………is the way Andy Becket of the major Leftwing Brit Journal, the Guardian entitled his today’s article at guardian.co.uk. He continued with the subtitle: “Our young energetic prime minister has more in common with the discredited former president than you may think.”
Well, I wasn’t thinking about the comparison, and I am not particularly interested in the ups and downs of David Cameron leading Britain, other than I view hims as a Brit RINO…… or rather CINO(conservative in name only) and bubbly on television. At least he isn’t a Gordon Brown clone.
Character means a great deal to me. And I worry a lot about my own. I admit that character should mean a lot to everyone…..we would be a better culture for it.
I liked George W. Bush. I like George W. Bush. I shall like George W. Bush till I die!
He was a poor politician and not a good planner. I did not put on a good show. He never pretended to be a university controlled intellectual. I found and find that a great positive. He was the anti-Obama, and God Bless him for it. He was from a family which believed in government service. I suppose there is an air of elitism in that belief and practice, but I find that noble.
I don’t hate the rich.
Mr. Bush did not want to plague America with any Marxist demands. He was a citizen, bright and capable, with a terrific resume of an American who was troubled finding his space in life (as is so common among the young of families of wealth and noteriety. It is reported he was winsome and popular with all in his years of probing through his forests. It was reported by the countless who trie to smear him that in his college youth, he once danced on a bar top sans clothing. I hoped at the time it was true. It made him an American college kid, which by the way, he was. He never threw a bomb like some friends of our current president did.
He was inarticulate. But so is Obama, the contemporary hero of the American mass leftwing media. George W. never claimed to have been in all of America’s 57 states. George W. Bush’s father also was inarticulate, often ending sentences with a drift rather than with words.
What a good man America had as president from January 20, 2001 through January 19, 2009. An honest man, decent man, and a man of charcter who preferred, it seemed, to be quiet and private than standing in the world’s spot light……..The Gary Cooper of the White House occupants, I think.
He represented an old fashioned American gentleman; a man who humbled himself before his religion and privately went on to do his best as the nation’s leader.
The current president is dramatically a different person. He seems to be a decent person in the core. But he has had a bad upbringing. He is a politician rather than a good man. He professes dishonesty and duplicity as the base for his communication skills. He is secretive and plotting. He is not a classic American, and does not like America as it is and for what the country has stood and achieved. I believe he is a Marxist by religion.
David Cameron has not faced a September 11, 2001. In what way did Mr. Bush exceed the electorate’s instructions in 2001?
Mr. Cameron has not faced an election so hotly and visciously and dishonestly contested as the election of November, 2000, an election some of his leftwing opponents, mainly those in the media and on the extreme left, have used to energize enemies of all kind to destroy Mr. Bush’s presidency…..They succeeded in many ways. “Bush lied. People died” is a slogan those saboteurs of America dishonestly fixed into the public’s mind of Mr. Bush’s being.
In the process, they have destroyed the meaning of the word “Lie” as telling an untruth. Perhaps this is why Mr. Obama has forgotten its meaning if ever he knew what it meant.
“Discredited” is the word writer Beckett uses in his subtitle. Yes and no….He is still discredited by America’s motivated Leftwing press, college professors, and Obama propagandists. I do not think former president George W. Bush will continue to be discredited for long……but not until the retirements, probably, of Barack Hussein Obama and the Leftwing gurus selling their anti-American propaganda products in the Journalism schools of America’s universities.
Here is Mr. Andy Beckett’s guardian.co.uk article:
“Both men come from elite families, but rebranded themselves – with useful help from supposedly “anti-elite” parts of the rightwing media such as the Sun and Fox News – as relatively ordinary citizens. Both men were political slow starters: Cameron not active in student politics in the 80s, despite the decade’s crucial and absorbing ideological battles; Bush not winning elected office until he became governor of Texas in 1995 at the age of 48. Rather than doing early political apprenticeships, like the earnest young Milibands, Bush and Cameron had some hedonistic times as young adults, which may continue to interest their opponents and biographers.
Having missed the heyday of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, the two men began to rise instead when voters were losing their appetite for transatlantic conservatism’s more caustic remedies, and positioned themselves accordingly as “compassionate conservatives”. Most journalists took this carefully constructed moderation at face value.
Voters were less impressed. In the 2000 presidential election Bush, infamously, received about half a million votes fewer than Al Gore, despite Gore’s over-complicated and stiff public manner, and a jittery economy. In this May’s general election, it is already less remembered, Cameron’s Conservatives scraped 36% of the vote – only a slight improvement on the share the party won in its heavy defeats in 2005 and 2001 – despite Gordon Brown’s Gore-style presentational problems, and despite a British economy that was not so much jittery as post-traumatic.
And yet, out of Bush and Cameron’s poor election showings in 2000 and 2010 has come a new, bolder British and American conservatism. You could call it a politics of wishful thinking – or of bluff.
First, the two men spun their thin or nonexistent electoral mandates as decisive expressions of public support. Thus, in America, throughout the month-long tumult of recounts and court challenges that followed the 2000 election, Bush presented himself as the contest’s victor and Gore as the loser, when there was plenty of evidence that the situation was unclear or even the opposite. Similarly, in Britain this May, on election night, with a mere three seats declared (all retained by Labour) and the exit polls predicting a hung parliament, Cameron’s key ally, George Osborne, told the BBC: “I do not think there’s any question of Labour being able to continue [in office].” A few commentators fleetingly raised an eyebrow at Osborne’s characteristically cocky, premature triumphalism, but it helped create a conventional wisdom about the election result that led directly to the formation of the coalition.
Once in government, Cameron, like Bush, has again exceeded the electorate’s instructions. The cautious, inclusive, compassionate conservative has turned into a divisive rightwing radical. Both men have used national emergencies as political cover. For Bush, it was 9/11 that justified his huge, reckless neocon experiment. For Cameron, the emergency, more contrived, has been the double one of a hung parliament and a large national deficit – neither of them remotely unprecedented, but scary enough, in a Britain recently grown accustomed to political and economic stability, to make a shrinking of state spending drastic enough to satisfy the zaniest of 80s Thatcherites look like common sense, for the time being, to an impressive 55% of voters.”
Filed under: American Culture, Barack Obama, Education, National Politics | Leave a Comment »