He can’t win — even if he does!



Sometimes a political figure becomes so hated that he can't do anything right in the eyes of his enemies. President Bush has achieved this rare and exalted status. His critics are so blinded by animus that the internal consistency of their attacks on him no longer matters. For them, Bush is the double-bind president.


If he stumbles over his words, he is an embarrassing idiot. If he manages to cut taxes or wage a war against Saddam Hussein with bipartisan support, he is a manipulative genius.

If he hasn't been able to capture Osama bin Laden, he is endangering U.S. security. If he catches bin Laden, it is only a ploy to influence the elections.

If he ignores U.N. resolutions, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he takes U.N. resolutions on Iraq seriously, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he doesn't get France to agree to his Iraq policy, he is ignoring important international actors. If he supports multiparty talks on North Korea, he is not doing enough to ignore important international actors.

If he bombed Iraq, he should have bombed Saudi Arabia instead, and if he had bombed Saudi Arabia, he should have bombed Iran, and if he had bombed all three, he shouldn't have bombed anyone at all. If he imposes a U.S. occupation on Iraq, he is fomenting Iraqi resistance by making the United States seem an imperial power. If he ends the U.S. occupation, he is cutting and running.

If he warns of a terror attack, he is playing alarmist politics. If he doesn't warn of a terror attack, he is dangerously asleep at the switch. If he says we're safer, he's lying, and if he doesn't say we're safer, he's implicitly admitting that he has failed in his core duty as commander in chief.

If he adopts a doctrine of preemption, he is unacceptably remaking American national-security policy. If the United States suffers a terror attack on his watch, he should have preempted it. If he signs a far-reaching antiterror law, he is abridging civil liberties. If the United States suffers another terror attack on his watch, he should have had a more vigorous anti-terror law.

Bush's economy hasn't created new jobs. If it has created new jobs, they aren't well-paying jobs. If they are well-paying jobs, there is still income inequality in America.

If Bush opposes a prescription-drug benefit for the elderly, he's miserly. If he supports a prescription-drug benefit for the elderly, he's lining the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies. If he restrains government spending, he's heartless. If he supports government spending, he's bankrupting the nation and robbing from future generations.

If he opposes campaign-finance reform, he's a tool of corporate interests. If he signs campaign-finance reform, he's abridging the First Amendment rights of Michael Moore (whose ads for Fahrenheit 9/11 might run afoul of the law).

If he accuses John Kerry of flip-flopping, he is merely highlighting one of the Massachusetts senator's strengths — his nuance and thoughtfulness. If he flip-flops on nation-building or testifying before the 9/11 commission, he proves his own ill-intentions, cluelessness, or both.

If he doesn't admit a mistake, he is bullheaded and detached from reality. If he admits a mistake, he is damning his own governance in shocking fashion.

If he sticks with Dick Cheney, he is saddling himself with an unpopular vice president, giving Democrats who can't wait to run against Cheney a political advantage. If he drops Cheney, he is admitting that the Democratic attacks against his vice president have hit home, thus giving Democrats who have made those charges a political advantage.

If he loses in November, the voice of the American people has spoken a devastating verdict on his presidency. If he wins, he stole the election.

What a complete and utter load of tosh  ::)

Tell me, from which blinkered right-winger did you copy this one ?

What a complete and utter load of tosh  ::)

Tell me, from which blinkered right-winger did you copy this one ?


Tell me did you read the entire thing?  This is exactly how the liberal democrats over here act, or at least the far-left Michael Moore and George Soros wing of the party.

This was written by Rich Lowry who writes for the National Review, which is not conservative.

Tell me did you read the entire thing?  This is exactly how the liberal democrats over here act, or at least the far-left Michael Moore and George Soros wing of the party.

This was written by Rich Lowry who writes for the National Review, which is not conservative.


You mean this National Review?

