Timing Is Everything

Mike Rosen is a Denver talk-show host, a fiscal conservative and social libertarian. His newspaper column appears each Friday in my favorite paper, The Denver Rocky Mountain News.

His column today describes exactly how I feel and think. Especially the parts I've bolded. Enjoy.

It's tough being George W. Bush these days. His poll numbers are low, liberal media sharks taste blood in the water, and some elected Republicans - primarily concerned with their own survival - are separating themselves from their president. Some of this is Bush's own doing; much of it is unfortunate happenstance.
Americans tend to give their presidents too much blame or credit for things that simply happen on their watch. Bill Clinton was lucky. His timing was fortuitous. He took office just as the nation emerged from a mild recession. He was the beneficiary of a long-term economic expansion nurtured by the bold supply-side fiscal policies and inflation-slaying monetary policies of Ronald Reagan (a president who really did make a difference) that drove the stock market to record heights and tax revenues along with it.
Breakthroughs in computer technology and the onset of the Internet era contributed to a surge in productivity, a high-tech boom and a dot-com revolution.
The end of the Cold War (thank you, again, President Reagan) produced a "peace dividend" in the form of sharp reductions in defense spending. The election of Republican majorities in the House and Senate in 1994, for the first time in 40 years, imposed some restraint on social spending, abetted by the booming economy. And a bargain-basement sale on world oil all combined to produce a "perfect storm" that led to four years of federal budget surpluses between 1998-2001.
During the period, we had a minor military setback in Somalia and a modest deployment of U.S. troops to Bosnia, but avoided a major combat commitment. You could argue that Clinton's failure to forcefully confront earlier terrorist attacks against U.S. assets both at home and abroad only deferred payment and made the cost of 9/11 and its aftermath even higher. But it certainly prolonged our period of peace and prosperity in the 1990s.
Ironically, Clinton's biggest difficulties arose from personal indiscretions strictly of his own making.
Bush's timing, on the other hand, couldn't have been worse. The gathering storm he inherited was perfectly terrible.
All hell broke loose on 9/11, an attack in the planning for years. This helped trigger an overdue bursting of the dot-com and high tech bubbles, and a stock market plunge. The economy was already sliding into recession even before he took office. Consequently, tax revenues dropped sharply and social spending associated with a soft economy, declining employment and increased services rose. A confrontation with Islamofascist terrorism could no longer be deferred and military and homeland security spending soared as a result.
Prudent national security considerations required that reasonable compromises be made with personal freedoms. The ACLU and The New York Times don't like this. Aging Americans demanded a costly prescription drug benefit added to Medicare and Bush had all he could handle to fight off Democratic demands in Congress to push the price tag even higher.
The nation is pummeled by a once-in-a-century hurricane blitz. The world price of oil and natural gas escalated, compounded by increases in demand from China and India. Gasoline topped three bucks a gallon at the pump and home utility bills went through the roof. The wave of illegal immigration exacerbated by the Simpson-Mazzoli legislation of 1986 reached critical mass.
So Bush is president, now, and all this happens on his watch. It's amazing his popularity is as high as 30 percent. You'd think it would be zero.
Yes, I've been a Bush supporter, on balance, and still am. The alternative was Al Gore, John Kerry and the Democrats. If they'd been in charge I have no doubt things would be even worse. My first choice would have been Ronald Reagan but he wasn't on the ballot in 2004.
I've disagreed with some of Bush's policies and selections, and I'd have liked to see him veto some bills he didn't. But on the really big issues, I've been with him. He tried for meaningful Social Security reform, for example, but the Democrats obstructed it. On immigration reform, he's constrained by what's doable in a compromise between competing bills in the House and Senate. Bush isn't king; he's only president. Legislating is up to Congress.
I don't expect any of this to register with Bush haters (as opposed to those who are simply rational critics of the president). Bush haters border on the psychotic. They're beyond reason, consumed with revulsion and loathing for the man. I disagreed with many of Clinton's policies but I never felt remotely that way about him.
It's a lot easier being president in good times than bad, especially when we're at war. Abraham Lincoln would have understood.

Ten Years?

About that 'Mission Accomplished' Speech

This is how I feel about SO MANY issues right now and this Navy hero stole my words...

An open letter to Democrats and the liberal media clarifying the facts of President Bush's speech and the circumstances surrounding it
By Ger Spaulding, CAPT, USN (Retired)
OPEN LETTER TO DEMOCRATS AND THE LIBERAL MEDIA..

Yesterday, 1 May 2006, you had a field day marking the third anniversary of President Bush's landing on USS Abraham Lincoln to deliver what you relish in mischaracterizing as his "Mission Accomplished Speech."

First, he never said "mission accomplished." What he said was, “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.”

For you uninitiated media twerps and so-called leaders of the Democrat Party, the phrase "major combat operations" means army on army, tank on tank, air force on air force, etc. That's what the phrase has always meant. Bush was exactly correct when he said "major combat operations have ended," because the Iraqi military had been utterly defeated and -- on their own -- disbanded and went into hiding among the general population. He was also correct in saying, "...now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.” He was defining the next mission, one in which we are still engaged and one in which we are succeeding dramatically despite the best efforts of the insurgents, the liberal media and the Democrat Party.

Now, about that "Mission Accomplished" sign. Surely you recall that the Lincoln was on her way home from a long deployment at the time the war started, was turned around before reaching port and sent back out on a lengthy, unscheduled second deployment in support of the war. When the president landed on her deck, she was finally on her way home from that unscheduled second deployment and was very proud of the fact that she had accomplished the additional mission laid on her even as Lincoln families had been anticipating the imminent return of their loved ones. And as you know, when they learned the president would be making a speech from the flight deck of their ship, the crew of the Lincoln asked permission to hang that sign to let their families and the world share in their pride. Every time you idiots politicize the "Mission Accomplished" banner, you denigrate not only the crew of the Abe Lincoln, but every military unit that feels pride in accomplishing its mission on behalf of its country. Shame on you! Shame on you!

So, here's a message to you liberal media and Democrat leaders: you can take your mischaracterizations and outright lies about what you call the "Mission Accomplished speech" and shove them right up your collective, traitorous asses until you choke on them.

Ger Spaulding
CAPT, USN (Ret)
Colorado Springs, CO


I watched major news shows this last Sunday and seriously, it seems to me that Democrats want us to lose our war in Iraq. They are invested in our defeat. We used to call that treason.