When John Adams left the White House for the final time in March of 1801 he did so on a public stagecoach at 4:00 am, eight hours prior to his successor’s inauguration. Most of his political enemies and many of his friends interpreted the act as that of “a petulant old man,” leaving Washington in the dark of night, bitter after coming out on the losing end of an election which historian David McCullough describes as “a contest of personal vilification surpassing any presidential election in American history.”
The fact is, as McCullough points out, there was no precedent for a defeated president attending the inaugural of his successor, nor had Adams been invited to attend the ceremony. McCullough notes that Adams simply “felt immense relief to be homeward-bound, free finally of his burdens, his conscience ‘neat and easy’.”
There is no question that George W. Bush shares Adams’ sentiments. No president in my memory has been as vilified in the media, or by the American public, as our 43rd president. When he took his place on the Inaugural dais to witness the swearing in of his successor, Mr. Bush was greeted by the childish chants of Obama supporters: “Na-na-na-na, Na-na-na-na, Hey, Hey, Hey, Goodbye.” So much for partisan goodwill.
President Bush leaves Washington the way he came in. You may recall that on January 20, 2001, the day of George W. Bush’s first Inaugural, the Bush team entered their offices at the White House for the first time to discover that Clinton staffers had trashed them, going so far as to remove all of the “W’s” from their computers. Pettiness, it seems, is a virtue among those who support Democrat presidents.
President Bush has maintained his dignity through it all, and by doing so has demonstrated he is a superior man. If a Christian is identified by their emulation of Jesus Christ, Mr. Bush fits the description: “When he was reviled, he reviled not again.”
History will judge whether George W. Bush was a great president. But given how he has personally conducted himself in the midst of much personal vilification, it has already been decided that he is a great man. While polls tallied his rising unpopularity, Mr. Bush maintained his resolve to do what he knew was right and in the best interests of the nation, a virtue I fear will be conspicuously absent from the incoming administration.
On the evening of January 20, 2009 the former president arrived home in Midland, Texas to a warm reception given by his friends and supporters. After eight years in exile in Washington, Mr. Bush made no attempt to hide is exuberance at finally being back in the town where he was born and in the state that gave birth to and shaped his values. “Laura and I may have left Texas, but Texas never left us,” he told the gathered crowd. “I’m coming home with my head held high and a sense of accomplishment.”
Mr. Bush deserves more than the patronizing nod he received from President Obama on Inauguration Day. He has earned the thanks of a grateful nation who eventually will come to appreciate his firm resolve in the execution of his office.
While the main stream media was focusing the attention of the nation on the missteps of the prosecution of the war in Iraq, George W. Bush was focused on closing the achievement gap between white and minority students in our nation’s public schools, providing a prescription drug benefit for our seniors, cutting taxes for everybody who pays taxes in the United States of America, saving the lives of millions around the world through the funding of Malaria and HIV/AIDS initiatives, maintaining the Constitutional integrity of the Supreme Court through the appointments Samuel Alito and John Roberts, and liberating 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan from the clutches of tyranny through his unwavering commitment to the guiding principle of his administration: “The strong have an obligation to defend the weak. Freedom is a universal gift of an Almighty God, and America should use its influence to be a force for good in the world.”
Like most of his predecessors who went to sleep the most powerful man in the free world and woke up the next morning “an ordinary citizen,” Mr. Bush isn’t certain what the post-presidency holds for him. “Tomorrow I plan on having a relaxing morning in Crawford,” he told the crowd in Midland.
After bearing the burdens of the presidency for eight years, engaging an enemy unlike any that any president has ever confronted, keeping the American people safe and free, enduring the daily maligning of his character from the most partisan media in history, it is proper that Mr. Bush relish every day of his post-presidency in the warmth and understanding which can be found only at home.
After watching him endure the crucible of the presidency, who among us can begrudge that Mr. Bush is finally home, “free finally of his burdens, his conscience ‘neat and easy’”?
