Mr. Bush: What class

"Always act first class," has been my husband's coaching philosophy in 33 seasons of high school football. He expects first-class behavior of his players not just on the field but also inspires them to live their lives by that motto. Whether it's in their family relationships and home life, conduct at school, church, in the community, etc., he has impressed upon them that if they set the tone of acting first class they will achieve more, gain more respect and maybe most importantly, induce the same type of behavior from others. The presidential luncheon hosted yesterday by George W. Bush was an example of acting first class. A gathering of living presidents in the Oval Office has not occurred since 1981. President Bush has been vilified by every man in that room with the exception of his own father, yet, he recognized the monumental point in history we are experiencing and he wanted to commemorate it. This morning, cable news pundits remarked about Jimmy Carter standing an arm's length away from the others and questioned why. Perhaps he felt a bit uncomfortable in light of his many derogatory comments about President Bush. To be offered a hand of friendship and understanding may have caused him to feel restive.

Bill Clinton had somewhat of a frozen smile on his face. In recent years, Mr. Clinton has enjoyed a friendly relationship with both 41 and 43, so it is likely he reveled in the opportunity to share some time with them. When portraits of the Clinton's were unveiled and hung in the White House, George and Laura Bush welcomed the Clinton's as graciously and warmly as possible, yet, both Bill and Hillary had spoken out harshly about the President and his policies. The Bush's also have been exceedingly helpful and cooperative in the transition toward the Obama's. Politics aside, it would be difficult for anyone to discount the good-hearted intentions and forgiving nature the Bush's have shown toward those that may not be undeserving of such generosity.

George W. Bush went to Washington with the intention of creating a "new tone", and he was invigorated by the opportunity to serve the country as a "compassionate conservative". He made the statement yesterday that the office transcends the person. That is an important and profound ascription that he found out the hard way. In many ways, it has taken eight years for him to have the opportunity to exhibit his idea of bringing a conciliatory tone to the office. He probably had very different expectations of his presidency in terms of how he was received, especially by the press. As a politician, he expected a reasonable amount of disagreement and discord from his opponents, but I doubt the level of hatred was ever anticipated. Yet, he has stood firm in his resolve and has weathered the controversy and criticism with as much courage and mettle as we will likely see for a long time to come. In the face of the MSM and political opponents often not acting first class in order to best serve the nation, Mr. Bush usually did try to be congenial and treat others with Christian charity.

The President's agenda eight years ago looked very different than what history will reveal it to be. He campaigned on the ability to cross the aisle to get things done for the people. He promised to change Washington. He wanted to bring about tort reform and revamp Social Security. Early in his administration, he aligned with Ted Kennedy and other Democrats in signing the No Child Left Behind Act into law. Few other pieces of legislation caused him as much heated debate and criticism.

As President-Elect Obama begins his career in the White House he promises change of all sorts, especially bringing change to how things are done in Washington. He has an aggressive spending agenda he feels will jump start the economy and create jobs and equality in the standard of living for all Americans. He promises transparency and a willingness to get along with his political opponents. He promises to change our environment, our methods of transportation, how much we are taxed, what amount of time each of us will serve the government toward the common good and other progressive ideals. During the campaign when John McCain was adamant about stopping earmark-laden legislation, Mr. Obama dismissed that by saying earmarks only account for a very small portion of government spending. Today, he is talking a lot about denying Congress their earmark projects. Sometimes the more things change, the more they stay the same in Washington.

President Bush acted first class yesterday. His presidency was forever transformed by the attacks of September 11, 2001. While many in the world disagreed with him, he adjusted his agenda, put aside his own pet projects in order to keep the United States of America safe from further attacks. Domestic issues he feels passionately about have taken the back burner. He knows better than most that a president may well not be able to accomplish his campaign promises and focus solely on domestic issues.

Keeping the country safe is the president's primary responsibility. If we could rewind the clock and 9/11 would not have occurred, I wonder what the legacy of George W. Bush would be today. Would we have seen true education reform, a shoring up of Social Security and some sustainable policies made in the delivery of health care? A president goes to Washington with high expectations. What happens along the way sometimes is determined by forces beyond his control and the real change is in the agenda. Nonetheless, Americans need the leadership, strength and resolve of a president that always acts first class.

