Peggy Noonan, who was a speechwriter for the first President Bush and a special assistant to President Reagan, says the current President Bush doesn't have many supporters as his second term winds down. Noonan had this to say in her column today in the Wall Street Journal:
"In Lubbock, Texas -- Lubbock Comma Texas, the heart of Texas conservatism -- they dislike President Bush. He has lost them. I was there and saw it. Confusion has been followed by frustration has turned into resentment, and this is huge. Everyone knows the president's poll numbers are at historic lows, but if he is over in Lubbock, there is no place in this country that likes him. I made a speech and moved around and I was tough on him and no one -- not one -- defended or disagreed. I did the same in North Carolina recently, and again no defenders. I did the same in Fresno, Calif., and no defenders, not one."
Consider what she wrote today: Even in rock-solid conservative Fresno, Bush has lost support. to the point that a conservative commentator has concluded that he's through. Good thing this is an election year. Bush will slip out the back door very quietly.
Noonan was in Fresno Wednesday speaking to the San Joaquin Valley Town Hall on "The White House and American Politics." She was a huge hit, organizers say, and was very gracious with her time when students wanted to talk with her. Another great program put on by the San Joaquin Valley Town Hall.
Town Hall had another excellent lecture series this year and has stellar programs scheduled for the new season. Click here to see what's in store for you in the 2008-09 Town Hall season.
Does this mean even Clovis Unified won't name a school after him?
My prediction: President Bush will be treated much more kindly by history, much in the same way that Harry Truman was; Truman was the last president to "poll" at a Bush level. Bush has been wrong on many things, but he is right on the war on terror. Democrats need to get it in their heads that the war on terrorism is not a crime!
It is entirely possible - that the Demos, given the opportunity to run this country in November of 08 - will cause us all to desperately pray for another Bush to come along. Maybe, Jeb?
I still see bumperstickers with Bush's name on it, whats up with that?
Maybe they dont know how to properly take it off.
Link, on how to remove unwanted Bush bumperstickers:
http://www.lifespy.com/2007/how-to-remove-bumper-stickers/
T.C., don't tell me you actually believe the invasion of Iraq had anything to do with the "War on Terror."
Regarding the Truman post: I don't agree, but my 80-something father does. When I start Bush-bashing, he always brings up ol' Harry S. (I think he does this so I'll show my liberal outrage, which he always finds amusing). That's the amazing thing about talking politics with an octagenarian. He was around to see how despised Truman was and how he was ultimately vindicated by history. I wasn't, so he's got me there.
I find it fascinating that Peggy Noonan, along with all the right wing columnists, TV “news” personnel, the daily polls from the ‘big race’ and even our own T.C. Morgan have disassociated Bush/Cheney from the republican party,…as though our decent into international disrepute, and catastrophic socio-economic ruin at home happened while the party was out of town. To be fair, very few democrats stood in opposition, notably absent; H.R.C. and B.H.O., but still, how can a party, with such a wealth of scandal, corruption, disbarred, disgraced, and indicted congressmen and senators, and with more than 60 indictments against the administration alone, all of them impeachable offenses, be running neck and neck with Democrats? I remain bewildered...
T.C. Reeps as well as Dems (in general) feel the same way about Bush. I think the polls include both Partys, as well as sentiments without party affiliations.
I think the point is made in this article as an example.
Also, if historians feel the same way about Bush today, why would they change there mind about him tomorrow?
I've heard this saying before about historians. How far back do historians have to go untill it is conclusive that Bush's policy's was nothing but smoke blown up the nation's behind.
Peggy's column was thoughtful, brilliant, and accurate. Honest conservatives like myself have been critical of Bush's administration for years.
His biggest mistake was trying to reach out to Democrats... as if they care about the country. I stll like him and don't buy any of the libs talking points. The eighty year old guy has it right and the rest of you will have to live long enough to determine if your vitriol for him is deserved.Here is wishing you good health.
I doubt that my kids will live long enough to see Bush be well-regarded by history, Brian. (And "trying to reach out to Democrats" is not likely to make any historian's account of his presidency.)
Funny how Republicans who are critical of Bush fall of deaf ears.
This is not partisan politics, Bush really bumbled his Presidency. He simply fell on his own sword.
If Bush can be faulted in any of his "dealings" with the war on terrorism, it’s that he did not preemptively deal with the situation; Or, once in a war with terrorism, do what was needed in a timely fashion.
T.C., if you're referring to Bush letting bin Laden get away, then neglecting to finish the job in Afghanistan so he could invade a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, then I heartily agree with you.
I'm not sure what you mean by "preemptively" dealing with the situation, though. Are you implying that Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen, but did nothing about it?