Jeff…wow. You were right.
I have not gotten around to reading “Auralia’s Colors” or “Cyndere’s Midnight” just yet, but they are on my bookshelf…have two Stephen King books to finish and the memoir “Beautiful Boy” and then I hope to start them.
“Have you read his book Through a Screen Darkly?”
Yes, many times. But have you read his fiction?
Paul,
Actually I DID miss the interview! What’s funny is that I was getting ready to leave work and I checked my Facebook, where I have Overstreet as a friend. And I saw that his status said he was just on your show talking about the Oscars and Radiohead!! I had a good laugh that that occurred just after I had posted that!!
Overstreet is, next to Ebert (and myself, lol), probably my favorite film critic. Have you read his book Through a Screen Darkly? Possibly the most influential book I have ever read about being a Christian and a filmgoer.
Paul,
You can spin it anyway you want but the fact is you didn’t read what I said and reacted to it. I said about Reagan “of course, I was a teen during his presidency”. That was over 20 years ago which no longer makes me a teen if you add the math. Reagan raised taxes at the end of his presidency; he signed into law an immigration bill, and was responsible for raising our debt from about 1 trillion to close to 4 trillion in his 8 years. Those are not conservative principles. Unlike yourself who likes to label me as something, I call things like I see them. I don’t get my info from “trusted” sources because everyone has an agenda. Which is why I read books by Ann Coulter, Bill O’Rielly and Ron Paul and I also read books from Thom Hartmann, Naomi Klein and even Al Frankin. Of course now I am falling into your trap and having to puff myself up to convince you that I know stuff. Keep repeating that God gets the glory of your status but you LOVE to tell people what YOU have achieved.
BTW, when I discuss ideas and am critical of some, I really am trying to have a discussion; you must be very insecure of those positions as you think I am “co-opting” them. You probably will “kick” me off this board, once again, for being blunt and honest, I really don’t care, you went over the top this time. Of course, we all need to remember it is YOUR board and YOUR talk show. Shheesh.
Jeff,
I only point out my status as a talk show host so that it is clear I have actually achieved something in life, and therefore the thoughts expressed here are not those of an immature teenager, as you implied in one of your previous posts here. To God be the glory alone for the platform(s) he has given me. You can only co-opt mine to get your views expressed.
Your suggestion that Ronald Reagan didn’t follow conservative principles is evidence your responses have diminished to liberal rants that have no basis in fact, and would be more readily (and blindly) received at say the Huffington Post or Salon.com.
Very “Christlike” humility in that response Paul, I expected none the less. Always letting folks know about your status as someone who has their own talk show. I hope that God doesn’t humble you in ways that you might not want but maybe need.
You may think I am a liberal but I actually take it an issue at a time. The reason that I am so against Bush and Reagan as I think they actually didn’t follow conservative prinicples(and used religion to get elected), not that I agree with all of the conservative platform but I think it is clear that especially Bush, he was not a true conservative. Even Greg concedes that.
You’re a lost cause, Jeff. I STILL believe Reagan is the beacon of all that IS good about this country, and I am a mature man with my own talk radio program, not a starry-eyed teen!
Regardless of your cynical views of anything and anyone associated with conservatism, government IS the problem, not the solution.
Greg,
You are so kind to explain all that, however, I have heard the reformed positions many times, Paul explains that quite well. However, how can, if it is Christ that does the work in us to make us alive spiritually, how can that then be rejected. Reformed is quite clear that is is NOTHING in us, no decision or mental accent to some knowledge, nothing. If that is the case, how can we then reject it? I don’t think there is anyway I can accept reformed idea’s I think the Bible shows over and over again where God gives us our free will to make our own choices, some accepted him and some rejected him. I think when offered the choice of Heaven and Hell forever, many would choose heaven. No offense, but this reformed idea is a very beating down theology, it puts man in such a poor light that I have to say, if God is that mean, maybe I wouldn’t want to spend forever with him. Of course, I don’t think he is. As I was listening to Paul’s show yesterday, I could only think of the term can’t see the forest through the trees. Man has created all these doctrines, calvinism/reformed, aminianism add to that all the denominational divides that we have. And through these doctrines we put God in such a small box and used the Bible to do it that we have to jump through hoops when a difficult issue like infant death happens. Our theology say one thing about God, but if we follow our theology then there is the possiblity that God could send babies to Hell. God has to be bigger then that, if he isn’t, I am not sure he is the one I want to spend forever with. Again, I say that, saying that I think he is bigger and I do want too.
