Wednesday, May 24, 2006

My Disagreements With President George W. Bush


Many times at the old place, and a few times over here, some spittle-flecked assassin of the President’s reputation has noted that I sometimes say that I do not agree completely with the President on all issues, that indeed there are some points on which I differ with him sharply. This observation is always followed by a demand that I confess, in detail, where and how I differ with President George W. Bush, a demand which I have always ignored. These rhetorical hyenas take this as a tacit admission that I do not actually differ with the President on anything, and they further take my claim of difference as an example of dishonesty. Since this has come up again, I choose to defend my position and honor, explain why I refuse to play the ‘mock the President’ game, and why any reasonable person would do the same.

Let us say you have a friend. You differ, as people do, on certain opinions, sometimes strongly. You might even think that you need to set your friend straight on a couple areas where you think he’s way off base. But let’s say some bad news comes along for your friend. Whatever your differences, now is not the time to harass him on where you disagree, but to support him as his friend; it’s what real friends do. Also, if it happens that the places where you think he’s wrong are less important than the places where he is right, you keep that in mind. Those people who claim to have ever been a Bush supporter, but who think now is any time to attack and malign the man, are just like those false friends who claim to be noble but just do as they please, painting it as an ideal because they don’t like to face the reality of their scurrilous perfidy.

I choose not to discuss the specifics of where I differ from the President, for three specific reasons. First, the President has gotten the largest issues right. He has handled the War on Terrorism well, and has listened to the right people on Iraq and Afghanistan. Time was, people used to realize those were the big issues and nothing else, nothing, came close. Bush has also named two significant Justices to the United States Supreme Court, and a slew of solid picks for other federal posts. Frankly, no President in memory, Reagan included, has done as well on that count, and given the Liberal strategy to ignore the will of the people by governing through courts, the significance of those choices cannot be overstated. The other issues, even where they are important and timely, are very small indeed next to these major issues. Those who now attack and mock the President after such accomplishments show a petty and disgraceful lack of honor, indeed.

Second, those who malign and attack the President do so in pursuit of a course which must inevitably damage the Republican Party and the Conservative Cause. While Republicans of late have been less than diligent in performance of their duties, only the greatest of fools could be persuaded that reducing Republican numbers in Congress or lessening the influence of President Bush could do anything but increase the power and influence of the Democrats, whose character and sinister intentions are well known. The whole example of History stands to warn against reducing the number of members who, if they do not wholly support the will of constituents, at the least do not do the damage that the Socialists of the Left would commit. Further, President Bush has plainly been a good and effective President, when he has the support of the electorate behind him. Where he has been steadfast and honest, for his support to dissipate because spokesmen and individuals of popular influence prefer their own whimsy to his leadership, then those narcissists who attack the President do also attack the nation, and their pride wounds the soul of America. There is no way to avoid this diagnosis.

And third, I should be willing to discuss my in-depth opinion of the President only in an environment where both sides move away from extremes. That is, there is no reason why I should admit to any disagreement with the President, where the other side would simply take that admission and use it as ammunition for yet another spiteful attack on the President. Also, there has been no sense of reciprocity; those within the Conservative Movement know full well, that President Bush has done a great deal of good, for the nation, the Republican Party, and for the Conservative Movement. America is clearly a better nation for his time in the Oval Office. Yet when they speak of him, it is always in complete derision and insult, with no measure of respect for what he has done. The man plainly has earned better, and I will not countenance the behavior which does not admit to the honors he has garnered through hard work, perseverance, and steadfast faith in God, his ideals, and his commitment. If you would find from me where I differ with George W. Bush, you must first reaffirm where you would commend him. Put away the hypocrisy of using the Left’s own weapons of slander and gossip, and return to those values which have identified Conservatives, if you wish me to regard you as a Conservative.


Anonymous said...

Lame, lame, and a big helping of lame.

You intentionally miss the point. It has nothing at all to do with President Bush and everything to do with your lack of integrity.

YOU stated, unequivocally, that you had ALREADY disagreed with the President on several issues.

You were asked to provide support, a link to your posts, something.

You could not - because they did not exist.

Thus you were lying and are a fraud.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

DJ Drummond said...

