...And I shake my head...

Bush says he had to wreck the economy, to save the economy.

US President George W. Bush said in an interview Tuesday he was forced to sacrifice free market principles to save the economy from "collapse." "I've abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system," Bush told CNN television, saying he had made the decision "to make sure the economy doesn't collapse." Bush's comments reflect an extraordinary departure from his longtime advocacy for an unfettered free market, as his administration has orchestrated unprecedented government intervention in the face of a dire financial crisis. "I am sorry we're having to do it," Bush said. But Bush said government action was necessary to ease the effects of the crisis, offering perhaps his most dire assessment yet of the country's economy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, King, but isn't the only way to save the free market to enact and to engage in behavior consistent with those very principles that make it viable? Can one "save" the free market by enacting policies that are antithetical to same, and which by their very nature and in every other known circumstance act to thwart the growth of a free-market economy and benefits thereof? If so, then when is the correct time to right the ship back on that course of economic freedom and the prosperity (and risk) that goes along with it? Can one merely parcel a free market and expect it to then flourish?

You know, Bush has been more than gracious toward his malevolent detractors lo' these past eight years, what with the "new tone" and all. Could it be that President Bush is leaving Obama and the democrats (and, unfortunately this nation) with a poke in the eye? Somehow, that just doesn't seem to be his style, which, to this point, has been largely to go along to get along. Or, alternatively, has what has been at best a short-term pseudo-fix (if that) been enacted merely in an effort to provide the Obama administration with a set of training wheels, and to hell with our collective futures?

"I feel a sense of obligation to my successor to make sure there is not a, you know, a huge economic crisis. Look, we're in a crisis now. I mean, this is -- we're in a huge recession, but I don't want to make it even worse."

Question Mr. President: have the bailouts really made anything better? In the short or in the foreseeable long term?

I didn't think so.

What hath the "New Tone" wrought?

While I've admired President Bush for many reasons, what I could never understand was the President's reluctance to answer the many unfounded, over-the-top criticisms and out-and-out attacks that were foisted upon him by the left of this nation.

Paul Kengor addresses this in a must-read piece at the American Thinker. For all of the Bush Administration's successes, most notably his success via perseverance of his Iraq war policy, President Bush's "new tone" policy set the stage for the relentless, unanswered barrages of assaults by the leftists of this nation and around the world.

The "feel-good" language espoused by many democrats regarding "getting along" and their supposed pining to end the "politics of personal destruction," in the end, of course, was so much political puffery. On the other hand, George Bush's "new tone" was not only a buzzword, but S.O.P. for his administration. As with nearly every aspect of his administration (and what those on the left could never fathom nor abide), Bush actually meant what he said and said what he meant when he proclaimed that he would establish "a new tone" in Washington.

Paul Kengor asserts that Bush's "new tone" was a spinoff of his adherence to his evangelical Christian roots; specifically with regard to the principle of "turning the other cheek (Luke 6:29)."

While a president's abiding by principle is certainly to be lauded, the application of this principle to Bush's leftist detractors during his administration yielded disastrous, and yes, even dangerous results. Turning the other cheek allowed the leftists to set the agenda for debate, and allowed them relatively free rein in their efforts to dangerously damage the morale of this country with carte-blanche levels of seditious rhetoric and out-and-out falsehoods. Bush's "new tone" allowed the leftist elements of this country to give licentious aid and comfort to America's enemies during a time when our sons and daughters were in harm's way, giving our enemies encouragement to climb out of their caves and kill another day. Bush's "new tone" has made it much easier for democrats and other leftist elements to continue relatively unabated on a roll of propaganda based on contrivances that continues to this day, on every issue from energy to foreign policy.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration's failure to utilize the bully pulpit to answer unjust criticism and attacks from detractors has left those of us on the right side of the aisle to do all the heavy lifting; which was all well and good, but not enough.

President Bush has many legislative and policy accomplishments for which to be proud. But public opinion and debate in the arena of ideas are also matters of import.

It is my opinion that President Bush's "new tone" policy is a virtual handbook of how not to play the game.

Class... vs. no class.

From inviting Teddy Kennedy for movie night, to allowing the democrats to write his education plan, President Bush has bent over backward to enact the "new tone" he set out to implement in Washington.

Say what you want about Bush, but he has been gracious in all things, resorting to criticism of his opponents in only the most dire of situations. Despite attack after virulent attack, President Bush, honoring his office, has again and again taken the high road, not allowing his office to wallow in the pit of hyper-partisan politics.

Such was the case when Bush graciously hosted Al Gore at a gathering today at the White House...
Yes, the very same Al Gore who was the progenitor of this tirade:Yet the very same Al Gore who at one time (in 2002) had this to say:

In a speech February 12, his first major political address since the US Supreme Court stopped a vote count in Florida and handed the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush, the Democratic presidential candidate, Al Gore, declared his full support to the Bush administration’s plans for expanded warfare in the Middle East. Gore called for a “final reckoning” with Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.

The former vice president spoke in New York City before a meeting of the Council on Foreign Relations, the think tank that publishes Foreign Affairs and has long exercised important influence on foreign policy, whether the occupant of the White House was a Democrat or Republican.

Gore specifically solidarized himself with the “axis of evil” rhetoric in Bush’s State of the Union speech. Bush’s bellicose language—particularly his singling out of Iraq, Iran and North Korea—has been widely denounced in Europe and criticized even by several congressional leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel.

“As far as I’m concerned, there really is something to be said for occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one’s cards on the table,” Gore said. “There is value in calling evil by its name. One should never underestimate the power of bold words coming from a president of the United States.”

And yes, the same Al Gore who had this to say back in 1992:

While President Bush has remained steadfast in his principle that the world needs to be rid of Islamic Fascism and terrorism in all its forms, democrats like Al Gore, Ted Kennedy and Dhimmi Carter have been doing their level best to play populist politics like a dime-store piano.

Yet President Bush continues to take the high road.

Class-- or no class?

You decide.