This isn't going to be MUCH of a defense of George W. Bush. He has the distinction of being the only Republican candidate for president I ever voted against. I think he was a man of limited ability, with few discernable accomplishments in life that weren't related to being politically and economically connected.
He campaigned dirty... I know this because John McCain's illegitimate black baby told me so. He had no qualms about besmirching the military service of a decorated war hero, like John Kerry, while soft-pedalling his own lack of service in combat.
He was fiscally liberal and socially conservative, whereas I'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal. He was, basically, everything I didn't want in a politician.
Those are his faults, which have been pounded on again and again by the press. However, he wasn't without some redeeming qualities, and in contrast to the Obama administration, those qualities stand out more starkly.
First, he took his job and took responsibility for it. The statistics show that 9/11 wasn't actually much of an economic calamity. In fact, it was just the low point of the internet bubble implosion. Bill Clinton had the advantage of having the bubble of his presidency implode just a few months after he got out of office. I don't remember the Bush administration, once, blaming the difficulties they faced on the previous administration.
The Obama Administration? A year later is still blaming the Bush Administration. If you're not man enough to take ownership of the job, you don't deserve the job. Bush was man enough. Obama isn't.
Second, he won wars. With the smallest fighting force in generations, Bush deposed a murderous dictator, and changed regime in a country that facilitated the terrorist attacks of 9/11. When the Democrats screamed that the surge wouldn't work, Bush plowed ahead, anyway, and brought Iraq under control. When Bush left office, Iraq and Afghanistan were both under control, only waiting for an end-game that would tie up the loose ends.
Obama has actually managed to put the victory in Afghanistan in peril. That was the war Obama thought was a JUSTIFIED war! Imagine if Iraq hadn't been brought so soundly under control.
There is nothing more disheartening to a combat troop than to be half a world away, with your life in peril, while those at home do all they can to undermine your success. Bush won wars. Obama was handed two theaters of operation that were under control and has lost control of one of them, with little progress in the other.
Third, Bush knew how to run the congress. When Bush wanted something, he put his machine in gear and got it. A completely unfunded Medicare prescription bill? Against almost everything the Republican party stands for? He got it. Any vote related to Afghanistan or Iraq? He got it.
Right now, people are rightly frustrated that the Democrats control both houses of congress and still can't get anything done. The Democrats are basically offerring that yeah, numerically they control both houses, but they can't get the disparate political interests within their party to agree on anything. Bottom line: Democrats can't lead and they can't get things done.
Some older members of the Democrat Party speak wistfully of the time in 1980 when Ronald Reagan came into town and rolled the Democrat congress. Obama is no Reagan. In fact, he's not even George W. Bush. He can't even get his own party in line.
Want further proof that Bush could manage politicians? When the current economic crisis hit, he called McCain and Obama into the Oval Office, briefed them and both of them left, determined to continue Bush's policies in regards to the crisis. Now, I disagree with the handling of the crisis since all we did was mortgage our kids' futures to provide bankers bonuses, but you can't deny: on this issue Bush controlled McCain, and he rolled Obama.
Fourth, Bush was brutalized in the press, but ignored it. He plowed ahead. Never complained, never explained. The Obama administration, despite a completely gaga-infatuated press that loves him dearly, goes beserk any time anybody criticizes anything.
I recently read a very well-informed opinion by an auto industry insider that spelled out how the cash for clunkers program actually cost the taxpayer about $24,000 for every additional new car that got sold.
http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press/159446/article.html
The Obama administration's response? Attacked the the piece, directly.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2009/10/29/busy-covering-car-sales-mars-edmundscom-gets-it-wrong-again-cash-clunkers
I was astounded. These guys are so used to the press simply rolling over and giving Obama anything he wants, they lose their minds when actual investigative journalism takes place.
(As a final note on the topic, here is Edmonds rebuttal:
http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/10/31/edmundscom-fires-back-at-white-house-cash-for-clunkers-slam/ )
Maybe not the same as Nixon's "Enemies List", but... well... along the same continuum.
Bush was able to accomplish all he accomplished in spite of an unfriendly press. Obama controls the media and can't tolerate dissention or analysis by the press.
Fifth, Bush had the good sense not to try and inflate his unearned accomplishments. Near as I can figure, his actual accomplishments in life were that his father got him into the Air National Guard and he got his pilot's license. He got legacy admission to Yale. He got into Harvard based on wealth and political connections. He used his family's money to run an unprofitable oil company. He used his family's money to buy the Texas Rangers. He was apparently, a competent governor of the State of Texas.
Of all those opportunities, he got in the door based on family connections and not because of merit. Yet, you never heard him mention anything about any of those things. Really, regardless of how he got those things, they're all pretty impressive. Fighter pilot. Yale / Harvard. Oil man. Baseball team owner. Governor.
Obama? Honestly, the way the guy wears his laurels is bordering on shameless. Bush may have gotten his leg-up in life the old-fashioned way, by buying it, but Obama came up during a time of the most eggregious uses of affirmative action. Obama is a Columbia / Harvard man. However, it's pretty clear that he was nothing but an underachieving pothead at Occidental college before being accepted as a transfer student to Columbia. That's a heck of a leg up in life.
Obama doesn't appear to have ever demonstrated any real professional success, but was given book deals as a law school student and as soon as he was elected to the state legislature, he was on speaking tours all over the country. America needed a poster boy, and Obama was it.
Even when he won the Nobel Peace prize, he and his followers shamelessly acted as though it was somehow based on merit. Months later, when he sent an additional 35,000 combat troops to Afghanistan, the irony escaped them.
Seems to me that both men got a lot of advantages in life that they didn't earn. One was based on wealth and political connection. The other was based on the color of his skin. Thing is, Bush never pretended that he earned the things he's gotten.
Sixth, Bush lowered taxes and that didn't contribute to the deficit. Yes, these insane Bush tax cuts that everybody complains about actualy INCREASED revenues. Throughout the Bush years, tax revenue kept pace with inflation. As a fiscal conservative, that's all I want tax revenues to do. It wasn't the tax cuts that caused the Bush deficits, it was profligate spending.
Obama has finally realized that small business is the key to full employment, yet his stated tax objectives will absolutely brutalize small business owners. You simply can't get people to put 100% of their financial and emotional well-being on the line if the only one who benefits is the government.
Bush understood: the money belongs to us. Obama thinks the money belongs to the government.
So, was Bush perfect? Good lord, no. I don't think he was a great president, or even a good one. However, he was, in many respects, a much, much better president than Obama is turning out to be.
I do feel that Obama is a much more intelligent man, but then, so was Jimmy Carter. I can only hope that Obama gets better as time goes along. So far, though, what I see is almost all the worst aspects of the Bush years. We're still bailing out the rich.
Under Obama we're rewarding the irresponsible at a far greater rate. Sorry, but we all have tight finances and things we want to buy. If you weren't smart enough to read or ask a few questions when you got your mortgage, or you treated your HELOC like a winning lottery ticket, you need to lose your house. The government shouldn't be rewarding your stupidity.
If you ran your car company so badly that you're going out of business, the union's pension and medical funds should be bailing you out, not the taxpayer who doesn't want your cars.
Yeah, this is change we can believe in. We're losing wars, now. Raising taxes. And yet still doing most of the bad stuff we did under Bush... like spending like there's no tomorrow.
There's time. Obama can get better and I think he will. So far, though, he'd have to improve to be as good as the man that many are considering the worst president since the Great Depression.
No comments:
Post a Comment