Death of a Presidency?

By Mark Harris, NationalPoliticalDigest.com Six and a half years ago, our country elected a new president. On one side, out of breath from such a narrow victory, the Republicans were giddy with anticipation. We, I’m on that side, had virtual control of the federal government. Even though the majority of voters went for the other guy, the Constitution had decided the conclusion. President George Bush assumed the mantle of power with all the “pomp and circumstance” that went with hopes for a new direction. Unfortunately, that new way included some very sobering distinctions. We were saddled with an existing recession and only a few months later, ofcourse, the eye opening and tragic saga of “9/11”. I say saga because terrorism against the United States had existed for years. The Clinton Administration had simply refused to recognize how important it had become to our future. Today, the President is embroiled in some criticism that might well need to be tempered. It’s not that the public has completely forgotten the “almost recession” and “9/11”, but it seems Americans have developed a nasty little habit. We don’t look in the rearview mirror long enough. If you stop and think of the import of this double whammy, you might, again, be amazed with our President. He was able to bring about the largest tax cut in our nation’s history. It shortened what most definitely would have been a deep downturn in the economy. Tax revenues, true to fashion, have expanded immensely effecting the deficit dramatically. Despite some limited fluctuations, this gargantuan achievement still serves us well. President Bush rallied the nation and most of the world after “9/11”. His quick action in deciding to bomb Al Qaeda in Afghanistan disrupted that despicable group’s operations substantially. We defeated the Taliban and started a nation of millions on a path to freedom and democracy. After exhausting all diplomatic corridors, we took on Iraq. Some argued for this action, some against, but, no matter what, no one can convince me that Saddam Hussein did not have intentions of ultimately holding the nuclear stick over the Middle East and ultimately the world. Remember the pride we felt when “the Butcher of Baghdad” was toppled. There is a difference between looking in your rearview mirror to learn and “hindsight is 20/20”. The words critique versus criticism come to mind. The previous administration, our intelligence organizations and those of other countries, and more so, the Congress had agreed to the proposition. This included Senator Clinton and her ilk who are now trying, as usual, to rewrite the history of their statements and votes. You people! You conservatives! There were other reasons to be excited along the way. Have you forgotten the President’s principled stand on stem cell research? What about partial birth abortion? Do you think these agreeable actions came out of the blue? Also, we have been complaining about the Supreme Court for many years. Do any of you have problems with Chief Justice Roberts? How about Justice Allito? I know the mud throwers will bring up Harriet Myers. So! We have two we are thrilled with and hoping for a third. President Bush has achieved all this with 40% of the country despising him for “stealing” the election from Gore. That hate has bubbled up to the Democrat politicians who dependably spew out their lies, derision and ire. The only time his popular support broke above 60% was from “9/11” through the fall of Baghdad. That was only because national security trumps everything. It still should, but with the aid of the Democrats’ co-conspirators in the media, they keep grinding it down. Ticking off the list of America’s so-call allies who didn’t and don’t support us in Iraq is easy. The Germans, the Russians and, of course, the white flag French were so covered in greed they couldn’t squeak. The secret oil deals were massive. Diplomacy is important, but it’s dirty work. You have to be ready to sterilize immediately after shaking hands. They balked at helping us in Iraq, but we couldn’t say or do what we wanted to, even though they were crooks! Then, they called the President a “cowboy” for going it alone, except for Great Britain. When things started getting tough in Iraq, the Kerry-types criticized and pontificated, “Bush didn‘t get our allies aboard.” It would never have happened. They hoped they wouldn’t be found out, but documents have subsequently proved the shady “Oil for Food” shenanigans. The Democrats have been completely consistent about Iraq. They lie, change history, complain and preach sacrosanct platitudes at every opportunity. They are invested in defeat because they can’t handle national security for our country. Give them the power and they will dine with the blood letters. The Democrats have stirred a defeatist pot knowing it would cause unrest in the country. Our society is filled with varying degrees of bravery and weak knees; strong will and shortsightedness; visionaries and the blind; conservatives and the greedy. Along with the liberal media, Democrats have been able to channel, promote and insure an unpopular President. I say to you out there, the ones who must obviously claim ignorance, there is a “War on Terror”! They wear only a uniform of hate and malcontent. They have no state that we can conquer. They have no flag which we can capture. It will probably take decades to achieve victory. We may lose thousands and thousands of military lives. We may lose the lives of thousands of civilians along the way. It will happen, so buck up! But it is no coincidence that we have not had an attack on our soil in years. We have taken the fight to them. Instead of blaming President Bush, you should be praising him! During his presidency, Mr. Bush has taken another bold step. He attacked the question of the solvency of the social security program. We all know that it’s going to go bankrupt or wipe out the best part of the earnings of our children and grandchildren. It is considered the “Fourth Rail of Politics”. Yet, the President attacked it head on with his proposal for a small portion of it being separated away from regular contributions and be kept in private accounts. It was a ponzi scheme on its inception and he tried to legitimize its existence through this program. The faintness of its support was deafening. Politicians didn’t give more than lip service and I don’t remember any pitchforks being raised by the citizenry. Yet, it is supported by most of our young people, because they know they’re going to have to pay for it! The Democrats, though, were still able to vilify the President as the bad guy. We now are engaged in somewhat of a national debate about immigration. Who’s right; who’s wrong. I think it’s partly both. The main opposition to the proposed bill seems to be about the enforcement mechanism or more to the point, will it be enforced? I really can’t believe that President Bush is trying to pull off anything surreptitious or has any ulterior motives. From what I’ve heard, most of the effected illegals will probably ultimately vote for the Democrats. I do think that the President is the one person who has more information than anyone in the country. Could it be that we need all these people simply to keep social security afloat? Maybe the funding is worse than we had imagined. Remember, the country turned thumbs down when he tried to get his remedy on social security enacted. If it is for no “hidden” reason, then I humbly suggest to the President that he should read or re-read the “1986 Immigration Act”. It was good enough for President Reagan. We must, however, remember that President Reagan, President Bush, Sr., and certainly not President Clinton did anything to enforce it.We hurriedly come back to one word for “1986” and “2007”, enforcement. Let’s fluff it up where need be, fund it well and enforce it. Forget about the “2007 model“. I started out this column with a question. Death of a Presidency? I am one supporter who will not excoriate this man. I am one supporter who will not put this good man in some political dungeon. I am one supporter who still trusts this man even though there might have been some misjudgments on occasion. This is not the “death of a Presidency”. I can’t, however, be that generous with the Congress? The “death of a Congress” is another story. In 2006, it culminated in death by a long agonizing suicide. I mean, even if your aiming for your foot, how many times can you shoot yourself in the head? But that’s another matter.