Ever since 1955, when conservative patriarch William F. Buckley started the magazine, the right has really been defined by what is in the National Review. Some of the most important position and opinion pieces of the last 5 decades can be found in the pages of the review. If you want to know what conservatives are thinking, what they are planning, and how they see certain issues, you just have to read this magazine. If you are a conservative already, nothing in print can solidify your own position better than the review. Along with the educated opinion, NR does some really solid reporting on oft-ignored topics such as the Saudi influence on worldwide terrorism and the libertarian argument for drug legalization. This is a very good time to subscribe to NR, as they do tons of great writing on important topics such as the war on terrorism and the next steps for the Bush administration.
The list of NR contributors reads like a who's who of the conservative movement. The old stalwarts are still present, such as W. F. Buckley and Kate O'Bierne, but there is a whole host of new writers that are really taking the magazine back to the glory days. People like Andrew Sullivan, Rich Lowry, David Frum, and Jay Nordlinger add their wonderful insights to this powerful magazine. Other, less frequent but no less enjoyable writers include classics professor Victor Davis Hansen and historian Richard Brookhiser. Also included are cutting political cartoons and various other humor articles that poke fun at our ideological opponents. NR is heavily influenced by the conservative Catholicism practices by some of its senior editors, but it does not make the journal less accessible to more secular readers. A lot of publicity has been hoisted on William Kristol's Weekly Standard and its power inside the administration, but if you really want to tap into modern American conservatism, NR is the best place to start.

Danoota hit the nail on the head there.

More to the point, Mr. Lowry's article seems to be a pity plea for President Bush.  You want me to feel sorry for George W. Bush? That's so absurd it leaves me speechless....

Anyway, one could write a similar article about Clinton in the '90s and what the right-wing did to him, and if Kerry doesn't get cheated out of the Presidency, conservatives will make it evident he can do no right either.

You've heard the phrase "unmitigated gall" I'm sure.  That phrase applies most strongly to the Republicans when they accuse Democrats and librals of embarking on campaigns of hate.  Hypocrisy ad nauseam!

Poor Dubya, he just can't get a break anywhere!
:D :D :D

Poor Dubya, he just can't get a break anywhere!
:D :D :D



What would you like to break? I know what I would.  ;)




Cat

I am here to say I didn't write that review of the National Review.  I am not quite that eloquent.
It was copied from a review of the Review.

What a complete and utter load of tosh  ::)

Tell me, from which blinkered right-winger did you copy this one ?




Tell me did you read the entire thing? This is exactly how the liberal democrats over here act, or at least the far-left Michael Moore and George Soros wing of the party.

This was written by Rich Lowry who writes for the National Review, which is not conservative.


I did read the entire thing!  I'm wondering when you will get an original idea in your head and post it instead of posting the idiocy of others.

Poor Lil' Georgie.  I wish I had his problems.  Just can't get that silver spoon out of his mouth, or that golden parachut out of his...

It was copied from a review of the Review.


The National Review online is independent, whoever wrote that article is a left-wing pinko commie.

The National Review online is independent, whoever wrote that article is a left-wing pinko commie.

Oh, Archie...

The National Review online is independent, whoever wrote that article is a left-wing pinko commie.


GW, calling names is not conducive to rational discourse.  This is from the subscription page of
National Review website

    "National Review will provide you with that mega — dose of conservative wisdom that will help you keep your political sanity, and help you separate the truth from the liberal media fiction."

It seems to me that the National Review believes itself to be conservative. 

Oh, Archie...




LMAO-but actually it is "Awchie"  ;)




Cat

GW, calling names is not conducive to rational discourse.  . 


But Danoota, you must understand that when you can't argue facts, and you can't argue the law, your ony recourse is to argue personnal vindictive.  "I'm totally wrong, the facts and the law are against me, but my adversary is "just" a commie, so I must be "right".

But Danoota, you must understand that when you can't argue facts, and you can't argue the law, your ony recourse is to argue personnal vindictive.  "I'm totally wrong, the facts and the law are against me, but my adversary is "just" a commie, so I must be "right".


Yes, you are right again, perhaps I should apologize to GW for expecting more from him than he is
prepared to give. :P