Obama Sets New Tone: Says Bush Is A “Good Guy”
As cartoonists continue to have a field day lampooning him (see above) and polls continue show him falling in popularity faster than Circuit City stock, President George Bush got some words in his defense from someone who some wouldn’t expect to speak so fondly of him — President Elect Barack Obama.
This is yet one more indication that when Obama said he wanted to “change the tone” in Washington he was apparently serious about phasing out the era of partisan demonization and personal hatred that has come to mark early 21st century American politics. His words probably will not please some on the Democratic party’s left:
After two years of traveling around the country and criticizing President Bush, President-elect Barack Obama said Friday that he “always thought [Bush] was a good guy.”
“I mean, I think personally he is a good man who loves his family and loves his country,” Obama said in an exclusive interview with CNN’s John King.
In the political world these days — fueled by a talk radio style confrontational, ranting, rage-filled tone — it is NOT a “given” that a politician will take the time to say nice things about a political foe. And Obama didn’t stop there:
During the election season, Obama frequently campaigned against what he called Bush’s “failed policies” and promised a “clean break” from the past eight years.
Asked if there was anything he wanted to take back, now that he has spent more time with the president, Obama praised Bush’s team for helping with a smooth transition and said part of what America is about is being able to have “disagreements politically and yet treat each other civilly.”
Obama also said he thought Bush made “the best decisions that he could at times under some very difficult circumstances.”
“That does not detract from my assessment that over the last several years, we have made a series of bad choices and we are now going to be inheriting the consequences of a lot of those bad choices,” Obama said.
And it is a distinction: someone can be a sincere person and still be out to lunch.
Many Americans have now concluded that Bush was not only out to lunch but out to breakfast, dinner and mid-day snack. Just read THIS EDITORIAL in the normally pro-Bush San Diego Union Tribune.
The current political scene seems to favor political discussions where a person is belittled or attacked on all fronts because of their politics. Obama seems to be trying to pull in the reins of a galloping political culture, veer it back to the days when bitter foes in Congress could get together and have lunch together and still enjoy each others’ company — and respect — even if they were in different political parties.
On the other hand, Obama is still in the honeymoon period (he hasn’t been sworn in yet), and both parties need to whip up their partisans to garner support in terms of contributions, activists and voting blocks.
But Bush isn’t the only one to whom Obama is signaling personal respect. What will he be doing Monday night? According to The Washington Post, he’ll be hosting a dinner for the man he defeated for the Presidency, Republican Arizona Senator John McCain:
President-elect Barack Obama will host a dinner honoring Sen. John McCain, the Republican he tromped in the election, the night before his inauguration, the Presidential Inaugural Committee announced yesterday, saying the gesture demonstrates Obama’s “commitment to bridging the bipartisan divide.”
The dinner will be one of a series that night: Gen. Colin Powell and Vice President-elect Joe Biden also will be feted.
“In these times of great challenge and great change, leadership requires rising above the same old narrow partisanship,” Obama said on the PIC Web site. “Each of these distinguished Americans has spent his life in service to his country, at each and every moment placing the interests of America before issues of political party.”
So Obama will honor McCain, and it sounds sincere (unless it turns out that McCain’s food was prepared by Joe the Plumber).
Cartoon by Patrick Chappatte, NZZ am Sonntag
opinions powered by SendLove.to
8 Responses to “Obama Sets New Tone: Says Bush Is A “Good Guy””
Same thing could have been said about Franco, Salazar or Pinochet. It did not stop them from killing thousands of civilians.
Don, why not Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao? I mean, if you're going to damn by implication, why aim low?
I respect the fact that you were trying to make a point, even if the way in which you did so played exactly into Joe's argument.
By the way, I think personally you are a good man who loves his family and loves his country.
TeaFizz,
Joe's argument is about harsh rhetoric tied to political differences. Bush did not merely subscribe to detestable politics, but more importantly, he perpetrated crimes like torture and illegal surveillance. He is also directly responsible for causalities numbering in the hundreds of thousands.
I completely missed that. Sorry.
And Chris, I won't argue about it's ethics, but I'm pretty sure the outgoing administration has it's legal bases covered.
Not sure why Iraq is in the “failure” category. By any measure, it is a success. Historians will give to Bush what partisan cartoonists will not.
Actually, I take that back.
What I meant to say is that I doubt anyone will get prosecuted over it (whether they have their legal bases covered or not).
“By any measure, it is a success.”
No, it's not. Not by any measure, that is. The war was easily won if you just look at overthrowing Saddam. But he had nothing to do with 9/11 and there are many tyrants that the United States has not overthrown. And frankly, there is absolutely no excuse for the horrendous failure to plan for a post-war Iraq. According to globalsecurity.com there have been 4,155 American troops killed and 30,182 wounded. A relatively conservative estimate from Iraq Body Count puts the deaths of Iraqi civilians at somewhere between 90,000 and 98,000. And all of this is in pursuit of a goal that has yet to be realized and could see what progress there has been fall apart at any time. The price has been too high given that most of it was avoidable.