Paul,
I used to think that Reagan was the beacon of all that was good about this country, of course, I was a teen during his presidency and didn’t understand the breadth and depth of his actions. I now think his action started a landslide of further bad decisions by both Clinton and both Bush’s to put us where we are now. Deregulate everything and greed will run amuck, as christian we should understand that better than others.
Chris,
Did you miss the segment I did on yesterday’s show re: the Oscar nominations with Jeffrey Overstreet?
Jeff,
Re; your post #6 above. “I want people in government that actually think government can do things to help the majority of people.”
Ronald Reagan: “In this crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government IS the problem.”
Jeff,
As sinners, that is, ones born born spiritually dead, unless we are brought to life supernaturally, we are totally unable to accept or reject the free gift of salvation. Unless god supernaturally intervenes, we simply cannot choose God. This is abundantly clear in John 15. Christ has chosen his elect for His own glory and will receive glory, not only from the elect, but from those who reject Him.
If God were to give us all justice, which we all deserve, we would all die and spend eternity in Hell, and rightfully so. We have all lied, stolen, lusted, blasphemed, dishonored our parents, coveted stuff that didn’t belong to us, which all proves that none seek after God. (Romans 3:11) “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1) Notice, it doesn’t say sin sick. This is a very misleading term that is not found in the Bible. Whenever the Bible talks about the condition of the unregenerate man (that very term implies death), it speaks of him being “dead.”
The point is, dead men don’t choose anything. They can’t. But this doesn’t mean that man does not have a will. He most certainly does. He exercises it everyday. But when it comes to salvation, left to his own devices, he will never choose God, because being spiritually dead, his “God” is ultimately himself, and man loves himself more than anything else.
Consider this. when the discussion of “free will” comes up, who is the ultimate determiner of salvation? If you believe in a totally “free will,” not matter how small the percentage of salvation man controls, he ultimately is the final determiner of his own salvation. If man can determine his own salvation, why was the Cross necessary? This is one of the points where I am so appalled by some of the pastors who are a part of the emergent church. When I hear terms like “cosmic child abuse” given to the Cross, this offends me to the core. The Cross was the greatest act of love, mercy and reconciliation that could ever have been done for sinful man.
It is so important to understand that it is not us that “accepts Jesus,” He accepts us. And I for one, am eternally grateful and will serve Him will all that I am for the rest of eternity.
“It seems that God offers us the opportunity to accept or reject his free gift.”
Do you choose your own gifts?
Oh now come on, not again…….
“Air America is just a bunch of angry ideologues that if they got all of their listeners together would have a hard time filling up a phone booth.”
Funny they same the same thing about conservatives. I can’t stand the far extremes of either side of the isle, they both are obnoxious. Randy Rhodes and Mike Savage are both unworthy of air time. Thom Hartmann is very liberal but he has conservatives on all the time to debate and I have to say, idea v idea. Hartmann blows them away and it’s not because he over shouts the guest ala Bill O’Reilly.
BTW, Paul,I would love it if you could put up blog posts on the topic you discussed today. There is a part of reformed theology that seems contrdictry, if salvation requires nothing of ourselves and it is all Christ doing the work in us, then how can we reject it? It seems that God offers us the opportunity to accept or reject his free gift. thus free will.