Laura Bush: Grace and strength

"All of us now in America have a chance to show our resilience and our courage." Shortly after 9/11, Laura Bush spoke those calming and uplifting words during a visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Mrs. Bush had visited three military personnel hospitalized for injuries received at the Pentagon. "An opportunity has opened to do what we can for our fellow Americans," she added, "to think how we can help each other and to reassure our young children. Let them know they are safe and are loved." Heartfelt expressions such as these epitomize Laura Bush in my mind. From the first day she assumed her position as First Lady of the United States of America, she did so with uncommon humility and genuineness. Mrs. Bush brought back dignity and grace to the White House. Like her mother-in-law, she did not seek to be "co-President". She understood her role to be a supporter of her husband, and while it has been reported that she frequently has advised the President and offered opinion, she has done so in that quiet, thoughtful manner that we have come to know.

Laura Bush, like her husband, has been maligned by the MSM on many occasions. I would submit the ridicule and insult have often bordered on abuse. This woman of great courage and personal strength has not failed to maintain her composure even in the face of the most vicious accusations directed toward her family. When the Bush's moved to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the country had just witnessed the devastating outcome of a First Family embroiled in personal problems, and specifically, a First Marriage that was in tatters. The Clinton's, Johnson's, and Kennedy's were all First Couples that apparently had underlying marital problems that may or may not have impacted decisions coming from the Oval Office. Whatever problems faced George W. Bush as President, the world has knew his wife stood beside him, supported him, protected her family and their privacy, and she never wavered in her love and support of her country.

During the '04 campaign, I heard a panel on CNN talking about the possibility of a Kerry White House. The pundits were giddy in anticipation of having Teresa Heinz Kerry take over. They were confident that there would be no more early bedtimes for the president and his wife. Instead, the Kerry's would entertain frequently and lavishly, inviting media and socialites to share in the grandeur. It was very disturbing to hear this group insult Mrs. Bush's entertaining style and frequency. At a time of war and unrest on many fronts, I believe the Bush's held true to their convictions that their family should be respectful of sobering events of the day, and that it was their duty to maintain a more simple and less flamboyant lifestyle than perhaps prior administrations had undertaken. In spite of media criticism, the Bush's never compromised their true sense of self or their personal preferences.

Mrs. Bush has accomplished much as First Lady, but in keeping with her personality and desire to deter attention away from herself, her work has often gone unrecognized. She isn't the type that the women on The View love to entertain. She doesn't participate in petty gossip; she does not show disrespect to former presidents or criticize policies they may have initiated. An example of her true character and belief there is good in everyone was on display during this campaign. When asked her opinion regarding Michelle Obama's comment about being proud of America for the first time in her adult life, Mrs. Bush extended a verbal hand of friendship and understanding. Always the kind ambassador, she responded that Mrs. Obama likely meant instead that now she is more proud of her country. Mrs. Bush graciously helped to cover a potentially damaging statement, something the press would never have done for her.

I will miss Laura Bush every year at Christmas time. Each year, I've enjoyed the HGTV White House Christmas décor' program that featured Mrs. Bush walking viewers through the steps involved in decorating America's House each year. This year was especially poignant because Mrs. Bush chose the Christmas decorating theme of America and red, white and blue. A true American patriot, Mrs. Bush could not have selected a more appropriate way to end her career as First Lady.

As hope and change move the country forward in 2009, and a new family occupies the living quarters of this great home, one thing remains certain for me. Laura Bush has left her mark on this country, the world and the White House in so many significant and important ways. I will miss her pleasant, engaging smile, her dedication to this country, her concern and love for children and her commitment to her husband and her family. The next First Lady comes onto the scene touted as being the next Jackie Kennedy and someone of great fashion sense and style, not to mention being blessed with shapely bare arms. I wish Mrs. Obama well and at a time in our country's history when we most assuredly need a seamless transfer of strong leadership and vision, we also need the reassurance that the White House traditions be maintained and preserved. As with the family of George and Laura Bush, the closeness and affection the Obama family displays toward each other will be important to the country's morale.