Perhaps Bush made some misjudgements but I see no perfect people in this world. I suppose he should have just invited the taliban for a tea party at the white house. They are embedded in every aspect of our society and Al Qeada is all over the middle east so he could have picked any country over there. Those that say he did it for oil are just whacked because there are higher oil producing countries than Iraq. I would love to hear what you bush bashers would have done after 9-11
I pretty sure I've read everything Michael der Manouel has written on this blog and in the Bee's op-ed pages, "critical of the Bush administration" would mean naming names and illiterating the crimes, whereas, I've only seen very tepid and vague referances to "disapointment" with them. I dont care for team sports, and the last time I voted for a major party was in '72. It's very liberating to be able to criticize without seeing everything through the lens of "party". I understand Mike is a heavy hitter in local GOP politics and as such, will always put party first, that's understandable, but it's a streach for him to suggest he's "been critical for years"... T.C. would prefer to wait and see how history looks back on this presidency,...THAT, is a river in Egypt.
well, I'm not so much a "Bush basher", I actually dont see him as the president at all, never have, he's clearly not bright enough for the job, which is why he goes around doing the kinds of things formerly reserved for the wifes of vice-presidents,.. Jackie, after 9/11, we should have investigated 9/11, you don't remember, but the administation was dead-set against it, and stonewalled the commission at every turn, according to the co-chairs, they were promised 4 million dollars for the investigation, but never saw it, they were also hamstrung by a "time limit",maybe that explains why they just left out any referance to building 7, which collapsed (perfectly)into dust and molten metal, how special are we, that the laws of physics dont apply? even today, the entire subject is forbidden. The images of the collapsing building will never again be shown on the networks, because if you see it over and over you come to realize that somehow, Osama bin Laden spent weeks probably monthes stategicly placing explosives in those buildings. but don't take my word for it, Ask any building demolition expert, building designer or architect, physics teacher, or the hundreds of eye witnesses that reported hearing a series of explosions and whose testimony was discarded by the commission. This will always sounds a little crazy, I know,... but the fact is; the "9/11 truth movement" has NO former members... google "building 7" and turn off the sound... but be prepared to step across an enormous psychological threshhold .
Once knew this good old boy up in the foothills; he was concerned about his kids running into the occasional rattlers that occupied his area; He did a smart thing; instead of killing that isolated snake, he searched until he found the "nest," poured in kerosene and drop a match - problem solved! He found that if he did that about every third year - he had nothing to worry about!
The analogy with terrorism is obvious!
So the point of your analogy is that we should kill people who might become terrorists before they even think about attacking us?
Uh, wouldn't that make US the terrorists?
Yea TC I guess Bush is using that analogy. Problem is the terrorists who attacked us were not from Iraq.
The problem is the terrorists that attacked us came from many countries with links to Iraq though. They will do it again too.
Readers have gotten so far off topic that Mr. Boren's original post is completely unrecognizable. On the other hand, Jim's commentary on the Noonan column was so disingenuous I don't blame you for ignoring it.
Peggy Noonan is not a 'conservative,' though Jim is right she is a 'commentator' and not a journalist. She was actually a speechwriter by trade.
Ms. Noonan's philosophy is that of a Catholic Republican (her own self-description), which is not the same as a 'conservative,' as the Giuliani-supporting Michael Der Manouel should be able to admit if he is as intellectually 'honest' as his post says he is.
Anyone who took the time to read her WSJ column could see that the subject of her column had nothing to do with Boren's desperate Bush-bashing -- you'd have to get through 3/4 of Noonan's entire column, nearly 1000 words, to find the first mention of Bush.
And what was the news there, at the end? That Noonan doesn't like Bush? Guess what -- anyone who has been reading her WSJ columns more regularly than Jim apparently has knows that she was one of Bush's biggest editorial supporters from 2000-2004, even taking leave of her job to work full time on his campaign from Aug-Nov 2004, before suddenly turning on him after his 2005 inauguration speech.
She has never explained her change of heart (I'd guess she's just upset that he didn't let her write the speech for him the way she did for his father), but she has since then been a constant, dull, unimaginative critic of everything he says and does, for the last 3 years solid.
Her 'conclusions' about Bush were reached long ago. And that's old news.
Noonan was a supporter of Bush, now She is not. I think the rest of the supporters of yester year have made the same conclusions given Bush's policies.
Noonan: "speechwriter for the first President Bush and a special assistant to President Reagan" I think she has a grasp of how Conservatives think or at least write what conservatives like to hear.
Noonan's not a conservative?? How far to the right do you have to be to "earn" that label?
As for her "change of heart," it's probably just pragmatism. Being linked too closely to Bush will be poison to McCain (or any other Republican candidate this year). So we're going to see a whole lotta distancing going on.
hey now, TC, when I was a good ol' boy in the foothills, the squirrels and the gophers, were the enemy, the snakes were our allies...the anology is subtle...