Spending increases under Obama...but let's still blame Bush

Comment by Dim Bulb on Amy Proctor's post, Drunken Sailors of the Senate Pass $1.1 Trillion Spending Bill in Rare Sunday Vote:

During the Bush years, despite the 2000 Recession, the attacks on 9-11, the stock market scandals, Hurricane Katrina, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush Administration was able to reduce the budget deficit from 412 billion dollars in 2004 to 162 billion dollars in 2007, a sixty percent drop. In 2004 the federal budget deficit was 412 billion dollars. In 2005 it dropped to 318 billion dollars. In 2006 the deficit dipped to 248 billion dollars. And, in 2007 it fell below 200 billion to 162 billion dollars. During the Bush years the average unemployment rate was 5.2 percent, the economy saw the strongest productivity growth in four decades and there was robust GDP growth. These were amazing accomplishments considering the unexpected challenges. You certainly didn’t read much about this in the press.

But, things changed in 2007. Democrats took over Congress, gas prices started to rise, and at the end of the year and into 2008 several financial institutions started to crumble as the housing bubble began to burst. Of course, it should be noted that President Bush publicly called for the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Democrats, on the other hand, blocked reform numerous times. It was later reported after the 2008 election that Bush had nothing to do with the financial crisis. Hoover Institution visiting fellow Scott S. Powell wrote in Barron’s in February of this year that the present crisis began in the 1970s, during the Carter administration, with passage of the Community Reinvestment Act to stem bank redlining and liberalize lending in order to extend home ownership in lower-income communities. This risk was acknowledged in the Bush administration’s first fiscal-year budget, released in April 2001. Sadly these warnings were ignored by Congress.

But, this didn’t stop Barack Obama and democrats from blaming George Bush for the market meltdown last year…

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2009/12/obama-two-month-deficit-is-more-than-bush-deficit-for-entire-2006-calendar-year/

MSM: "Let's criticize the Bush team for what they debated"

Rabid Cheney Derangement Syndrome

When it comes to pardons and impeachment, this one's a turkey

Rochelle Riley writing for Free Press:

Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s ineffectiveness became clear the day she became Speaker of the House and immediately announced that there would be no impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney.

Guided by politics, she said leading investigations into just how much the Bush administration did – and did wrong – would be divisive. What she didn’t express was her worry that too many Democrats faced elimination from the House if they took on the difficult task of proving who knew what, when.

But Congress is running out of time to finally make the Bush administration own up to its actions for eight years. If Congress isn’t careful, the president who already has issued 171 pardons could also pardon every appointee and employee he has ever had – and their dogs.

President Bush has issued half the number of pardons that Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton did in their two terms.


I know the two individuals who many of us conservatives want to see pardoned: Border Patrol Agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos.

Didn't they recently get resentenced? If a president interferes during a judicial process, I believe that would be grounds for impeachment. He could still issue a commutation of sentence or pardon within the next two months. I think where the two agents were wrong, was in covering up the shooting. If others can get pardoned for crimes outside the interest of the U.S., I don't see why these two shouldn't get pardoned as well for committing "crimes" in the interest of the U.S.

From what I hear, the case for commutation is being considered by the DOJ's Pardon Attorney.

Recently:

Q I just want to ask regarding the two border agents -- that was in the news again last week. Now that the President is ending his term -- calls are renewed for a pardon or a commutation. Is there anything on that you --

MS. PERINO: We never comment on pardons. People who are eligible to apply for a pardon can do so through the pardon attorney at the Department of Justice. And we don't comment on the deliberations that are underway.

The most outrageous Bush pardon of all:

President George W. Bush gathers with children and National Turkey Federation officials as he pardons "Pumpkin", the 2008 Thanksgiving turkey, during a ceremony in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington November 26, 2008.
REUTERS/Jason Reed

AP writer, Deb Riechmann:

One hot topic of discussion related to pardons is whether Bush might decide to issue pre-emptive pardons before he leaves office to government employees who authorized or engaged in harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Some constitutional scholars and human rights groups want the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama to investigate possible war crimes.