Jeff,
I remember the Donovan McNabb flap as well, but the point of those comments were not intended to be a slam against McNabb. McNabb is an extremely talented quarterback. The slam was against the media who wanted McNabb to succeed, not because of his talent, but simply because he is black.
The whole racial issue in this country is getting way out of hand. Tom Brokaw’s disgusting commentary on Tuesday regarding rednecks in the south during the sixties (he fails to mention that guys like Bull Connor, George Wallace, Lester Maddox and J. William Fulbright were all Democrats!) and basically told them to “take that.” (referring to the election of Obama) Then there was Joseph Lowry’s “prayer” at the inauguration. Did you happen to notice at the end of his “prayer” when he started rhyming the different colors that represent race that the only negative one was against whites? Whites clearly make up the majority in this country and we just elected a black man as president. What more do you want? Slavery ended in 1863, but I guess that just not good enough for some people. Oh, just give me a whip and I’ll just beat myself to death until I can appease the Reverend Dr. Lowry. Maybe if all us white people just join together and beat ourselves, Dr. Lowry would just forgive us! I wouldn’t count on it!
In the grand scheme of things, what difference does it really make what color our skin is, especially since we have elected our first black president (if you don’t count Bill Clinton, what a crock that was)?
To be honest, I am not familiar with Thom Hartmann, but I agree with you that Juan Williams is not an “Air America” type. Why do you think he is one of my favorite liberals? Air America is just a bunch of angry ideologues that if they got all of their listeners together would have a hard time filling up a phone booth! Who needs that?
Paul
I love Chris’ idea, then you could give it a segment on the show and call it the God and PopCulture segment. HAHA
Thanks for the compliments, guys. If only I could convince some REAL papers of this, then I wouldn’t be stuck at a weekly 😉
By the way, this is the God and Culture Blog, so we need to a post to discuss the REAL cultural outrage–the sad 13 Oscar noms given to the overrated Benjamin Button!!
Paul, loved your on-air thoughts about “Doubt.” Would love to see more film discussion on here (I am an official critic and member of the Detroit Film Critics Society, so can also feel free to have a guest blogger or even Christian critic on your program, lol).
BTW, I never really considered Juan a “liberal” in the Air America sense, just like with Hannity and Colmes the liberals on Fox tend to agree with the conservatives and always let them win the conversation. I would like to see Fox put on Thom Hartmann and see who makes the better arguments. Thom Hartmann is my favorite liberal, he is not in your face and can articulate thoughts and idea’s well. Sorta like the JFK type liberal…….
Greg,
Thanks for posting this, while I agree, we need to judge Obama on his merits and not tip toe if Obama makes mistakes. I do take issue with his mention of Rush’s comments about McNabb, at the time I was all into Rush, but I even thought those comments were over the top. McNabb was one of the best in the league and still is toward the top and aside from TO has never had a decent WR to work with. As a fantasy football player I pay close attention to this stuff. 😉
You guys need to read this brilliant piece by Juan Williams, by no means a conservative. In fact, he’s one of my favorite liberals.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123249791178500439.html#
Jeff,
I agree that the Obama salary freeze is merely symbolic. Mr. President, do something substantial. Like actually follow through on your campaign promise to evaluate all government programs and eliminate the wasteful and redundant ones. (Like THAT’s ever gonna happen!)
Transparency? In government? While there are a number of people in Congress who actually agree with you, that they work for us, most are beholden to either the power they have, or the acceptance they crave. As I have said before, I am blessed to live in a district where not only my Congressional Representative is a rock solid conservative, both of my Senators are as well! (Even though both of my Senators voted for the bailout, but that’s only one strike against them.)
Lobbyist efforts unfortunately are a part of the way our government works and if Congress were to ever limit them, I think it would cause a huge first amendment lawsuit. (These people have TONS of money, which is why Congress LOVES them! Lots of money with lots of power leads to the ultimate rush!)
