Warmth
or
Fire
The Bush Scorecard
I feel like a lot of conservatives these days when I see my beloved right wing of the Republican Party in the descendency. I also continue to get whipsawed when I measure my approval rating of President Bush. Since I am like most Americans, on the side of the underdog, I can't help rooting for George W. Still, this blog is about truth, so here we go. I'll get to the nice guy issue in a minute.
Bush is great so far on:
• The decision to invade Irag and depose Saddam
• His attempt to install democracy in Iraq
• Keeping taxes low and our economy humming
• A cluster of traits including persistence, conviction, loyalty, and integrity
• Personal charm, including but not only when he is one-on-one
Bush, in my opinion, falls short on:
• Winning the war in Iraq
• His immigration policy
• Leadership in showing Americans and the world his vision of peace
• His communication skills in public
Bush the Nice Guy
I've said before that one of Bush's character traits is to want to be a nice guy.He desires to be loved by everybody. As a result, his approval rating is one of the lowest for any president in history.
When is it a good thing for Bush to be a nice guy?
Today was one example. President Putin is visiting the Bush family residence in Kennebunkport, Maine. Putin is a bad guy. He is the one leader in our world that could bring back the Gulags if he chose to do that. He has already nationalized private industries and curbed freedom of the press, and may be responsible for outright murder.
We could be hard and say we need to put Putin in his place. Yet, I don't see that we'd get much for this. I think Bush is right to coddle up to Putin and pour on the charm.Why? There is a time to be Reaganesque and say, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" and there is a time to be Bush-like, and say, "We congratulate President Putin on being the only one today to catch a fish."
Russia is not a democracy like ours. It has returned to a sort of democratic autocracy because they didn't know how to run a democracy. The mob took over and there was chaos. Now the Russians have a strongman again, and 70% of them are happy with him. The people wanted it this way. Bush being harsh to Putin would only alienate a whole nation. Sometimes, diplomacy is the right thing.
When is being a nice guy not right?
When waging a war. If you want to be popular as president when you are waging a war, you must win, period. There is no room to be showing the world and your people, in that war, that you are the fairest guy in the battle. You must win.Nice Guys Finish Last?
So, is it true that nice guys finish last? No, not all the time. They finish first when diplomacy is needed. They finish last in war. Lincoln was a nice guy much of the time. He was vicious, though, in war. Then, when he won, he was the sweetest guy in the world to the losers. That's how it's done.
Give Putin all the lobster he can eat. Give Al-Queda cocktails, Molotov that is, with a dash of bitters.
Rock
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)
Click here to get a button link to this blog:
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site!
Subscribe to my feed
Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.
Technorati Tags for this post: George W. Bush, Vladimir Putin, Mikhail Gorbachev, Abraham Lincoln, war
Regular Technorati Tags for this blog: politics, political, politically incorrect, no spin, conservative, Republican, right wing, liberal, Democrat, left wing, leftist, democracy, election, peace, war, George W. Bush, editorial, opinion, news, current affairs, media, television, television, Hollywood, books, culture, society, religion, God, fundamentalism, Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Israel, Palestine, blog, truth
i think you got this one dead on rock. dead on. all of it. thanks...
ReplyDeletesmiles, bee
(well except i think you meant pour on the charm and not poor?)
Thanks, Bee. And thanks for the proofreading. We all make mistakes, even us writers, right?
ReplyDeleteRock
And what should he give Scooter Libby. Better yet, Scoot should be on his knees, kissing the prez's feet. Sorry man, but Bush being nice to his buddy on his way to prison might make my "Not the right thing to do list" but I guess that doesn't matter now does it.
ReplyDeletepaz, you know, logically, and morally, I can't disagree with you about Scooter Libby. I was very happy Clinton was impeached, because of the lying under oath thing. But I feel, though, that Clinton was rightly charged, while Libby was a fall guy. Libby shouldn't have lied; but why was he a target in the first place? Clinton was a target because of reprehensible behavior as a president. Libby was a target to get at Cheney. Libby himself did nothing wrong, until he lied after being a target.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I think this inexcusable act of Bush's, was the right thing to do. It's another act of political courage on Bush's part, as most people will condemn him for it, as you do.
Yeah, I know, it's not an entirely logical position.
Rock
i am seeing all over the blogs today talking about how horrible this is about scooter libby. i don't think he committed a crime. how was this prosecutor, fitzgerald, different from the one in south carolina, nyphong, with the lacrosse players? that is where the blame should fall. on that prosecutor, not with scooter. imho anyway.
ReplyDeletesmiles, bee
I agree Bee. They went after Libby because he was a Bushie. They really wanted Cheney--also not a fair move.
ReplyDeleteRock
Hold on, am I on the wrong blog here? What happened to the "tough on crime" stance conservatives are known for? Where'd all this liberal "victim" talk coming from? (Sorry Rock, I had to use it :) ) Perjury is a crime, regardless of who it was, who he was covering up for, who he's taking the fall for, or why he's being targeted. Now if the shoe was on the other foot (i.e. these were all Dems) and the president let him off the hook, you guys would be raising sand- and I'd be the one making excuses (well, at least I hope not).
ReplyDeleteRock, I can see your logic, as illogical as it is- but you have to admit that something smells terrible here. Fall guy or not, it's obvious that letting him off the hook was the plan all along. Surprise, surprise- nepotism alive and well in the White House (and I'm not just referring to a republican WH either)
Clinton was impeached for virtually the same thing Libby was convicted for- lying under oath, but what I don't get is why conservatives are applauding the sentence being commuted (and hoping for a full pardon) but wanted Clinton tarred and feathered. Oh I get it, Clinton was a Democrat.
and Ms. Bee- Libby DID commit a crime, lying under oath is a crime, one befitting of punishment. If Paris can go to jail, so can Scooter! I don't get your logic of how Fitzgerald and Mike Niphong are in the same boat. Niphong deliberately went after those lacrosse players without sufficient evidence to get reelected. Fitzgerald had tons of evidence and got a "conviction". I agree with both of you that the prosecution wanted bigger fish to fry- and in MY opinion had probable cause to do so, but Libby was offered up as the fall guy and the prosecution took the bait rather than push the issue. Shame.
paz i do see your points but i still think the two prosecutors were out of line and that libby should not have been there in the first place and it was a witch hunt. but i respect what you said. and then i don't think he should have gone after cheney either.
ReplyDeletesmiles, bee
Well, who should they have gone after then? The only reason a "fall guy" is offered up is when someone else needs to be protected (Cheney? Rove?) If no one did anything wrong, why then was Libby put out there to take the blame in the first place? If all parties were innocent of any wrongdoing, there would have been no need to "lie under oath", and those under the gun would have cooperated fully to get the investigation over with. That didn't happen in the slightest. That's why something about this whole thing stinks...
ReplyDelete