The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrac

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrac
152
Thu, 11-06-2008 - 5:20pm

The time when I have been ashamed of modern America...

Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.

According to recent Gallup polls, the president's average approval rating is below 30% -- down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.

This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, "Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust."

Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.

The president's original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.

It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.

Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country's current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.

Like the president said in his 2004 victory speech, "We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America."

To be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman's low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history.

Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman's presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years— and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty—a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

By JEFFREY SCOTT SHAPIRO

Source:

Wednesday, November 5, 2008
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL | OPINION
The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace
What must our enemies be thinking?

Mr. Shapiro is an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry's legal team during the presidential election in 2004.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122584386627599251.html

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 11-09-2008 - 12:04pm

"Again, it was about not being able to bring themselves to vote for a man with an R behind his name. They put their party affiliation over what they knew was the right thing to do. Sad really."

Funny that you, a poster who constantly brags about how you are all "logic" and no "emotion" when it comes to politics, would mistake your imagination for facts.

Are you a mind reader now ?

One could just as easily imagine the same thing about McCain supporters, that they just couldn't bring themselves to vote for a democrat or a black man. But someone imagining it, doesn't make it a fact.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Sun, 11-09-2008 - 12:13pm
I don't know much about funding for the rail system, but I wondered if funding the passenger rail system didn't also benefit the freight rail system. Don't they both have to travel along the same rails? Who shoulders the cost of upkeep on the rails? So wouldn't funding for one system ultimately be of benefit to both? Either way it takes vehicles of the public road system as well, reducing wear and tear on roads and thus extending the life of the roads compared to what it would be if everyone took cars and buses so doesn't that funding also benefit the highway system? Just curious.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Sun, 11-09-2008 - 12:32pm
Commuter rail does tend to use the same rail lines as freight rail, but there are far more exclusively freight rail lines than there are shared ones. So, yes, freight rail benefits a bit, but not nearly so much as commuter does. And WAY less than highways do.

The 3 Day

Sandy
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2008
Sun, 11-09-2008 - 9:30pm

<>


Cut spending, cut the

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-04-2008
Sun, 11-09-2008 - 10:30pm

>>> Osama Bil Ladin is still out there

Hiding in Pakistan...but don't worry, Obama will invade our ally and get him.

Yeah, too bad McCain wasn't elected. He *knows* where Osama is and *knows* how to get him.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Sun, 11-09-2008 - 10:34pm

>>> Yeah, too bad McCain wasn't elected. He *knows* where Osama is and *knows* how to get him.

Right...unlike Barry. Too bad.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-25-2008
Sun, 11-09-2008 - 10:55pm
I think Bush is a good person and
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-08-2008
Sun, 11-09-2008 - 11:04pm

Well, I guess someone has to be in the 28%.


 

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Sun, 11-09-2008 - 11:08pm
Figures!
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Sun, 11-09-2008 - 11:17pm

>>> Really? The Democrats are preventing the oil companies from drilling on the North Face? Wow! That's news to both me AND Sarah Palin.

Yeah...um...right...because drilling on the "north face" was the issue. LOL!

>I don't see a problem with selling a percentage of our resources to other countries...it's been going on for quite a while. I would also advocate, in exchange for drilling rights, regulations requiring a certain percentage allocated for domestic purchase...but I really don't think there's a serious concern with American oil companies selling all of our domestic oil to foreign companies.<

>>> And your lack of knowledge of the oil industry in this country is astounding.

LOL! Yup...you zeroed right in on the most salient of issues...the "north face"...like a liberal laser burning a hole through reality. I bow to your "knowledge."

>>> My husband's family owns oil wells.

My family owns cars...but, alas, it doesn't make us experts on the auto industry. LOL!

>>> They are only pumped when the price of oil reaches a certain level. Otherwise it is not profitable to do so. We cannot force the oil companies and property owners like my husband's family to pump oil for a loss. So, it is not in the oil companies' best interests, nor in the best interests of those who own mineral rights to the lands on which there are oil wells, to work to bring the price of oil down.

I hate to poke holes in your inane logic, but a quick lesson in economics might be helpful here. Oil costs around $10-$25 per barrel to produce, depending on how difficult it is to pump. The price would have to go into a free fall in order for it to be "unprofitable" for oil companies to produce. And here's another factoid for you...in the third quarter of 2007, Exxon refined 5.6 million barrels of oil per day, but only pumped 2.5 million. Likewise, Chevron refined 3.5 million barrels a day but only pumped 1.7 million barrels a day. The difference, in both cases, was made up from oil they purchased at market prices from other oil companies. If the oil companies expanded their oil harvesting, they wouldn't have to purchase oil from outside sources to keep up with the demand for refined product.

>>> Why are you proposing a bit of socialism for the oil industry but screaming against it in other situations?

There's nothing "socialistic" about granting oil companies the rights to harvest natural resources.

>I love it when libs decide what other people "need"...whether it's their hard earned money, how much electricity they use or the size of their cars. It's a shame you can't bottle that kind of arrogance.<

>>> On the contrary, I wouldn't suppress what they purchase, I just think it's funny that I was told how stupid I was for always buying a small commuter car, how buying a Prius was a waste of money, and now those same people are crying for government regulation so they can afford to drive their behemoths to work. DC is the land of the SUV, and most of those I see on the road to work daily have only one person in them.

Well, I'm not sure who was calling you stupid, but it's very unlikely that it was a conservative. We don't hug trees and we see the value in driving a vehicle that meets our daily needs. If you want to drive a Prius, so right ahead. You won't be doing anything to save the environment, and you'll be spending a lot more than you need to, but I'm sure it will make you feel good.

>>> And again, I love how folks like you call me a liberal, and those who are truly liberal call me conservative.

It must be the hat. ; )

>>> I must be doing something right when I anger everyone.

Or not doing enough to satisfy anyone. I guess it depends on your perspective.

>>> I'm a moderate dear. I like to see the free market in action, but I also recognize that taxes are needed for things like infrastructure, etc. If you wish to call me rational, it might be a better name.

Rational? Hmmm...possibly. LOL! I'll go out on a limb here and say that most conservatives also recognize that taxes are needed...and also that a progressive tax system, while incredibly flawed, it acceptable...although "unfair." What we do object to is the government raising our taxes...not for the purpose of improving infrastructure...but to take that money and "redistribute it" to people who didn't earn it. It's thievery...and if it happened on the street, the guy doing the "redistributing" would be in jail.

>Again...the hypocrisy is rife. I guess you don't mind depleting the government coffers to hand out $500 welfare checks to folks who don't pay taxes, or to give away a percentage of our GDP to the UN or to socialize health care. Go Obama!<

>>> I guess you don't understand the federal highway trust fund. 84% of the tax on fuel goes into the Federal Highway Trust Fund; the remaining 16% goes into the Mass Transit Account to help build light rail and subway systems and to keep other forms of mass transit affordable. Absolutely NONE of that money goes anywhere but those two accounts. That money means your highways are safe; that money helps larger metropolitan areas with their traffic problems; that money enables some areas that could not afford any mass transit to supply affordable transportion.

Um...who cares? The common denominator was "depleting government coffers." You seem to have an issue with lessening tax revenue if it's to be spend on roads, but don't have an issue if tax money, that should have gone to the "common good" is handed out as welfare checks.

>>> As for "socialized" health care, universal health care need not mean socialized health care at all. Please, research an issue before you throw such epithets about. Sheesh! You'd think it was the 1980s all over again!

Government run health care is socialized medicine. Sheesh! Please, research an issue before you make up silly arguments. BTW, take a read on the failure of Hawaii's "universal health care" system for children.

Pages