If Bush were to pardon anyone involved, it would provide protection against criminal charges, particularly for people who were following orders or trying to protect the nation with their actions. But it would also be highly controversial.

At the same time, Obama advisers say there is little — if any — chance that his administration would bring criminal charges.

This blogger says Bush can simply pardon Cheney (and everyone else) and immediately resign. Cheney becomes president and pardons him, perfectly legal!:

Just as important is making sure he is held accountable for his destruction and can not pardon himself and his cronies! From Democrats.com: As we celebrate our new President-elect and all the changes he will bring to our nation, we must not turn a blind eye to the final actions of George Bush. Incredibly, Washington is already buzzing with Bush's plans to block all investigations of his crimes and even to pardon everyone involved - including Cheney and himself. Chris Matthews is even counting down the days .

Does Bush have the power to pardon everyone in his administration? Yes. Will he abuse that power to stay out of jail? Only if we let him. "you bet he will if he can find a way" We must create a groundswell of opposition to any pardons by George Bush, so he understands that he will be impeached and prosecuted for issuing corrupt pardons.
~~~
it is my guess that Obama and virtually every Democrat in Congress is secretly praying for Bush to "self-pardon" himself. Not because they wish him to escape justice, but because they don't want the politically dangerous, nationally divisive, and ultimately thankless task of having to administer it. If Bush pardons himself, or gets Cheney to pardon him, he will let the Democrats off the hook, freeing them from the growing importuning of millions of Americans whose rage at Bush and Cheney will only grow greater as more and more insiders come forward to reveal the truth. My only question is -- why is no one even discussing this? Bush can Pardon Cheney then Cheney can pardon Bush

One of the more outrageous nutters is Vincent Bugliosi, author of The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder. Here's how he perceives his own self-worth on objectivity and credibility:

With respect to the position I take about the crimes of George Bush, I want to state at the outset that my motivation is not political. Although I've been a longtime Democrat (primarily because, unless there is some very compelling reason to be otherwise, I am always for "the little guy"), my political orientation is not rigid. For instance, I supported John McCain's run for the presidency in 2000. More to the point, whether I'm giving a final summation to the jury or writing one of my true crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me. Therefore, my only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others. This is why I can give you, the reader, a 100 percent guarantee that if a Democratic president had done what Bush did, I would be writing the same, identical piece you are about to read.

Read the whole thing for a peek into the afflicted mind of a BDS sufferer.

The real reason why there won't be any impeachment, is because there isn't a leg for the movement to stand on.

The big lie is that Bush lied.

Cross-posted at Flopping Aces

How Al Gore Almost Stole an Election

"Our sort of motto has been, get the story right, get the facts right, tell it honestly and tell the truth."
-Kevin Spacey, actor portraying Ron Klain (campaign aide to Al Gore and former V.P. chief of staff), commenting about the HBO movie, "Recount"

How convenient, then, that the HBO movie, which debuted last Sunday, has this disclaimer: "based on certain facts". Like the fact that this movie is written by, for, and about Gore-supporting Democrats? No revisionist partisan parsing of the facts present, right? Wrong.

The movie is passing itself off as a docudrama that is supposedly even-handed in its account.

One of the movie's consultants is ABC's Jack Tapper who admits to Washington Post's Howard Kurtz:

the film is "a fictional version of what happened" and "tilts to the left because it's generally told from the point of view of the Democrats."

Entertainment Weekly's Gillian Flynn (by way of NewsBusters):

Recount may not be downright blue, but it's not as purply as it wants to appear. Despite its ''equal time'' approach, Recount is an underdog story, and thus a Democrat story.

A good number of Americans are not aware of the political propaganda and partisan dishonesty that goes into a "docudrama" like this. It has the effect of indoctrinating more and more Americans to the liberal mindset and beliefs, that 2000 was a stolen election and Bush heir to an illegitimate presidency that was handed over to him by the Supreme Court. But as Richard Baehr writes, "the U.S. Supreme Court action probably prevented the theft of the election in Florida from occurring."

President Bush won. So how could he steal what was already his? It was Al Gore and his blitzkrieg of lawyers who attempted to steal the 2000 presidential election, by being selective in their recount methods.

The left likes to say that the United States Supreme Court gave the election to Bush. They did no such thing. What they did was reverse the Florida Supreme Court's effort to keep on counting until Gore won. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Bush v Gore may not have been a model of jurisprudence, but the left also ignores the fact that the decision to over—rule the Florida Supreme Court was not a 5—4 decision dictated by the five conservative members of the Court, but a 7 to 2 decision. Even two liberals on the Court were offended by the machinations of the Florida court and its creation of a chaotic vote counting system for the 'undervotes'.

