Peggy Noonan: Some Republicans Would “Fire” Bush If They Could
Wall Street Journal columnist and former Ronald Reagan writer Peggy Noonan has made it known in the past that she has soured on President George Bush.
But in her latest column, she suggests that she has totally had it — and that other Republicans would fire him if they had a chance.
The key point is in the sub-headline:
We can’t fire the president right now, so we’re waiting it out.
She raises the issue at the very start of her piece which is yet another sign that there are many Republicans who are not saying “ditto” like some talk show hosts to everything George Bush says, does and or the attitude he now projects in his public appearances:
It’s been a slow week in a hot era. I found myself Thursday watching President Bush’s news conference and thinking about what it is about him, real or perceived, that makes people who used to smile at the mention of his name now grit their teeth. I mean what it is apart from the huge and obvious issues on which they might disagree with him.
I’m not referring to what used to be called Bush Derangement Syndrome. That phrase suggested that to passionately dislike the president was to be somewhat unhinged. No one thinks that anymore. I received an email before the news conference from as rock-ribbed a Republican as you can find, a Georgia woman (middle-aged, entrepreneurial) who’d previously supported him. She said she’d had it. “I don’t believe a word that comes out of his mouth.” I was startled by her vehemence only because she is, as I said, rock-ribbed. Her email reminded me of another, one a friend received some months ago: “I took the W off my car today,” it said on the subject line. It sounded like a country western song, like a great lament.
At the very end of her piece, Noonan hits her key theme:
Americans hire presidents and fire them. They’re not as sweet about it as they used to be. This is not because they have grown cynical, but because they are disappointed, by both teams and both sides. Some part of them thinks no matter who is president he will not protect them from forces at work in the world. Some part of them fears that when history looks back on this moment, on the past few presidents and the next few, it will say: Those men were not big enough for the era.
But this is a democracy. You vote, you do the best you can with the choices presented, and you show the appropriate opposition to the guy who seems most likely to bring trouble.
And she nails it: part of the process of American voting is picking one who you think will do the worst harm to your own political values and what you perceive to be the nation’s values.
But, we should add, underlying this vote are two assumptions:
#1: That the person you vote for will be competent overall,
and..
#2 That the American system of democracy with its carefully thought-out and (up-till-now) cherished system of checks and balances will in the end prevent anyone from doing endless harm —and prevent someone who turns out to be a “dud” from ruining the whole candy store or turning it into another kind of store.
Noonan ends her piece with this:
Americans can’t fire the president right now, so they’re waiting it out. They can tell a pollster how they feel, and they do, and they can tell friends, and they do that too. They also watch the news conference, and grit their teeth a bit.
The only problem in “waiting it out” (which is most likely what will happen despite all the wishful thinking in some quarters about impeachment) is that there are huge consequences.
if Republicans feel as many Democrats and now independents do that Iraq policy is at the very least poorly planned and can’t reach the goals originally announced by Bush when he FIRST announced his plans (not the fudging and instant revision of history that this administration picks up and its followers instantly accept where they change their definitions during various crises when it look like they’re not doing what they said they would do or what would happen — or they deny they ever said certain things that are documented on video tape) then the net result is that some young Americans will die. As time runs out, so do lives will end
This is a situation unprecedented in American history.
Even during the Vietnam War, there was a perception that Johnson would follow existing norms of American government. Even during Watergate, although there were fears Nixon would not go quietly into his helicopter (as he finally did), he deferred to American institutions such as the Congress, the courts and even to the will of his party leaders in Congress.
All such bets are off with these folks. The Bush administration seems to be testing government’s limits, virtually defying Congress to do anything about it and — seemingly lurking in the background — perhaps counting on the fact if these matters do go all the way up to the Supreme Court they’ll win since they now have more sympathetic people in place. The net result will be an altered form of American government.
Noonan notes one thing that is troubling her: the President is supremely confident, no matter what the crisis or challenge. She writes:
Is it defiance? Denial? Is it that he’s right and you’re wrong, which is your problem? Is he faking a certain steely good cheer to show his foes from Washington to Baghdad that the American president is neither beaten nor bowed? Fair enough: Presidents can’t sit around and moan. But it doesn’t look like an act. People would feel better to know his lack of success sometimes gets to him. It gets to them.
Or could it be that in the end he can do what he wants to do because he and his team of lawyers have concluded that they can take everything to the mat but Congress, any judges who disagree with him, the press and disgruntled Americans won’t have the stomach to go to the mat as Bush injects ultra-partisanship into American institutions and checks and balances the same way he and Karl Rove injected it into elections?
It now seems evident that on Iraq policy, documents sought by Congress and a host of other matters, the administration feels the executive branch can do what it wants…and get away with it,,,,because the political and institutional and political opposition will blink in the end.
Noonan’s piece is also notable because she also chronicles Bush’s rhetorical technique of framing issues in a way so that he is the only noble and virtuous one and anyone who opposes him either has bad motives or is dumb:
In arguing for the right path as he sees it, the president more and more claims for himself virtues that the other side, by inference, lacks. He is “idealistic”; those who oppose him are, apparently, lacking in ideals. He makes his decisions “based on principle,” unlike his critics, who are ever watchful of the polls. He is steadfast, brave, he believes “freedom isn’t just for Americans” but has “universal . . . applications,” unlike those selfish, isolationist types who oppose him.
This is ungracious as a rhetorical approach, but not unprecedented. There’s something in the White House water system. Presidents all wind up being gallant in their own eyes. Thursday I was reminded of President Nixon, who often noted he was resisting those who were always advising him to “take the easy way.” Bill Safire used to joke that when he was a Nixon speechwriter, part of his job was to walk by the Oval Office and yell in, “Mr. President, take the easy way!”
