The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrac
Find a Conversation
| 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.

Pages
>>> Well at least $500 (which was more than I had to pay for my daughter's college last year thanks to Pell Grants) is more than the 131.04 I would get if they extended the proposed 'gas tax holiday' for a whole year
The two weren't intended as equitable proposals. In fact, Barry didn't suggest a thing to help lower gas prices.
>>> - but as they were only proposing one week I guess I wouldn't even begin to know what to do with my whopping $2.52! Gee thanks Senator McCain - guess he really is out of touch.
Actually, McCain suggested that the "holiday" last throughout the summer...from memorial day thru labor day. I guess McCain isn't the one who's "out of touch."
>>> Bush's legacy is shameful.
And yet...it's not.
>>> He will spend gazillions every month overseas, but yet he could care less about the tax paying Americans who are in foreclosure, and who are dying due to lack of healthcare (like my best friend). I can't stand to see his ugly mug on TV.
Hello? Reality check! I must have missed it when the country had free health care prior to 9/11 and Bush took away ALL of the money that funded that program so he could run off to war over the loud objections of liberals and Democrats everywhere.
BTW, why do you think people who bought houses they can't afford deserve to be bailed out when the rest of us have to struggle to make our payments every month?
~Ghostwriter, M.A.
I wouldn't hold your breath...I think you'll be waiting for a good long time.
>Cut spending, cut the
>Yeah...um...right...because drilling on the "north face" was the issue. LOL!<
The oil companies have the right to drill on the North Face right now. Alaska built a pipeline to it. And the oil companies ain't doing it.
What makes you think that ANWR would be any different?
>The price would have to go into a free fall in order for it to be "unprofitable" for oil companies to produce. <
Of course, when you talk about a general sense, but certain wells are more expensive to run than others for various reasons (like having to pay royalties to those who own the mineral rights, local employment costs, etc.) I know that my husband's family was receiving no royalties for years and are now doing quite nicely. If the price of crude drops below a certain level, they'll stop production. It's the way it has always worked. 'tis better to make no money than to lose money, ya know.
Yeah, I'm no expert in the oil industry, but I've observed it over time. Our better bet is off-shore drilling in the Southern half of our country. That I support--Alaska not so much, and for the reasons I gave you. But the oil companies do have to improve their safety record regarding oil spills, or they'll completely destroy other economies in this country.
>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.<
And as the links I provided showed you, the cost of drilling in Alaska, transporting it down to the Southern US (and through the Panama Canal), to the refineries was greater than the costs of purchasing crude from another country. They would make a greater profit transporting the crude to Japan to sell than transporting it south to process.
>There's nothing "socialistic" about granting oil companies the rights to harvest natural resources.<
I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the seeming implication that our oil companies would do the right thing and lower gas prices for the country while they were exploring, drilling, and transporting from expensive locales.
>Well, I'm not sure who was calling you stupid, but it's very unlikely that it was a conservative.<
It was many conservatives, who thought that my investment in fuel efficient technology was an expensive boondoggle. Those same folks are asking me about my car now.
>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.<
Actually, I spent less than those with SUVs by a whole lot. And I can still haul about the max I've seen any of them haul, including Xmas trees and furniture.
>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.<
Last time I checked, no one was talking about welfare checks. I only saw talk about a tax credit for the WORKING poor. You know, the folks who clean your buildings and prepare your food and perform other tasks needed in modern life.
>Government run health care is socialized medicine. <
Then why aren't you screaming about military medicine or the VA? They provide "socialized medicine" for a large sector of our society. And perhaps you should read up on the success of the Canadian system of health care. Last time I checked, their average life expencency is higher than ours.
Excellent clarifying, undisputed using reason and logic, plus your own family's experiences - post.
I am so very tired of hearing this kind of misinformed babble especially about the $500 welfare checks.
Edited 11/10/2008 12:12 pm ET by jjcruise3
Pages