~~~

The US Supreme Court decision over—ruling the Florida Supreme Court had two parts: the first a 7 to 2 vote over—ruling the vote counting system established by the Florida Supreme Court ; the second a 5 to 4 vote, requiring the vote count to be concluded almost immediately so that Florida could participate in the Electoral College process.

Had the second decision been 5 to 4 the other way, it is likely that the Florida count would not have been concluded in time for the state to determine a winner and select a slate of electors to the Electoral College. In that case, one of two scenarios would have played out. One is that the Florida legislature, Republican dominated, would have selected the Bush electors to vote in the Electoral College. Alternatively, no Florida electors would have been selected, and neither Bush nor Gore would have won a majority of the Electoral College vote. In that case, the US House of Representatives, voting by states (as in 1824), would have picked Bush since the GOP controlled more state delegations than the Democrats. So even if the 5—4 portion of the U.S. Supreme Court decision had gone the other way, Bush would still have become our President.

Antonin Scalia on 60 Minutes, April 27, 2008:

"People say that that decision was not based on judicial philosophy but on politics," Stahl asks.

"I say nonsense," Scalia says.

Was it political?

"Gee, I really don’t wanna get into - I mean this is - get over it. It's so old by now. The principal issue in the case, whether the scheme that the Florida Supreme Court had put together violated the federal Constitution, that wasn't even close. The vote was seven to two," Scalia says.

Moreover, he says it was not the court that made this a judicial question.

"It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question. It was he who brought it into the Florida courts. We didn't go looking for trouble. It was he who said, 'I want this to be decided by the courts.' What are we supposed to say? 'Oh, not important enough,'" Scalia jokes.

"It ended up being a political decision" Stahl points out.

"Well you say that. I don't say that," Scalia replies.

"You don’t think it handed the election to George Bush?" Stahl asks.

"Well how does that make it a political decision?" Scalia asks.

"It decided the election," Stahl says.

"If that’s all you mean by it, yes," Scalia says.

"That’s all I mean by it," Stahl says.

"Oh, ok. I suppose it did. Although you should add to that that it would have come out the same way, no matter what," Scalia says.

Analysis from the National Research Center study on Florida Ballot Project comprehensive review, sponsored by major news organizations, found that the selective county by county recount advocated by the Gore lawyers would still have resulted in a Gore defeat and Bush victory.

Every newspaper in Florida did their own little investigation, and concluded that President Bush won the Election.

"African voter disenfranchisement"? Not a single black voter ever came forward with a credible claim, and voter turnout for black Floridians was higher than in previous elections. (*cough*military absentee ballots*cough*)

"Butterfly ballots"? Designed and approved of by Democrats.

