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
In my initial post, I was going to say I wouldn't add anything else to the thread.
We can only be said to be alive in those moments when our hearts are conscious of our treasures.
Oh, puleeeze. Get out the violins ....
If you want to think that Bush has done a bang-up job of making this country a better place, you are free to do that. Republicans are famous for attempting to rewrite history, but sorry, I've LIVED through the last 8 years, and Bush is THE WORST president in my lifetime. Period. If you disagree, so be it.
I'll tell you when iiii was most ashamed of my country: When voters went to the polls in 2004 and RE-ELECTED that idiot.
Thank God I was able to wake up on Wednesday and be truly PROUD of my country, perhaps for the first time ever, and I don't care who doesn't like it that I say that. As hard as he tried, Bush wasn't able to suspend the Constitution, and I still have the right to free speech.
“If, by a ‘liberal,’ they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people – their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties – someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ‘liberal,’ then I’m proud to say I’m a ‘liberal.’”
~Ghostwriter, M.A.
“If, by a ‘liberal,’ they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people – their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties – someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ‘liberal,’ then I’m proud to say I’m a ‘liberal.’”
~Ghostwriter, M.A.
Russia's on the move. Hopefully that will open your eyes before it's too late.
Russia's been on the move for many years! And specially this summer. Where have you been?
>>>Russia's on the move. Hopefully that will open your eyes before it's too late.
Oh, man. It's opened MY eyes, that's for sure. Now I really regret that I didn't vote for McCain-Palin. After all, Sarah could have kept an eye on Russia from her front porch and served as an early warning system when she saw Putin marching over the border.
Heck. Can we get a do-over?
“If, by a ‘liberal,’ they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people – their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties – someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ���liberal,’ then I’m proud to say I’m a ‘liberal.’”
~Ghostwriter, M.A.
LOL thank you for the laugh! :)
I totally forgot to link Russia to Palin's proximity. hehe
Glad you're going to give him a "chance."
>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?”<
By not cutting taxes when he knew he had to increase spending. Any 3rd grader can do that math. Yes, the national debt would have still increased, but not by as much. And getting us involved in a second war, one that had NOTHING to do with the attack on our country on 9/11, he put us in a horrible financial predicament. We are borrowing money from foreign countries in order to fund a war we shouldn't be fighting!
>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 voted for a change. As we've noted, it is rare that a President gets his entire wish list fulfilled. I'm hopeful this one will NOT increase our national debt, just like Clinton managed to decrease it by some degree.
>Apparently the bi-partisan Congress, the UN and our allies disagree with your assessment.<
The UN did not support us in Iraq. And most of our allies are getting out now, particularly in light of the fact that the arguments used to persuade them to join us in Iraq were based on data our leaders knew to be falsified.
>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?<
By reproductive rights, I mean all the things encompassed by that term, including birth control. The assertion that Plan B/emergency contraception/the morning after pill is an abortion pill is one of many really scary things the Christian right has been pushing. And do you really think the Christian right would have pushed the legislation (FAILED!!!!) in South Dakota had they not thought the current Supreme Court would uphold their ban? Thankfully, the voters of South Dakota are smarter than that.
>Except that Kerry voted for the war…but on the brighter side, he probably would have supported your right to kill your children.<
Yeah, even Colin Powell spoke for it. Then He and others found out the data was false. It's never too late to realize you were wrong. Bush OTOH thinks he was right, and probably thinks we should invade Iran too.
>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.<
Guess what? The national debt was reduced in the 8 years that Clinton was in office. During the last 18 years of GOP Presidents, the national debt increased dramatically (not quite so much under the first George Bush). This tells me something. Economically, it is not good for a nation to have so much foreign debt. It's almost as bad as relying on other nations for most of our energy needs.
Bush, not Clinton, initiated 2 wars AND reduced taxes, all of which results in increased debt. Can't blame Clinton for that, and you can only blame Congress for being duped. They've tried to resolve the situation. Back in 2003 I remember saying (in my best Mr. Rogers voice) "Can you say Lebanon boys and girls?" We should not plan on being in Iraq long term. It's bad for our country.
BTW, the economist of whom I speak is Daniel Mitchell, ex-husband of Nancy Pfotenhauer. http://www.examiner.com/a-619991~Daniel_J__Mitchell__Bring_back_Clinton.html
>Again, you mean “pandering” like Barry bribing 95% of Americans to vote for him with handouts stolen from folks who earned their money?<
Pfft. Smart people didn't believe that EITHER McCain or Obama would be able to keep any promise to reduce taxes on anyone. We just also realized that Obama was more likely to ensure that the burden was shared by all depending on the opportunity costs of the economic class. (If you don't understand opportunity costs, I can explain later.) And yes, I realize that means that I will probably have to pay more taxes. Eh, so what? I can afford it. So, maybe I won't be able to buy the latest gadget I want this year. I'll live.
>Yes, Americans tend to look down on socialism…unless they’re too absorbed with the glow of their Obamessiah.<
HAHAHAHAH. Yeah, we really hate Social Security, the National Park System, and free national highways. And we really have been so laissez-faire in this current banking crisis. And we've really been willing to let the American auto industry go belly up. Same with the U.S. airlines. Sorry, but I really think you need to learn more about economic systems before you keep throwing up socialist as an epithet. Our
I too, am very confused.
Pages