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: 09-25-2008
Fri, 11-07-2008 - 1:19am
The last 5 words of your thread title are precisely and entirely correct.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-24-2008
Fri, 11-07-2008 - 1:50am
I sincerely doubt they thought any such thing. The number of president's who have kept their pants on, are very few. The media suddenly decided their private lives were no longer off limits. Also, Clinton was payback for Nixon. Republican president's have been caught with their pants down too. There are some interesting books on the subject of our president's and their affairs.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Fri, 11-07-2008 - 2:38am

>>> I voted for Bush in 2000 in the election (not the primary). I thought he was going to be the compassionate conservative he promised he was.

He is precisely that.

>>> I had hope that he wouldn't pander to the Christian right, and would continue to work to reduce our national debt.

By “pander” do you mean acknowledge the concerns and needs of a particular group of people? And after 9/11, some 8 months after taking office, with the country at “war” and a demand for billions and billions in spending for national security, how would you propose a President “reduce our national debt?”

>>> 4 years later, I realized I had not voted for a man who would try to balance the budget.

Impossible under the circumstances. But if that is a great concern for you, it’s strange that you would support a man who promises trillions in new spending.

>>> I had voted for a man who got us embroiled in war in which we had no national interest.

Apparently the bi-partisan Congress, the UN and our allies disagree with your assessment.

>>> And we had a President who encouraged the Christian right to fight to erode women's reproductive rights.

By “reproductive rights” do you mean the “right” of women to exterminate their children as a matter of convenience? Do you really think people who are pro-life needed his encouragement?

>>> So I voted for Kerry, because I felt we needed to get another person in there to try to resolve the mess. Instead, we ended up with 4 more years of the same old mess.

Except that Kerry voted for the war���but on the brighter side, he probably would have supported your right to kill your children.

>>> Please, stop throwing around accusations. Shoot, I even know an economist at the Cato Institute who says that economically, Clinton was a better President than GWB.

How so? As soon as Clinton took office he betrayed his constituents and raised taxes on the middle class. Then Algore invented the internet and Clinton was the beneficiary of the dot.com boom. He didn’t have anything to do with it, but his administration benefited from the economic surge…which burst, by the way, right at the end of his term and left Bush with a recession. A recession AND 9/11…tough luck for GW.

>>> We need fiscal responsibility right now, not more of the same pandering.

Again, you mean “pandering” like Barry bribing 95% of Americans to vote for him with handouts stolen from folks who earned their money? It���s odd you seek “fiscal responsibility” and then vote for a guy who’s idea of “fiscal responsibility” is to push policies that will bankrupt an entire energy industry that will cause YOUR electricity costs to “skyrocket.” Or a guy who thinks raising taxes is a way to stimulate the economy. Or a guy who thinks that spending trillions will help “balance the budget”…but I don’t understand fuzzy liberal math.

>>> It was time for a change. I'm sorry you think that change is for the worst.

Yes, Americans tend to look down on socialism…unless they’re too absorbed with the glow of their Obamessiah.

>>> I'm sorry to hear you'll be pretty much against everything Obama does in the next 4 years, even if he manages to help things get better (you'll probably try to give all the credit to Bush if it does, but blame Obama if it goes badly).

I hope Obama exceeds expectations…but one has to remember that expectations are pretty low.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Fri, 11-07-2008 - 2:44am
LOL! Bush lied! Bush lied! Bush got us into a war that the Democrats supported to get oil that we never got and made French people speak poorly of us! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Fri, 11-07-2008 - 2:46am
Russia's on the move. Hopefully that will open your eyes before it's too late.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-20-2008
Fri, 11-07-2008 - 2:47am
I agree, the treatment of Bush by the left has been a disgrace.
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
Fri, 11-07-2008 - 3:02am
(((The last 5 words of your thread title are precisely and entirely correct. )))

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2004
Fri, 11-07-2008 - 5:07am

In that case Democrats are probably due for some serious payback:

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-01-2004
Fri, 11-07-2008 - 5:34am

In three months Democrats won't be able to blame Bush for everything that happens any more!

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Fri, 11-07-2008 - 8:10am

Turn about fair play.

Pages