Bush’s betrayals—and their consequences
day I came upon a brief item that spoke eloquently to President Bush’s effectiveness as a war leader. It had to do with Uday Saddam telling the former director of Iraqi television soon after the war began: “This time I think the Americans are serious. Bush is not like Clinton. I think this is the end.” Curiously, the quote produced a problem for me. Formerly, I would have posted it. In fact, I started to post it, but then stopped myself. Why? I realized that it was not in me any more to say anything
complimentary of Bush, even if, as in this case, he deserved it. Previously, although I did not vote for Bush and never supported him overall, I assiduously supported and defended him in the areas where I thought he was right, especially the war on Iraq. But now, in this post-Grutter
, post-slavery speech, post-so many things world that we’re living in, while I will still support Bush when I think he’s right, I find it emotionally impossible to extend myself in any way to try to make Bush look good.
That’s just one of the things that Bush’s numerous betrayals of America have accomplished. If the same sense of coolness and dislike affects a significant number of the people who voted for him last time, his chances for re-election may yet be in doubt.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 07, 2003 01:27 AM | Send
I voted for Bush in 2000. I wished him nothing but the best. In office, he has gone out of his way to go against the best interests of his own voters in almost every way. Recently, he even angered the Miami Cubans by sending some people back to Cuba after they had escaped to Florida. Why doesn’t he send illegal Mexicans back? It is a fact of political life that politicians who forget their base end up losing.
Mr. Auster seems to be going in the right direction by questioning what he will do. So the issue becomes whether to vote for Bush in 2004. That is, those let down by Bush must decide whether or not to abandon Bush and to vote for a candidate with a traditional or solid conservative track record and who will take enough votes from Bush that so as to lead the Republicans in a retreat from their occupation of the presidency for the next four years? In other words, the central question seems to be whether to decline to vote for the Republican Party candidate that is leading the country into ruin or to vote for the Democratic Party candidate that is leading the country into ruin and will deny traditionalists a few relatively insignificant goodies that the Republican candidate PROMISES but will eventually either not give or will give and then take away four or eight years later. Maybe a shorthand and lighthearted statement of the issue is whether to accept Mr. Bush’s invitation to dance the Hegelian Mambo or to retreat from the dance to learn the Transcendental Waltz.
The key is to keep trying. Who knows, maybe Mel Gibson or another popular and highly intelligent person follows this Website or similar Websites and even posts on it. All of a sudden, we could have real candidate with a real chance of forcing change either though getting elected or making a deal on things such as immigration. You can’t win if you don’t buy a ticket. If there had been no one available to surround Boris Yeltsin when he stood on that Soviet tank around 1989, the Soviet Union might still exist.
I hear you David. It angers me to hear Bush constantly talking about how agencies need to improve diversity, how this program will be funded to help Hispanics, how this or that will be done for Hispanics, etc. Well what specifically is he going out of his way to do solely for white Americans that doesn’t also benefit his beloved Mexicans and anyone else that he suspects might vote for him? So why should any white vote for him? There must be a word for why white conservatives and other whites are voting for Bush. I can’t put my finger on it. The best I can come up with is denial. They deny seeing he is leading where the Democrats are leading them.