Wow! We are pretty close on these issues! But the one thing on which I totally agree, I’m not holding my breath that any of this is going to happen! But as a Reformed thinker, I know God is in control and has a plan here for His glory! So there rests my hope!
Since we are on this topic, any thoughts on the Obama salary freeze for his advisors and the Exec order to open up the government to more transparency, in addition to making it harder for lobbyist to affect his administraton?
– Personally, I think the salary freeze is moot but a good political move. How many folks are we talking about and how much money? Not much, but is makes folks feel good about it. (see, I am not a crony)
– Opening up to more transparancy? It shouldn’t be closed, they work for us, something the previous administration forgot.
– Lobbyist efforts – I don’t know what is entailed here but I don’t know how he can do this, lobbyist run this country and the politicians bow to their contributions. Right or Left, Maybe this is a new day? not holding my breathe
While we may disagree on much, Chris, you have an excellent gift of presenting your thoughts in a kind and gracious manner, and for that I am appreciative.
And by the way, as long as your giving away abortions for everyone, where can I go for mine? I can’t have one? That’s just not fair!
Just a little poke in the eye. Among friends of course! 😀
You can tell that Chris is a writer, he has a way with words and grace that I simply don’t have nor have the patience to spend the time to write out. I actually agree with a lot of what he said. Kudos
Chris,
Thanks for a reasoned and dispassionate response.
I think Bush was a man with good intentions who was totally unprepared to lead and, unfortunately, surrounded himself with people were either total “yes men” (Condoleeza Rice) or wanted to push their own agendas (Dick Cheney). He was stubborn, which can be a good trait in a leader–unless they’re too stubborn to see when they are wrong. Iraq is a perfect example of this—Bush’s original idea of going into Iraq, based on WMD, was one I supported. But when we learned that there were no WMDs, he never admitted failure but simply changed his reasonings over and again.
I don’t think he’s a stupid man but neither do I think he had the intellect and common sense to be put in a position as President. I think his presidency was based on his desire to follow in the family tradition and his bizarre ability to position himself as an outsider, when he was actually the ultimate insider. He may have been elected because he was the President people wanted to have a beer with…but how many of your friends would you want to be President?
He has been reviled for his reaction to 9/11, but I think history will vindicate him there. I don’t buy the Michael Moore rhetoric that his reaction was ignorant or dumb-founded. He showed grace under pressure and there is a reason his approval rating was so high in the days following. If he would have then allowed his focus to stay on uniting the nation and improving things at home, I feel he could have been a good President…but then he spent the majority of his time in office focused overseas while the economy tanked and, unfortunately, I think he was put into a spiral that he could not come back from.
I’m interested to see Bush get back into private life. I think that’s where he belongs and will be at his best. I’d love to see him get back involved with baseball or humanitarian causes. I just don’t think he’s an individual who was cut out for politics. I hold no ill will against him, even if I question whether his faith was as genuine as he said or whether it was a political tool (a question, I confess, I have no right asking).
But he is no longer President. And I support President Obama. I think he has the expertise, intelligence and good common sense to be a great President and I’m hoping he is able to help restore the nation to its right place by fixing the economy, focusing on the issues at home and helping put an end to unemployment. Those are the issues that matter to me right now.
Oh, and abortions for everyone!! 😉 (sorry, had to get my ‘liberal agenda’ in there!)
Daddy connections may help with admissions, but if an institution is to remain credible, the student must pass on his own merit, whether he is an A, B or C student. You do make a good point on the wealth of many counselors. “He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed.” – Proverbs 13:20. Maybe this is why the media could not destroy him!
Daddy’s connections really helped, not only that but he even admitted he wasn’t the most “scholarly” of students. Bush was a low C student. I like I said, the people he surrounded himself with were brilliant, not the nicest people in the world but brilliant. I give him credit for following the biblical proverb of a wise man has many wise counselors. Gaffs in pressers happen from time to time but Bush redefined those and we have a term because they happened so often, Bushisms.
