The Intellectually Stunted Practice Of Bush-Bashing
By Frank Salvato
January 26, 2007
Page 2 of 3
Even though I disagree with President Bush on several issues, including the fact that he -- in an act of reconciliation after the 2000 election -- allowed members of the Clinton Administration to stay on in key governmental roles, I do not stoop to personal attacks. I refuse to break Reagan's Rule as others of my own political affiliations have done and continue to do. I do not cry out that Bush has betrayed the country. I don't chant "Bush lied. People died." I don't excoriate him for not clamping down on the borders and I don't eviscerate the man because he is not clairvoyant and therefore unable to accurately see into the future where the war against radical Islamist aggression is concerned.
I refrain from attacking George W. Bush, from calling him names, from attacking his intellect and from personally degrading the man because it is the honorable, civil and right thing to do. Instead, I engage in the intellectually superior exercise of civil debate and discourse, just as I did when President Clinton was in office. Stated plainly, it is correct to honor the office, if not the man.
Taking into account the incredible events that George W. Bush has had to contend with during his presidency -- not to mention the unimaginable amount of irrational and politically cultivated hatred that has been foisted upon him and a mainstream media that facilitates it -- I find it hard to believe that either Al Gore or John Kerry could have done any better given the exact set of circumstances. In fact, in the shadow of Harry Reid's cowardly comment that he and his congressional colleagues don't have a responsibility to engage in crafting a battle plan for victory in Iraq -- or any other battlefield in the war against radical Islamist aggression -- I would advance the notion that few could have performed as well.
Great statesmen and good politicians are measured by their accomplishments. Their stature is garnered through the advancement of solutions over rhetoric, good government over politics, not in their political longevity or the health of their political parties. Today there are few statesmen left in Washington and each year that number dwindles. We have turned away from electing statesmen like Barry Goldwater, Adlai Stevenson, Zell Miller and Henry Hyde only to saddle ourselves with the jaded political opportunism of Harry Reid, Chuck Hagel, Nancy Pelsoi, Arlen Specter and Dick Durbin.
In the post Cultural Revolution/Social Enlightenment Era in which we find ourselves it would appear that many among us who are unwilling to read beyond the first paragraph believe that their opinion counts for something. As our education system and progressive "it takes a village" culture invents self-esteem for those who haven't taken the time to earn it, we see a society that, increasingly, values the "free speech" of hollow, destructive rhetoric over any semblance of civility, respect, intellect or honor.
I refuse to abandon the dignity of civil discourse for the blathering of the manufactured outrage utilized by the Bush-bashers. In the end I am adult enough to realize that he is doing what he believes is best for the country. And while I may disagree with his course of action on several issues, he is my president, he is our president, and the office, if not the man, deserves respect.
>> Continued -- Page 1 2 3
| 
