As an Ohio newspaper with liberal aspirations, the
Dayton Daily News worries about offending desperately needed subscribers, usually managing to offend everybody instead. Their way of "praising" Bush is to compare him to . . . his father and Clinton!
Bush eyes the center; this can't hurt
It marked a turn for this presidency. George W. Bush, having once been a darling of the aggressive conservatives -- an in-your-face kind of president, ideologically speaking -- gave a speech Tuesday that turned toward the political center. It could have come from his father, of all people.
So now the president takes a page from Bill Clinton -- of all other people. That president also turned away from boldness and combativeness, toward the center, after running into trouble. It seemed to work.
They point out that he is sticking to his in-your-face guns in the area of foreign policy, and note that he ignored the heart of the issue in speaking of the war in Iraq.
Not so much on foreign policy. On that, he gave his customary, impassioned defense of rooting out not only terrorism, but tyranny. That took the first half of his speech, which shows what he thinks his presidency is all about.
He equated the war in Iraq with the war against terrorism, jumping over the question of whether there is any real connection. That's the basic issue. So he probably didn't make much progress with people who have been skeptical all along. But his goal was to make clear that he isn't losing heart.
As always, cartoonist Mike Peters is blunter.
Mike Peters in the Dayton Daily News
I can't view a Bush speech without a dangerous rise in blood pressure, but I've read parts of it, and read left and right POVs on the speech. I conclude that it was the same old, same old. His speechwriters seem to be stuck at a place where amateur writers remain. It's all abstractions--"spreading freedom," "spend wisely," "bring hope to harsh places," "the advance of freedom will lead to peace." It sounds as though it was written by an earnest high school freshman who never heard that you should have concrete examples to illustrate your points. The reasoning is similarly simplistic and immature. Just in skimming it I found a contradiction in this paragraph.
The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies. They seek to impose and expand an empire of oppression, in which a tiny group of brutal, self-appointed rulers control every aspect of every life. Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens, and reflect their own cultures. And because democracies respect their own people and their neighbors, the advance of freedom will lead to peace.
So other countries are free to choose any form of government they want, as long as it's a democracy? Of course even a democratic form of government isn't acceptable to us if the wrong sort (such as members of Hamas) are elected. Have we got evidence that democracies respect their neighbors? Hitler was elected, wasn't he? What the hell does this paragraph mean?
I believe I've figured out what disturbs me the most about his predictable delivery of shallow clichés in every speech he makes. After each laboriously uttered line, he looks up expectantly with a "Look what I can do!" expression on his face.
My grandmother loved to tell the story of my father's toilet training. He was a much loved only child, and I'm sure that she used many carrots and no sticks to accomplish the task. His deposits in the potty were undoubtedly praised to the skies. At one point he retired privately with his solid silver christening cup. He then presented it to his mother, full of fresh shit. He was only two years old. She laughed.
When the President of the United States presents me with stale shit showcased on every network, I don't laugh. I get nauseated.