Jeff,
So, Harvard AND Yale give degrees to stupid people. I’m sure they would appreciate your ringing endorsement. Get over it, Dude!
By the way, here is an article by Thomas Sowell (whose brain is so huge, he makes all of us sound like Neanderthals!) on the Bush legacy.
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=45003488090&h=6Ds-A&u=53BQW
When I speak of Bush, often times I am referring to the Bush Administration. I truly think he is not that intelligent of a person(aside from his awful press conferences) and he surrounded himself with smart people, evil, but smart people.
The question was not whether Bush had anything to do with it or not. I’m not an idiot. The question was do you think that was the only factor in his animosity?
The problem with Clinton’s foreign policy was the fact that he was not particularly interested in it until it was an opportunity to get the spotlight off of his own personal scandals. The only thing Clinton cared about was Clinton and whenever he did do something that was truly beneficial for the country, like welfare reform, balancing the budget, and NAFTA (No NOT THAT!!!) he only did it because it helped him in the polls.
Paul,
If the Obama administration, tortures, starts more illegal wars, stonewalls investigations, conducts government in secrecy, expands spying on all americans, and has a fiscal policy that helps the top .5% over the rest of the 99.5%? Yeah I will be critical of Obama. Paul, I am not going to deny that I am leaning left. I want people in government that actually think government can do things to help the majority of people.
Greg,
Do I think that Bush’s policy in Iraq affected what the shoe thrower did? Um, you don’t? Absolutely, living in sterling heights I have many nieghbors from Iraq and they would wait in line to throw a shoe at him.
Let me also state, when I am critical of our foriegn policy it transends Bush. Clinton was just as hawkish as both Bush’s have been.
I hope Obama pays off my mortgage and that rest of my debt! If no one else wants to take responsibility for themselves, why should I? 😉
I just saw it on Oprah…There is a wave of hope and awe sweeping through the country. People are hugging each other for no reason at all…soon they will be sending presents. This I am sure will boost the economy! I hope I get something good!
When Bush boosted the economy…we got a new riding lawn mower.
You just can’t let it go can you?!! For all of your talk about Christian values and you can’t just let one post honoring a man who has served this country with a fervor for the safety of it’s people and actually has convictions based on conscience, go by without throwing in another cheap shot.
Take Bush out of the equation for a moment. Do you REALLY think that guy that threw the shoe at him had his attitude changed about the United States based on this war? If you do, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn I would love to sell you at a very reasonable price. Their hatred for us started started well over a thousand years prior to the founding of this country. You can spout your drivel that we caused them to hate us because of the Crusades, but if you honestly check history, the Crusades were the response to Islamic aggression against Christian and Jewish settlements in the Holy Land. They hate us and wish nothing but harm to us. No, it just seems to me that you have never decried the terrorists actions or the actions of Saddam Hussein beginning with the 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Oh, I guess that just doesn’t matter. Wait! That’s right! Bush 41 was President then! He was a warmonger too! Like father, like son, right?!
I’m sorry my friend, your words are pathetic. You need to just get over it and let it go. HE IS NO LONGER PRESIDENT! Throw a party and have a fit for yourself. And while you’re at it, call Keith Olbermann and plot how you can string him up and start your own version of Nazi war atrocities! Why not tar and feather him! Maybe bind and quarter him! I KNOW! LET’S BURN HIM AT THE STAKE! The possibilities are endless!
I’m just sick of hearing it! Give it a rest!
Jeff,
I hope you apply your cynicism as fairly to President Obama as you have unfairly applied it to GWB. Deny it all you want, but you ARE a liberal.
I was feeling quite “blah” today Paul, until I read this, there were some very funny parts to it. Thanks The part about liberating the Iraqi’s was the best of them all. Which is why they throw shoes at him, right? Is that somehow the highest form of praise that a Muslim can give? Is that how the right wing world is interpreting it?