#rsrh Ain’t no I in Bush OR Obama…

…but it looks like only the former knows it.  Compare Bush’s use of the first-person singular in his speech about the capture of Saddam Hussein with Obama’s in his speech about the death of Osama bin Laden; the latter comes across as a bit… defensive, doesn’t he?  It’s almost as if the President’s subconsciously aware of the fact that his supposedly ‘gutsy call‘ was neither gutsy, nor even possible without the patient and largely unheralded work of his despised predecessor… who was, by the way, not a complete narcissist who visibly wilts in the absence of constant praise*.

But surely that can’t be the case.

Moe Lane

*Note that I have not accused anyone of being such a person; merely noting that the 43rd President of the United States was someone who is demonstrably not.

Bush, Obama, Ground Zero…

…and the Law of Unintended Consequences: “Former President George W. Bush has declined an invitation to join President Barack Obama at a New York City ceremony later this week marking the death of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, NBC News reported on Tuesday.”  The – ‘ostensible’ is too strong a word; ‘primary’ probably works better – reason is that former President Bush chooses to not emulate Jimmy Carter’s horrible example by insinuating himself into national affairs; but there’s certainly speculation as to what the secondary reasons are.  Allahpundit’s suggestion that Bush desires to avoid what AP didn’t, but I will, call a Wellstone funeral-style campaign op makes a certain amount of sense.  Then again, so does Instapundit’s commenter’s observation that perhaps Bush didn’t feel like being insulted to his face by President Obama, in much the same way that Obama went after Rep. Paul Ryan and the US Supreme Court in venues where they had to sit there and take the hits.  I favor the latter as being the secondary reason.

And that’s where the Law of Unintended Consequences kicks in.  It is actually very likely that President Obama has no intention of listening to the fools on his side who want to use the event for Bush-bashing, if only because it’s not the antiwar movement that the President needs to woo right now; even their protesters are committed to voting for him*.  Obama needs independents and the disaffected portion of his 2008 vote, and those two demographics like seeing their Presidents take the high road.   So you’d think that he’d take it, right?

Continue reading Bush, Obama, Ground Zero…

Picked up Decision Points for the Kindle…

…almost by accident: it may be a little too easy to get books for the Kindle. I also would like to have a intuitive way to be able to use Amazon.com certificates to buy stuff for the Kindle, too. Anyway, Decision Points is pretty good, so far. Amusing bit of trivia: George and Laura Bush have the same anniversary date as my wife and I.

As I said: trivia.

Moe Lane

New Wikileaks cable?

I’ll be honest: I hesitated to put up this link to what claims to be a Wikileaked cable regarding issues with the US/UK special relationship during the previous administration. I truly did. I have long made it clear that I take our security classification system likely, and I subscribe wholeheartedly to the notion that some things are and should be on a need-to-know basis. In a very real sense, linking to this alleged cable can be seen as a certain betrayal of trust.

But I wouldn’t link if I didn’t think that my readers should see this; so here you go. I will totally understand if you don’t want to click on through – or whether you have long-term problems with me for putting it up in the first place.

http://www.ding.net/wikileaks/234867.txt

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: I had somebody who does have a security clearance look at it; that person couldn’t authenticate the cable, but I was told that the header is in a format that’s consistent with standard American classification language. So there’s that.

#rsrh The Oprah/Bush Interview.

It’s twenty minutes long, and well worth watching.  The Left is going to hate it, of course; Bush comes across very well.  Worse, Oprah treats him with the civility and respect that you would expect a civilized human being to provide to a former President of the United States*.  Such a betrayal!  Such an outrage!  The heavens will fall!

Seriously, watch the interview.  I was on the fence about whether to buy Decision Points, but now I may have to.  It sounds like fascinating reading.

Moe Lane

*In fact, she even comes across as liking the man.  Extra acid on the soul to a certain sort of person, there.

GWB rehabilitation project comes on-line.

(Via @jeffemanuel)  As many people have noted, the Left’s favorite rhetorical game in the whole wide world is the classic These new Republicans are awful, unlike all the good Republicans that we used to have. It’s popular mostly because it’s easily – in fact, continually – adapted to the contemporary era, and nobody in its target audience seems to really notice that they quietly switch out devil figures as the situation demands.  Well, almost nobody: there’s always the fringe dupes who made the mistake of actually believing the agitprop, to the point where their identity and sense of self-worth is inextricably tied up in hating one, specific Republican.  Fortunately for the Democrats, those poor unfortunates generally shrivel up into irrelevancy – and, thirty years later, shouting through battery-operated megaphones for the benefit of local news stations.

But enough with the charming tableau.  The point is that it’s now George W Bush’s turn to be rehabilitated, now that the Left has a Republican House to demonize, and time is not being wasted.  The first real effort along those lines will apparently appear in the Sunday Opinion section of the Washington Post (which is nice rhetorical real estate to get, frankly), and it’s called “5 myths about George W. Bush.”  He’s apparently not a illiterate cowboy, he really did mean it about compassionate conservatism (and liked minorities!) and really didn’t mean it about nation-building, did not let Cheney run the country from behind the scenes, and didn’t destroy conservatism for a generation.

Now, I know that a bunch of people are going to read the previous paragraph and grumble at the sight of the phrase “compassionate conservatism” (because they read it – not necessarily unfairly – as “stealth liberalism”), but that’s not actually the point.  The point is that, like every other Republican president preceding him, George W Bush is now going to have his record and narrative tweaked until it becomes acceptably liberal enough to permit using him to attack current Republicans.  This is noteworthy for two reasons: Continue reading GWB rehabilitation project comes on-line.

Bush’s Rorschach moment?

Probably not, more’s the pity.

As you might have gathered, there’s been a surge of Strange New Respect for George W Bush lately from Lefty pundits and commentators who have abruptly become aware that they have somehow become part of a fringe extremist movement (in reality, many of them always were; they’re just getting ‘credited’ for it now). Jim Treacher lists some of these new supplicants to Bush, and offers the former President some advice on how to respond to them:

I’d love for somebody to ask Bush about it, and for him to say something to this effect: “Thanks for asking, but according to President Obama, I’ve caused enough problems already. I’m sure you folks can figure it out without me.” And then smile, and wish the questioner a nice day, and walk away.

I am completely in agreement with that attitude. Why? Because of this:

Continue reading Bush’s Rorschach moment?

Agreed, Gibbs: Obama is not Bush.

As you may recall, White House press flack Robert Gibbs earlier this week announced his frustration with his party’s fringe Democrats who are unaccountably upset that they trade money and effort for… well, Gibbs’s frustration and contempt. It was fascinating to watch – for that matter, so was the latest extended whine from Alan ‘counting-the-days-until-his-permanent-MSNBC-gig’ Grayson on the subject* – but my sense of honor requires me to make an admission. When Gibbs said:

“I hear these people saying he’s like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested,” Gibbs said. “I mean, it’s crazy.”

…I am forced to agree with him. Barack Obama is not like George W. Bush. Continue reading Agreed, Gibbs: Obama is not Bush.