Bush Reexamined

Conservatives seem torn between gushing over what a decent and honorable man President George W. Bush is and what a disappointing president he was. As if the two possibilities were mutually-exclusive, and one must by necessity choose between them. This question was certainly not laid to rest even before his new book, “Decision Points,” came out this week. Now the book has everybody buzzing.

Personally, I find the two claims made by conservatives to be equally true. I believe former President Bush is a decent man, and he has shown me to be an honorable one. President Obama’s incessant whining about the mess left him by the previous administration does nothing to make him look good in comparison. It’s past time for him to put his long pants on and deal with the fact that he occupies the Oval Office now, and the responsibility has been his for two years. The contrast between the current leader of the free world and his predecessor — the latter of whom refuses to lower himself to playing the blame game — could not be clearer.

President Bush could have been a great leader, and in some ways he was a very good one. But he was a big-government social conservative — and you know what I think of those. I have been too harsh on him in some ways, but I will not relent on that one. His main fault was that he listened too often to war-mongering neocons and religious hysterics. The tyrants had his ear right from the start.

This is sad, because the former president showed, on many occasions, that he was a better man than that. His basic impulses seemed to be the right ones. He’s never been a hater or a fanatic, and I believe he loves this country. The lesson that must be learned, from his disappointing eight years in office, is that big-government conservatism — like big-government “progressivism” — is a disaster. It is sheer folly that may yet bankrupt this nation, and we must never succumb to it again.

Big-government conservatism is not conservative in any genuine sense at all. And it is a lie those on the Right must forever see as dangerous to the survival of the republic. Social issues will be hashed out by We the People — and we require no American Taliban to take over for us. We can only defeat those who would destroy this country if we refuse to be like them.

Do I like President Bush? I certainly like him better than I used to. But what I like best about him is that he is no longer president. And that those to whom he all too frequently listened are destined — far more than he — for the scrap-heap of history.

Advertisements

About heine911

I'm an Episcopalian, Classical Liberal Ladies' Woman, helping to save Western civilization, searching for the perfect wife and enjoying every minute of it all.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Bush Reexamined

  1. vinnie124 says:

    “in some ways he was a very good one”
    Okay.
    Here’s how you back it up:
    -“decent,” “honorable” (okay, unsupported opinions on character)
    -“His basic impulses seemed to be the right ones” (any examples? Are we talking about Iraq, Katrina and/or T.A.R.P.? Does he get points because he wavered before he gave in to the neo-con’s? Don’t we hold ourselves accountable for our action, regardless of whether or not we follow our original impulses? We get credit for impulses we don’t act on?)
    -“He’s never been a hater or a fanatic, and I believe he loves this country” (okay, sure, I believe he does too)

    So, he wasn’t batsh!t crazy. He’s proud of his country. (or else he’s an incredible actor) That’s about it. If he approached me, I would welcome his company. I don’t think he’s evil, like some.

    You relent that you’re of two minds and glad he’s out of office and will never serve again.

    Of the half that you condone him, you suggest he was a “very good” president. Decent/honorable and disappointing would probably equate to an F or D on a report card (or an E for effort). “Very good” would likely take shape as a B (at least). Based on what you offered, his “very good” half sounds middling at best, lacking any substance. He was a very good president, because he’s a nice guy who appeared to have character? By this logic, I think Obama is a “very good” president too.

    But, I don’t. I don’t think either of them was/are. They are two likable guys, one with too little conviction and one with two much, both surrounded by nefarious and/or under-qualified people.

    • Lori Heine says:

      Vinnie, I basically agree with you. And this is why I am glad that Bush is no longer president.

      You have the distinction of being the first commenter at my WordPress site. Congrats, and come back often. I’ve been unemployed for two years, so I’m afraid I’m Scrooge this year — but mentally I’m sending you a basket of holiday goodies.

  2. vinnie124 says:

    Thank you! But, I only accept mental baskets of CHRISTMAS goodies.

    j/k

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/07/stewart-gretchen-christmas_n_792998.html

  3. vinnie124 says:

    P.S. I post as “Vince in WeHo” on gaypatriot

  4. vinnie124 says:

    Sorry, I usually link directly to the source. I was sloppy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s