Exactly!
Finally, there's someone who shares my views on our two most recent presidents. I'm sure this is a minority view, but I largely agree with it (emphasis mine.)
The Bush presidency isn't of the base, by the base, and for the base for nothing. There has been an outright refusal of the Democratic base to take even the tiniest twig of an offering the Bushies have given them. Indeed, if you look at them on the issues, the truth of the matter is that absent two or three things, George W. and Bill Clinton are very similar in their political views and positions.Congress has been deadlocked between anti-Bush and pro-Bush forces. This in part is Bush's failing, one of style and maybe other things. But when the Deaniacs took over the Democratic Party with their screams of "lies, lies!" they also alienated a lot of people. The message was loud and clear: compromise no, attack yes. It's been like that ever since.
Whether we're comfortable admitting it or not, Bush and Clinton occupy very similar ground on the ideological continuum. Perhaps it's not surprising, then, that both men were admired by many, but reflexively, compulsively hated by millions. What is interesting is that the group of haters, in each case, represent almost completely disjoint groups of people. I'm sure there's fodder there for many research papers by psychologists, sociologists and political scientists, but I can't even begin to explain it. For my money, I hated neither. Both men were (are) frequently frustrating and disappointing, and utterly failed to realize their full potential as leaders. On balance, however, I have vaguely warm and positive feelings towards both. The fact that so many of us admire one while despising the other probably says more about us than about them.
Comments
The fact that so many of us admire one while despising the other probably says more about us than about them.
Yep.
Posted by: Dean Esmay | May 10, 2006 09:11 PM
The fact that so many of us admire one while despising the other probably says more about us than about them.
You are out of your mind. Completely wrong on this one.
P.S.
1. I did not know that there are people left who still like Bush. Thats really fantastic. You must be one of the handful of people in the country that still have "vaguely warm and positive feelings" towards W.
2. Why dont you call it as it really is. Bush is a big time failure and you know it. Clinton on the other hand was a success and a great president.
Posted by: Blue Wind | May 10, 2006 10:49 PM
I'm sitting here trying to think of policy differences between the two, and I get stuck after taxes, (Clinton raised, W cut) and defense, (Clinton avoided "boots on the ground" conflicts.) The rest is style and perception. I like the smell of Dick, Don, & Condi more than Janet,Sandy, and Al.
Posted by: Paul Moore | May 11, 2006 04:22 AM
Count me among the minority too. Hatred of Bush and Clinton is driven much more by personality than by politics.
Posted by: Bruce | May 11, 2006 06:13 AM
Absolutely 100% correct!
And it's NOT a minority viewpoint at all.
Bush's poll numbers have plummeted AFTER he began alienating his Conservative base - the Miers nomination, the border debcale, Katrina, rising gas prices and the lack of a post-victory plan in Iraq (victory over the Hussein government was achieved in less than a month) have all hurt him, but he has remained as largely centrist as the pro-business, pro-Gingrich Clinton was.
While Bush suffers from an ill-defined post-victory strategy in Iraq and a global war on terrorism, Clinton suffered from the effects of both his own poor personal judgments (numerous sexual indiscretions) and the Reno-effect.
Janet reno faced pretty much the same ReAL threats we face today - imbedded Islamic terrorists within America and a huge and violent illicit drug industry, to name two, but she chose to almost exclusively go after politically motivated targets like Randy Weaver, whom the BATF entrapped, then laid seige to, before killing his twelve year old son and his wife (Weaver got a nearly $5 million settlement), and the Branch Davidians at Waco.
Neither Weaver, nor Koresh were national threats. Hell, they weren't even local threats - the Sheriff in Waco said he could've picked up Koresh any time, as he walked into town at least three times a month for supplies.
Reno's horrifically misguided choice of targets, especially in an age of burgeoning international terrorism highlighted her complete incompetance.
I'll take NSA warrantless wiretaps on communications between suspect foreign portqals and the U.S. any day!
Posted by: JMK | May 15, 2006 12:22 PM
BNJ, I'm with you on this one. I'm a lib (Gore in 00, Green in 04) and I have been totally disgusted by the harshness of my fellow libs. I have my disagreemts on W., but I don't have rabid hate - to me that's anti-Liberal.
He was a newcomer that had to calm and lead the US during a crisis we haven't seen since 1812. Despite many disagreements, I will not retract credit from him on that.
To me he's the Republican Johnson (don't retch) - a man who came up during a crisis and had to take care of immediate issues at home and abroad. And both are known more for the negative (LBJ - Vietnam, W - Iraq) rather than the positive (LBJ, Great Society and Civil Rights, W - 9/11 response, NCLB which he had bipartisan support, Medicare part D- for all it's roughness it is a continuation of the Great Society ideal)
Posted by: Rachel | May 15, 2006 03:57 PM
Here's the dilemma Conservatives now face - people, like Rachel, who believe in 1960's Liberalism, are now to "the Right" of today's more radicalized Left, often leading some to mistake them for..."GULP"...Conservatives.
And that's no offense intended toward Rachel, who I'm pretty sure would detest being called "a Conservative" by anyone, but it's even worse for contemporary Conservativism.
Bush has been terrible on the border issue - the compromise CAN'T be more border security + amnesty/Guest Worker, that's NO SOLUTION, it's idiocy! The only real solution is (1) increased border security (including a beefed up fence) AND (2) severe fines & penalties on all those businesses and individuals who (A) hire illegal aliens, (B) hire workers off the books and (C) pay below minimum wage. Those fines will send a strong message to both individuals and businesses and, in short order, the jobs those folks come for will dry up...and American wage rates will increase!
Bush has also been terrible with the inane Prescription Drug debacle (WE DIDN'T NEED THAT!) and the increased and often unnecessary social spending related to such things as Medicare Part D & the NCLB Act.
Yes he's been great with domestic security and confronting the global menace of Islamo-fascism, perhaps as great a threat to the free world as Nazism & Communism ever were.
Still, it's only half a loaf.
Posted by: JMK | May 16, 2006 12:08 PM