The Treatment of Bush Has Been a Disgrace
What must our enemies be thinking?By JEFFREY SCOTT SHAPIRO

Earlier this year, 12,000 people in San Francisco signed a petition in support of a proposition on a local ballot to rename an Oceanside sewage plant after George W. Bush. The proposition is only one example of the classless disrespect many Americans have shown the president.

According to recent Gallup polls, the president's average approval rating is below 30% -- down from his 90% approval in the wake of 9/11. Mr. Bush has endured relentless attacks from the left while facing abandonment from the right.

This is the price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with both Democrats and Republicans. During his 2004 victory speech, the president reached out to voters who supported his opponent, John Kerry, and said, "Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust."

Those bipartisan efforts have been met with crushing resistance from both political parties.

The president's original Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers alarmed Republicans, while his final nomination of Samuel Alito angered Democrats. His solutions to reform the immigration system alienated traditional conservatives, while his refusal to retreat in Iraq has enraged liberals who have unrealistic expectations about the challenges we face there.

It seems that no matter what Mr. Bush does, he is blamed for everything. He remains despised by the left while continuously disappointing the right.
Yet it should seem obvious that many of our country's current problems either existed long before Mr. Bush ever came to office, or are beyond his control. Perhaps if Americans stopped being so divisive, and congressional leaders came together to work with the president on some of these problems, he would actually have had a fighting chance of solving them.

Like the president said in his 2004 victory speech, "We have one country, one Constitution and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America."

To be sure, Mr. Bush is not completely alone. His low approval ratings put him in the good company of former Democratic President Harry S. Truman, whose own approval rating sank to 22% shortly before he left office. Despite Mr. Truman's low numbers, a 2005 Wall Street Journal poll found that he was ranked the seventh most popular president in history.

Just as Americans have gained perspective on how challenging Truman's presidency was in the wake of World War II, our country will recognize the hardship President Bush faced these past eight years -- and how extraordinary it was that he accomplished what he did in the wake of the September 11 attacks.
The treatment President Bush has received from this country is nothing less than a disgrace. The attacks launched against him have been cruel and slanderous, proving to the world what little character and resolve we have. The president is not to blame for all these problems. He never lost faith in America or her people, and has tried his hardest to continue leading our nation during a very difficult time.

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty -- a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

Mr. Shapiro is an investigative reporter and lawyer who previously interned with John F. Kerry's legal team during the presidential election in 2004.

Democrats Should Praise Lieberman, Not Shun Him
Friday, September 05, 2008

By Jeffrey Scott Shapiro


Last week, Democrats said there could be repercussions after Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman spoke at the Republican National Convention and said Barack Obama lacks the experience to be president.

“Senator Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who can do great things for our country in the years ahead. But eloquence is no substitute for a record,” said the 2000 Democratic vice-presidential nominee.

Lieberman added that Obama “has not reached across party lines to get anything significant done, nor has he been willing to take on powerful interest groups in the Democratic Party.”

As a result of those comments, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Lieberman’s membership in the Democratic caucus could be compromised.

“Senator Reid was very disappointed in Senator Lieberman’s speech, especially when he appeared to go out of his way to distort Senator Obama’s record of bipartisanship achievements in the Senate,” said Reid’s spokesman, Jim Manley.

“The Democratic caucus will likely revisit the situation with Senator Lieberman after the elections in November.”

That’s ironic, considering that the only reason Reid currently holds the title of "majority" Senate leader is because Lieberman agreed to continue caucusing with the Democrats after they abandoned him in 2006.

With Lieberman on their side, the Democrats hold a 51-49 lead in the Senate. Without him, the Republicans regain the "majority," because the president of the Senate, Vice President Dick Cheney, would break the 50-50 tie.

For those who have forgotten, Lieberman, a lifelong Democrat, was beaten in the Connecticut Democratic primary in 2006 by a liberal millionaire who ran against him for supporting President Bush and the War in Iraq.

After Lieberman lost in the primary, the party faithfully got behind their candidate, Ned Lamont, and Lieberman had to seek re-election as an independent. Lieberman won the general election and announced he would caucus with the Democrats, giving them the majority in the Senate.

Since then, Lieberman has kept his promise by caucusing with the Democrats, but he has actively supported and campaigned with Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

He should not be punished for this, however. Just as he did with his support for the war, Lieberman is following his conscience and doing what he thinks is right.

Last December, when Lieberman endorsed McCain, he explained: “Being a Republican is important. Being a Democrat is important. But you know what's more important than that? The interest and well-being of the United States of America.”

Lieberman’s conviction should be respected, whether he agrees with other Democrats or not. The fact that the majority of Connecticut voters still elected him as an independent, even after he lost the Democratic nomination, proves his constituents want a senator who says what he believes even when his position strays from the party line.

According to the Washington Post, Democratic senators have privately said that Lieberman may face sanctions if they win a clear majority in November, since Democrats could then -- and only then -- afford to have him cross the aisle to the Republican side. If he were to do that now, the Democrats would lose control of the Senate.

If the majority of Democrats in the Senate feel as strongly as Reid does about Lieberman’s comments, then the party should take action now and show the same kind of conviction Lieberman has shown, regardless of the consequences.

The Democratic Party should be thankful to Joe Lieberman. Although they abandoned him during the 2006 election, he remained loyal to them in the Senate, which gave them a chance against the Republican-controlled White House.

He should not be punished for simply saying what he believes, even if it was at the Republican convention. After all, Joe Lieberman never left the Democratic Party -- the Democratic Party left him.

odd op/ed piece. I definitely recall Bush's 2004 acceptance speech saying that he has a "mandate" despite narrowly winning.

Bush took a 90% rating and squandered it away. if he gets Osama bin laden before he went into Iraq, he would have been hailed by everyone. Even those of us who know deep down inside, that he's just a simple stupid man who listens to whatever the "smart guys" tell him.

Maybe you argue that the american public wouldn't go to Iraq if they had bin laden, but i think they would. i think he'd have kept his carte blanche to do whatever the hell he wants.

If I remember correctly, Cheney is the one who said they had a mandate. So yes, small nitpick, but it was the leader of the executive branch who made the comment, not the president.

"I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it," Bush told reporters. "It is my style."

It was Bush. He came out like an arrogant fuck after such a slim victory and said he had "a lot of political capital, and I intend to spend it."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 9MKHV1.DTL

I guess I missed that. I do seem to remember Cheney saying they had a mandate, though.

Maybe that was 2000.

Cheney said he had a "man date". Easy to get confused, I understand.

I've got a dumb question.

I hear this talk of the "Democratic Caucus" that Lieberman is a part of. What the hell is it? Is it just a coalition of the Democratic members who agree to vote together when it's a straight party vote? And if Lieberman is booted from this caucus, does that automatically mean he's going to vote GOP (not that it would surprise me)?

I mean, I assume that the senator can vote his mind on any issue - and should - so can someone clear this up for me?

Sorry for my ignorance.

I don't think they were trying to persuade readers that Bush is a good President.