Yesterday was another example of the grace with which President Bush has handled the transition so far. Bush's magnanimity here should not be surprising, though, because despite whatever faults he has, Bush should be credited for the deep, clearly genuine and emotional reverence he has always displayed for the office and institution of the presidency. It's a level of respect that I would hope all presidents would show for the office, and for the extraordinary responsibilities accompanying it.
In the wake of yesterday's meeting, however, I was disappointed in Obama when he and/or his aides leaked details of Obama's and Bush's conversation to the media. Making matters worse, the leak was done for crass political posturing, specifically about the question of whether the federal government should bail out GM or other struggling US automakers. I would think (or at least hope), that even "the One" would hold some things sacred, and that accordingly, he would maintain the confidentiality and trust that such a meeting deserves. Apparently I was wrong.
Barack Obama will soon be my president too, and while he wasn't my choice this election year, I wish him nothing but success. He won last week in part by promising a new kind of politics, and while I was never clear what precisely that meant, I hope this isn't the first example of it. If so, it's neither the path to success nor the way to win the support of the 57 million Americans who voted for another candidate.
You think Bush has shown a reverence for the office...really? Someone who lied to the people who hired him (us), ok'd torture, tapped the phones of US citizens and essentially suspended habeus corpus. He has done more damage to the office of the presidency than one can imagine. Yes, he talks a good game about the sacred nature of the office, but as I grow older I've come to believe more and more that we should look at one's actions and not just listen to their words.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment, casey, and thanks for reading. The nature of your comments (particularly when juxtaposed with the nature of my post) are symptomatic of a difference in political ideologies (not to mention a difference in opinions of President Bush) between you and me. The "Bush lied, Bush tortures, Bush taps phones, etc., etc." refrain is a common one from those on the left side of the political spectrum. I would respectfully disagree with your assertions and, in the areas where there is truth, I would tend to trust -- or at the very least to hope -- that whatever may have been done was in the spirit of protecting the country (and Americans abroad) from harm. Keep in mind that there is likely a great deal of information that those at the highest levels of our government have about various dangers to the country and to Americans everywhere -- information that we do not and cannot know. Perhaps we will know at some point in the future, and if we do, maybe Bush's actions will be perceived differently by you and those who share your concerns. On the other hand, I couldn't agree more with you that it is far more important to judge someone by what they actually do than by what they say. Feel free to reply again if you'd like to continue this dialogue, and I thank you for a thoughtful and thought-provoking comment. -Bragg
ReplyDeletehttp://lhote.blogspot.com/2008/11/peter-schiff-vindicated.html
ReplyDeleteSomeone was right, and a lot of others were wrong.