.

metrico Your comme... (Below threshold)


Your comments here are a riot:

"Fiasco" in Iraq until Gates and Petraeus took over to try to correct the mistakes made by Rumsfeld,...was there a coup? When did they take over?

Iran is the real winner in Iraq - they have a huge export market there, along with lots of tourism to the shrines....and what does geography have to do with that? A common border? What's that export market value, BTW?

If you look at the objective measures like debt and the strength of the dollar, it's pretty clear that GWB will be far down the list of presidents, down with Millard Fillmore and Warren G. Harding....Objective measures? Hmmm...that would also rule out Roosevelt, Truman, Lincoln, Jackson and others notable.

Metrico, Even with... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica, Immigrant:

Even with your exaggeration, Bush years are far better than Carter years. I am surprised that you didn't talk about Carter years at all. Let 's be honest enough to say that we don't want the next version of Carter on Obama in the next 4 years. The economy now is in much better shape compared to the Carter years. Even Clinton years are a bubble in retrospect (an opportunity squandered).
If you are upset about the Iraqui meeting with Adm, then definitely you have to vote against Obama, who want to meet with Adm. If Bush is bad, then definitely the liberals like Obama are extremely bad for America. Definitely you don't want that change to "killing babies and disabled, not terrorists" agenda.

Been through the Carter yea... (Below threshold)

Been through the Carter years, LAI - and I see Obama ready to replay them.

Heard Hillary on the radio the other day, complaining about how Bush hasn't come up with a national energy policy to wean us off ME oil. Well, why did the Democrats stop any attempt to drill in ANWR? Why aren't we drilling off the Coasts? Why aren't we doing a Manhattan Project approach to fusion - going full-out on all possible avenues?

And what effect did the Democrats have on stopping even an investigation into Social Security reform? In the Clinton years, the meme was that it needed fixing. Bush gets into office, and the Democrats form a shield wall around Social Security, because it doesn't need fixing!

So why do the Democrats PROMISE to fix things - but never DO?

Because a solved problem can't be used to buy votes. Hillary's getting cheers for the failure of Bush to come up with an energy plan. That the Democrats blocked all attempts doesn't mean anything. Bush has caused the economy to go into a deep recession (despite the fact it isn't in a recession) and that the economy goes in cycles is completely irrelevant.

The Democrats depend on voter inattention, gullibility, greed and stupidity. THEY may get into office - but they'll be out when it's realized they haven't any intention of actually SOLVING any problem they campaign on. And we'll get the Republicans in for a while - we'll see if they've learned anything or whether we get to keep recycling the same Presidencies.

metrico - your "analysis" h... (Below threshold)

metrico - your "analysis" has to be the most laughable I've ever seen. Islamic terrorists aren't trying to kill Ahmadinijad. They'd love to get their hands on Bush, don't you think?. For you to make the ridiculous exercise comparing Bush coming into Iraq without media knowledge to the tyrant's visit means that the tyrant is running the show there is just plain stupid.

By the way, Millard Fillmore was a much better president than history has allowed. Recent scholarly re-evaluation of his term is questioning the view that he was a failure (he wasn't).






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy