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
Republicans versus Democrats on Pandering
I would argue that Republicans are just as likely as Democrats to have a pandering racist attitude- however your disdain for Dems will surely bias you from seeing that.
My disdain for Dems is based on example after example. Yes, there are Republicans who do this too, but fewer by far.
The True History and Present Reality
Black people have traditionally been distrustful of politicians, regardless of party. You feel that Dems "demagogue" Black people but the point you're missing is that the Republican party offers (and has historically offered) little or no rational alternative. All the recent scandals that have plagued Republicans haven't helped!
Historically, the Republican Party was founded on an anti-slavery platform, as opposed to the slave-holding and pro-slavery Democrats. The rational alternatives now that Republicans offer are: a rising middle class thanks to Bush's tax cuts; the highest level of Black home ownership in history; African-American cabinet members, government appointees, a Supreme Court Justice, and a drive for African-American party membership and power. These are not just talk, but real action.
As far as the scandals go, I concede your point on this issue.
Black Advancement: Greater under Republicans or Democrats?
Consider that over the last century, the U.S. presidents who presided over periods of great strides in Black history were ALL Democrats. FDR- when Blacks were allowed into the military as equals for the first time, LBJ when Blacks gained LEGAL social/political equality, and Clinton when Blacks FINALLY gained economic equality. Black folks LOVE Bill Clinton because so many moved into the middle class bracket during those 8 years. Whatever their motivation for bringing about social change for African Americans, Democrats as a party have been perceived as having a HUGE positive impact on the lives of Black people in this country. The same can't be said for their Republican counterparts- not in the least.
How about the U.S. president who made the greatest stride of all for Blacks, Abraham Lincoln? Blacks love Clinton for their moving into the middle class, when in reality it was Reagan lowering taxes that was responsible for the Clinton prosperity. Yes, Clinton didn't muck it up, like so many Democrats have, so I give him credit for this, but it was Reagan that led to the rise. Under Bush, there are more African-American homeowners than at any time in history, with the biggest African-American middle class in history.
Eisenhower
Think about the Eisenhower days when Black soldiers went toKorea thinking it would help with social change only to return as second-class citizens under segregation and Jim Crow.
Au contraire. The worst of the bigotry and segregation at that time occurred in the South, under universal Democratic Party rule. Eisenhower inherited FDR and Truman's policies on the armed forces, and also the Black soldiers' treatment when they returned from war. Much of the Korean War was under Truman. Eisenhower was not happy with the treatment of Blacks. He took action. Eisenhower was the first modern president to pass and enforce civil rights legislation.Under this Republican president, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its historic Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, on May 17, 1954. The decision declared all laws establishing segregated schools to be unconstitutional, and it called for the desegregation of all schools in the nation. Eisenhower sent U.S. troops to enforce the Supreme Courts' historic decision. Opposing Eisenhower was Orval Eugene Faubus (7 January 1910–14 December 1994), a six-term Democratic Governor of Arkansas, infamous for his 1957 stand against integration of Little Rock, Arkansas, schools in defiance of U.S. Supreme Court rulings
Eisenhower also took steps to end segregation in federal jurisdiction, and hired African-Americans to work at the White House. Growing awareness of racial injustice in the South prompted the Eisenhower administration to draft legislation leading to the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the first civil rights legislation enacted in the United States since Reconstruction. The new law was a building block for the sweeping Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. LBJ was the beneficiary of Eisenhower's groundbreaking work.
Reagan
Think about the Reagan days when "trickle-down Reaganomics" basically kept Blacks OUT of the Middle Class.Again, "trickle-down Reaganomics" did work, as evidenced in the Clinton years, when Clinton, unlike past Democrats, did not dismantle the Reagan Revolution, and in fact was distinctly conservative on economics, much like Republicans. Clinton, you remember, enacted welfare reform, a Republican idea.
Katrina
Think about a year and a half ago when GWB simply flew over flooded New Orleans and returned to his ranch without doing a thing- while thousands were stranded.This was not a race thing, paz. This was an incompetence thing. You can't keep pummeling Bush that he is incompetent on a whole host of issues and then suddenly say that he could have been competent on New Orleans but chose not to be because of race.
Republican versus Democratic Track Record with Blacks
In other words, Republican leaders (besides Lincoln of course) have a bad track record as far a Black people are concerned and it's gonna take A LOT to change the negative view. In other words, Dems are the lesser of two evils- and isn't that how we usually vote anyway?
Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Bush are three presidents who have made great contributions to Black advancement. Lincoln freed the slaves and was loved by Blacks. Eisenhower sent in troops to enforce civil rights, and appointed Blacks, for the first time, to positions in government. Bush has appointed more Blacks to positions of high power than any other president, bar none. You have proven my point. You seem blind to these contributions. Why? Because you've heard so often that Republicans are against Blacks. It simply isn't true. It may have been true at one time, just as with Democrats. Dems still have an ex Ku Klux Klan Exalted Cyclops as a Democratic Senator, Robert Byrd.