Well 'Anonymous', you just proved you either can't read, can't be bothered to pay attention, or your spite has reached Michael Moore proportions.

Whichever case it is, good luck with that. Because the road you're riding is not the one to honor, truth, or success.

W.C. Varones said...

Hey DJ,

Congressman Mike Pence is proposing immigration reform that sounds a lot like what you proposed before you heard the President's full-scale amnesty proposal.

Will you join me in supporting Pence?


W.C. Varones

DJ Drummond said...

First off Varones, every time you claim the President supports "amnesty", you are lying.

Stop lying, and maybe we can talk.

Anonymous said...

You see, if they call the president an idiot and a liar than it allows then to stand on a high pedestal and make believe that they are smarter and more ethical. Its the fallacy that someone can't be 'wrong' without being 'evil'.

If you only accept everythign you want, then you end up, in the end, getting nothing you want.

I find the president an honest principled man, and actually pretty consistant - you might not agree with some of those principles, but to call him a 'liar' and run a smear campaign does nothign to lower him and everything to lower you.

Not being willing to accept anythign short of absolutely everything you want exactly the way you want it, right now. .is a definite sign of immaturity.


Anonymous said...

ALso. . .

Read this


Big V said...

You outline the thoughts of many of us DJ. For those who think they will teach the Republicans a lesson and stay home, rest assured that the Dem's will thank you in spades... as they open the borders and the welfare lines and pay for it all from your check. You don't teach anyone a lesson by screwing yourself.

Anonymous said...

I completely agree with you. I am part of the silent majority. I read the blogs but don't normally post. I have never stopped supporting President Bush since Sept. 11. Our country has lost sight of the true enemy of Islamic extremists. They are our enemy, not Mexico. I too do not agree with everything the President does, but I have put aside my issues because in this period of history only one issue truely matters and that is protecting this nation and my family from those who seek to wipe us off the face of the earth.

smh10 said...

Anonymous (1) 9:31am

"Lame, lame and a big helping of lame." Translation: I have no real arguement with you because I have no facts.

"Thus you were LYING and are a FRAUD." These two words in various forms are spouted so much by the left that they no longer have any meaning to those of us who read your comments etc. Perhaps if you read back on much of DJ's work you might find that he did offer various opinions where administration policies were concerned. I suppose the fact that he chose not to be vulgar and use language which diminishes the President would be interpreted by you as being an administration lacky.

And lastly, a newsflash, DJ does not owe you, me, or anyone else an explanation for anything he writes, if you disagree with him it can be done respectfully or simply choose not to visit his site.

Any of us would love to have a lively chat with you about any topic posted, but I do not think we will engage in anything but civil discussion.

Pete_Bondurant said...

Can somebody please ask Michelle Malkin and her kind how is the president's plan amnesty? The illegals will recieve punishment for their crime. One can argue that the punishment is not sufficient but one cannot say it is amnesty. That is just plain dishonest. Bush's plan is the most logical and sensible and an excellent starting point for the House and Senate.

The Unbeliever said...

Pete: the Corner cites Ed Meese (citing Black's Law Dictionary) fleshing out the amnesty label here.

Rich said...

A theological analogy is helpful to show that the President's plan is not amnesty. The word amnesty comes from the same base as to forget. It is pardon-plus. This is what God does: "I will remember your sins no more." There is no performance requirements on the recipient of the amnesty. If you have paid your sentence for a crime it is not considered amnesty. Immigration violations are misdemeanor violations so a fine is a valid penalty. What makes this mushy is that 1986 there were similar penalties/fees. In the strict sense, neither is amnesty. You can argue whether the penalty is too lenient or too strict or not the appropriate form but this whole amnesty thing is a canard because a payment/penalty has been extracted. What I find disturbing is this crime is "special" and extra large penalties are created through the scare word amnesty. Thus, some conservatives are abandoning the principle of proportional justice.

W.C. Varones said...

I guess Ed Meese, Attorney General for the 1986 amnesty, is also "lying" when he says:

"The illegal immigrant does not go to the back of the line but gets immediate legalized status, while law-abiding applicants wait in their home countries for years to even get here. And that's the line that counts. In the end, slight differences in process do not change the overriding fact that the 1986 law and today's bill are both amnesties."