As Laura Bush accompanies her husband into their retirement years in Crawford, I wish this remarkable woman, our First Lady, God's speed. She has served us well and is entirely deserving of peace and calm---both qualities she shared with us.

The defaming of the President, 2008

No one expects political campaigns to be as calm, rational and genteel as academic seminars (although even those aren’t what they used to be), and certainly not as illuminating as the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, but the 2008 election was marked by defamation on as grand a scale as any in our nation’s history. George W. Bush may not be one of our great presidents, but he is not evil or insane. Yet the left wingers in our country, aided by a few right wingers, managed to craft an image of an administration that showed reckless disregard of the Constitution, the rights of both our citizens and foreigners, the requirements of diplomacy and our standing in the world.

Routinely, Bush was likened to Hitler, because he “invaded” Iraq, even though he was saving a people from tyranny, not imposing it. Government surveillance of enemy communications was misconstrued as “spying” on American citizens. Holding enemy combatants was confused with denying them due process rights. Indirect negotiations with Iran and six-party talks with North Korea were treated as nonexistent. These lies are only the tip of the iceberg.

This is defamation, which is “the utterance of a false statement that harms the reputation of another.” There is nothing wrong, of course, with uttering true statements that harm a person’s reputation (unless it is a privileged communication), but the distinction has been lost of late amidst the passion of self expression that has gripped our nation since the turbulent 1960s.

The turning point came with New York Times v. Sullivan (1965), a United States Supreme Court decision which held that even false statements are protected by the First Amendment if the writer or speaker did not know the statements were false at the time they were made. This constitutes malice. But, alas, the climate of allegedly “wide-open, robust debate” credits any statement agreeable to the passions of the media that publicize it.

Of course, it’s fair to say, as old pols have, that “politics ain’t beanbag,” and certainly Bush understands that, as he has been gracious under the verbal assaults and has filed no libel suits. He accepts Harry Truman’s admonition, viz., “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

It would incorrect to rank the recent campaign as the worst in history, for others come to mind, such as what the supporters of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson said about the opposing candidate in 1800, calling the former a tyrant and the latter a libertine. Or the campaign of Andrew Jackson’s supporters against incumbent John Quincy Adams in 1828, smearing that most virtuous of all presidents as immoral. Remember the nuclear blast commercial castigating Barry Goldwater in 1964?

What makes this year’s political defamation particularly galling is that it was uttered and disseminated by people in both party and media politics who make grandiose claims for their superior wisdom and virtue that are not warranted by the facts. No one has captured this pretentiousness better than Thomas Sowell, who has dubbed the advocates of the nanny state at home and appeasement abroad as “the anointed.”

Like the progressives of the late 19th and early 20th century, today’s incarnations see themselves as the better sort of people, whose job it is to lead the unenlightened masses to a promised land of harmony and plenty which is about as likely to arrive as the forever postponed utopia in the old Soviet Union. Neither the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt nor the Great Society of Lyndon Johnson managed to raise the standard of living or bring people out of poverty. Only a free market has shown that it can do that.

Coming from what are purported to be the best colleges and universities in the country, liberal politicians and journalists believe they alone are “objective” in their analysis of the nation’s and the world’s ills. They speak a peculiar language characterized by moral neutrality regarding matters of morals and moral outrage about facts that displease them.

By the evidence of this last campaign, the anointed ones feel no compunction about uttering all manner of lies about those whose offices they covet, for their pie-in-the-sky ends justify any means. There is a far-left organization aptly named By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) that defames all those seeking to end racial preference in public policy.

Many Americans, including me, were disappointed that President Bush did not succeed in Iraq sooner than he did, or that he resorted to government bailouts to deal with an economic crisis. But they have elected a faction that will use our government to ensure defeat abroad and real economic depression at home. For that we can thank, at least in part, a campaign of defamation that reduces the complexity of political issues to a matter of the elite’s personal preferences.