There’s more, so read it all.
CAUTION: Opinion pieces such as Noonan’s (and this) are snapshots. Presumably, something can happen tomorrow that will cause the Democrats to overreach, or Bush will respond to it and many Republicans will yell “Bravo!”
But that won’t change the general job performance.
Or the fact that this White House and this President seemingly feel they can pick and choose laws to obey, ignore centuries of protocol about the way the executive branch responds and respects Congress, and in effect reshape the way the American system of government checks and balances operates — and that no one or either party will really go to the mat on it.
Perhaps that’s the reason for his smile.
16 Responses to “Peggy Noonan: Some Republicans Would “Fire” Bush If They Could”
While Peggy was critical in this piece, Bruce Fein appeared on Moyers(PBS) yesterday advocating impeachment of Bush and Cheney. The paleocons/libertarians at AFA cannot be accused of being liberal Bush haters. Hat tip to Sully, I watched some of the show last night and couldn’t believe my ears.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/transcript4.html
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/07/vive-la-resis-2.html
I had to laugh when I saw this. So much for that tired canard from the right, that BDS is an irrational syndrome that only afflicts left-wingers.
Conservatives should be angry with Bush because he has done more to destroy the Republican party than any Democratic challenger could ever do. They championed Ronald Reagan for successfully uniting the conservative movement and advancing its agenda, so its only fair that they should be vilifying Bush for squandering his opportunities to solidify it.
If Congress turns on Bush in sufficient numbers (which is not totally out of the realm of possibility especially if it looks more and more like a Democrat is going to win the Presidency and Republicans decide to help get some checks back) ball things could get really interesting.
Mikkel – Here is a snippet of the exchange between Fein, Moyers and Nichols. They advocate impeachment, not to remove Cheney and Bush, but as a push to make them obey the Constitution. The Republicans could have impeached Clinton with a penalty of censure, not overturing an election. If Cheney and Bush obey the laws they can stay. Delay and the gang wanted to remove Clenis, not punish him for perjury. The important details are in bold.
Kim is right. But I think it goes even farther. President Bush has damaged conservatism, not just the Republican Party.
Joe is right, too. It’s not a question of just waiting it out. It’s a question of how much more damage he can do over the next year and a half–which is a long time.
This just shows how impatient the Democrats are. In 18 months the Democrats will be in total control of the government. In 2.5 months, the new fiscal year begins and Congress can force the Bush Administration do to what it wants without having to overcome closure in the Senate.
Yet, the Democrats just want to force the subject on a non-issue. Tis shows to believe that the Democrats believe that they will never be in the minority again and thus can push as hard as they want.
Superdestroyer-
No idea what “non-issue” you’re talking about, but Peggy Noonan is not a Democrat.
super – Read my long blockquote or read the entire transcript from Moyers. The precedents created by Bush, without pushback by Congress, will be implied powers for President Hillary. She could lock up the entire staff of NRO saying they give material support to the ENEMY. No habeus for Kate-o or Rich Lowsery.
I have always felt that Bush believes that he is God’s anointed to lead this nation at this time of crisis and he has no thought that any decision could be wrong. He fervently believes as a born again Christian that his policies will be vindicated, that some God directed miracle will salvage all of this in the end, perhaps even after he has left office. His complete confidence in the rightness of his actions and complete unwillingness to see any other side I think can only be explained by this world view. He can do no wrong, God is on his side.
The Moyers interviews highlighted the fact that Congress has stopped taking the Constitution seriously, as well. Everything is done for political ends, not with a view to honoring and preserving our form of government, as set out in the Constituion. One of them (I forget who) suggested that anyone elected to office should be required to be properly informed on this subject. (remedial education?).
Let’s correct the record here. It was the *Republican* Congress members that stopped taking the Constitution seriously and they continue to enable Bush to do anything *except* the will of the people as regards to Iraq. Even when Congress turns against him, he will just ignore them and run out the clock. It is time to start impeachment before he can do any more damage to OUR country.
It should also be noted that the Democrats in the Senate have a very thin majority – one even thinner than the numbers indicate. Lieberman votes with the GOP, and Tim Johnson is still convalescing. The GOP, even though it’s the minority Party, can and has stymied legislation by refusing to vote to end debate.
Impeachment begins in the House, where the Democrats have better numbers. I don’t know why they don’t begin impeachment hearings, unless the maneuvering with subpeonas is meant to set a foundation for impeachment proceedings. One can hope, anyway.
Red and Casey-
Who started this mess is a separate question from how we should proceed forward.
Using Congressional precedures for political punishement iscorrosive because this leads to a pile-up of more bad precedents on top of already bad prededents.
We badly need a return to the basic principles set out in the Constituion re equal branches of governement. If this is done as political punixhment instead of a governmental correction, we will see endles cycles of revenge for revenge.
We need courageous people in Washington who understand the important difference between correction and revenge and between politics and governance.
Yeah, Peggy’s a helluva patriot.
Her President only has to lie us into a war, after incompetently protecting the nation, failing to seek those who really attacked it, wreck the economy, destroy the surplus and environment, ignore global warming, and then- dang, it all comes together for her!
Actually, the turning point for Noonan came during the battle over the immigration bill, when Bush attacked his own base for not doing what was best for the country. She wrote a scathing commentary complaining that conservatives had stuck with the president through all of his failures, only to come under attack when they parted ways. That was the last straw, now she has turned totally against him.
I know, Kim. I was being facetious.