Subtitled “Bush Looks Back”. Feel free to exclaim your favorite expletives at this point. First paragraph…
Convatives will rebound,” President Bush said during an Oval Office interview Friday, but only with “new blood,” “new ideas,” and a “new wave” of leadership. In a candid exchange during an hour-long session with National Review editors and writers, the president conceded that his eight years in office have sometimes been tough for conservatives, but said his philosophy of “compassionate conservatism” is still the guiding belief of a majority of Americans.
How surprising to see that “candid exchange” there. “Compassionate conservatism” rises again from the graveyard for deceitful slogans. The paragraph is, necessarily, followed by the following encouragement, “Keep reading this article” with helpful arrows directing us to the land of nod.
I may not be able to make it through this. Here’s the next bit…
the president explained Friday that he remains devoted to the idea [of compassionate conservatism]. “This is a philosophy that most people adhere to,” he told us. “It wasn’t very well defended, but most people adhere to it. Compassionate conservatism basically says that if you implement this philosophy, your life would become better. That’s what it says. And that’s what it’s all about. It’s saying to the average person, this philosophy will help you make your life better. It’s the proper use of government to enable a hopeful society to develop based upon your talents and your success.”
The bridges in this guy’s noggin have been washed out. This is completely vacuous. There’s not even the slightest attempt at definition or differentiation or any sort of content at all. It is exactly as if you saw an ad where a person stands there, nothing in his hands, no background, no nothing and he says , Use doohicky. Your life will be better.” But after all, what is he to do? It is just a meaningless slogan created by Karen Hughes to attempt to ameliorate the perception that conservatives have simply not cared about citizens’ well being. It’s not a philosophy or a policy or a program. And Bush is just too stunned to fathom an inch into what his handlers are telling him to say for these “legacy” interviews.
Next sentence begins…
Elsewhere during the interview — which the president compared to doing “jumping jacks for my own book that I’m going to be writing”
Where does this guy buy his metaphors? But that “I’m going to be writing” bit sort of swamps everything in sight.
I can’t go on. Perhaps I’ll try again later. Read here if you have the energy… http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmNhMTc2M2NjYmM4ZmM1ODkyNTU2NTM3ZjlhNGM1YTM=
update: realized this commentary was a tad unfair (though merely a tad) in that I ought to have brought Marvin Olasky into the picture. Bush is undoubtedly referring to Olasky here in his typically incoherent way. As I note above, I’m doing some renovations so those additional notes will arrive a bit later. Joan Didion is the best writer to turn to on Olasky (“Political Fictions”) but here’s a taste http://www.newstatesman.com/200101220017
