Noonan's Dismay

[The_Professor]

I happen to agree with many of these thoughts about the current Administration. Do you?

Noonan: The beginning of my own sense of separation from the Bush administration came in January 2005, when the president declared that it is now the policy of the United States to eradicate tyranny in the world, and that the survival of American liberty is dependent on the liberty of every other nation.

Noonan: The White House doesn't need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don't even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.

Noonan: For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don't like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don't like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad.

Noonan: What I came in time to believe is that the great shortcoming of this White House, the great thing it is missing, is simple wisdom. Just wisdom--a sense that they did not invent history, that this moment is not all there is, that man has lived a long time and there are things that are true of him, that maturity is not the same thing as cowardice, that personal loyalty is not a good enough reason to put anyone in charge of anything, that the way it works in politics is a friend becomes a loyalist becomes a hack, and actually at this point in history we don't need hacks.


The Rockefeller country club Republicans thought the same thing about the Goldwater Republicans. G H W Bush and his people had the same attitude toward the Reagan Republicans. Is anyone surprised?

www.jerrypournelle.com and http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan.

[BT]

Kinda shows the GWBush is his own man.

To some of us that is not a surprise.

I have voted for him twice. I would vote for him again.
Your mileage may vary.

[The_Professor]

Being your own man is indeed admirable, to a point. It can also produce insular thinking. Wonder which it is here?

I honestly do not know. Not sure anyone outside the Inner Circle really knows...

[BT]

Let me elaborate. I trust the man.

Conversely i wouldn't vote for either McCain or Cheney because i don't feel that same trust.

[gipper]

Legitimately, GW Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents the US has ever had. I suppose there's a logic to argue that BT will go down -- with others -- as one of the worst citizens ever.

[BT]

That would sting, domer, if i gave a rats ass what you think.

[gipper]

You're not interested in thought, similar to GWB, and you've both amply demonstrated that over the years. So, yes, I can verify your comment.

[BT]

No Domer, i am not interested in your personal attacks, which is your tendency when you run out of substantive things to say.

3 and out seems to be the pattern.

Going forward i would be more than happy to see you prove me wrong.

[gipper]

Is "3 and out" a threat (it is cryptic), unmoderating moderator?

[BT]

No it is an average  count of legitimate posts before you start slinging insults. It's a pattern or rut if you will of your modus operandi.

This thread didn't help your average.

 

[Xavier_Onassis]

Kinda shows the GWBush is his own man.

To some of us that is not a surprise.

I have voted for him twice. I would vote for him again.
Your mileage may vary.

=======================================
Hitler was also his own man, so was Mussolini.

The problem with Juniorbush is the sort of "man" he is.
An ignorant man. A stubborn man. A would-be monarch.

Thank God for term limits.

[_JS]

Thank God for term limits.

Even without term limits I'd say that President Bush wouldn't have very good odds at winning re-election. In fact, I'm not sure I'd give him very good odds on winning the GOP nomination. You'll notice that a lot of the Republican candidates aren't lining up and declaring how much they support Bush and strive to follow his lead!

[BT]

JS,

Bush won the two elections that counted. Once as an incumbent . His support amongst his supporters  has dwindled largely because of the immigration bill, which was also looming in '04.

[_JS]

JS,

Bush won the two elections that counted. Once as an incumbent . His support amongst his supporters  has dwindled largely because of the immigration bill, which was also looming in '04.

Bt,

I'm not being a "Bush-hater" or whatever catchy phrase Sirs has made up today. It is just that his popularity is extremely low.

You're right though, no one should be completely counted out. Especially Bush and Rove, who have had a great deal of success by pushing peropheral social issues to their advantage as well as using extremely negative campaigning tactics without involving Bush himself.

Clinton taught everyone (regardless of party affiliation) that you always counter every attack as soon as humanly possible, which in this day and age is very soon. Yet, the other areas of Clinton's campaigning style were more innate to his charisma than something that any campaign could learn and adapt to their own use.

Bush has taught that you can fight an exceptionally nasty campaign without involving the candidate himself (or herself). The other major lesson from Bush is that you can use peripheral social issues if the perception is that your opposition candidate is on the fringe of that issue. Gay marriage was rather brilliant because Bush and Kerry basically agreed on the issue itself, but that was not the perceived stance of either candidate in the public's eyes.

So no, I wouldn't count Bush out completely, but after the 2006 midterms and his current approval ratings, and the way even Republicans discuss the guy, I don't think he could win another term (which is a hypothetical situation any way). Notice that none of his people are running for President. Unlike Reagan, he has no real legacy to leave behind - not even the House or Senate.

[BT]

Not sure what point you were making , since it was a hypothetical, and Bush is not and has not been campaigning since 2004. I believe his policy might be a bit different if he were in a never ending campaign stance.