Instructions were provided at every polling station in Florida where punch-card ballots were used; so if your chad is hanging or pregnant, take responsibility for the most important decision you're about to cast. Old Soldier said it best:

in regards to voting; where does the government's responsibility end and the voter's responsibility begin? I believe the government has a responsibility to provide a voting process by which a vast majority of the voters can render a lawful vote. I also believe it is encumbant upon the government to institute measures to regulate voting and establish consequences for failure to comply with the laws governing voting. That means that the government should ensure a voter is a citizen who is elligible to vote, is properly registered and renders a vote that complies with the specified requirements. Failure on the part of a voter to render a lawful vote should not become a burden upon the government. To wit, failure to render a lawful vote bears the consequence of not having that vote counted. Every polling place I have ever entered has had election commission oversight and paid helpers to assist the voters in any manner possible to ensure their vote is indeed 'lawful.'

One final sidenote:

About 20% of votes gets thrown out for various reasons in every election and in every state already, right?

Well, Florida was indeed a very, very close race. That being acknowledged, did you know that 4 other states were also within less than half of one per cent in difference? I forget one of them, but three of them were Iowa (I'm pretty sure), Wisconsin, and New Mexico (only 300 votes differentiated Gore and Bush- in Florida it was something like 500 a 500 vote differential). And guess what else? Gore won these 4 other states, no different really than Florida; what if Bush wanted to pull the same stunt as Gore did over Florida? At a certain point, this only hurts us, and one can probably draw questions regarding many elections, tying us up forever.

Further to my point about those states which were close wins for Gore: Florida is worth only 25 electoral votes. These 4 other states were worth 30 each, from what I can recall.

Richard Baehr, makes the same point in his article:

It is also worth noting, that with the exception of Florida, every other state that was decided by less than 1% in the 2000 election went to Gore: New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Oregon. These four states combined had 30 Electoral College votes, 5 more than Florida. While there were murky circumstances surrounding the Gore victories in every one of them, the results were not contested by any Bush 'lawyer blitzkrieg' in any of them. In fact, the Democrats know more about winning close federal elections than the Republicans, in recent years. In the past five years, Democrats have won Senate elections in South Dakota, Nevada and Washington State, by an average margin of 0.1% of the total vote cast.

So "stolen election Democrats": Get over it. It was almost 8 years ago. YOUR president and MY president, George W. Bush, will be out of office in 6 months.

But of course, releasing this movie in the middle of a presidential election year is about the future, isn't it? Thanks. It's good to be reminded that if it isn't close, Democrats can't cheat.

In the end, as Republican lawyer, Ben Ginsberg, puts it: "Republicans won the recount. Democrats won the movie."

Enjoy your HBO fantasy movie, and dream on, Democrats!

Does the Bush Regime Rank as One of the Most Repressive?

Freedom House, an independent nongovernmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world, has released its annual global survey of political rights and civil liberties (selected data Freedom in the World 2007). The eight countries judged to have the most repressive regimes are Cuba, Libya, Myanmar, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

Press release:

Sudan, North Korea and Uzbekistan are prominent among the most repressive regimes in the world, according to a report released by Freedom House.

The study, “The Worst of the Worst: The World's Most Repressive Societies 2007,” named seventeen countries with the worst records for political rights and civil liberties, and pointed to thirteen countries which have been on the list for five years or more.

“Repressive regimes can be incredibly resilient, as this year’s list demonstrates,” said Arch Puddington, Director of Research at Freedom House. “Some of the countries on this list are global bullies; others are responsible for unspeakable humanitarian crises. In practically every case, these regimes are resistant to change and are indifferent to their citizens’ political rights, civil liberties and basic human needs.”

The report includes detailed summaries of political and human rights conditions in Belarus, Burma, China, Cote d’Ivoire, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Laos, Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe. Also included are three territories: Chechnya, Tibet and Western Sahara. Except for Cote d’Ivoire, which is new to the list this year, and Belarus, Equatorial Guinea and Zimbabwe, all have been rated the “worst of the worst” since 2002 or earlier.

You know, with all the hyperbolic demagoguery and hyperventilating fearmongering about "unprecedented expansion of presidential authority", "erosion of civil liberties" due to the advent of such things as the Patriot Act, NSA surveillance programs, data-mining; and also torture/waterboarding (total of 3 cases- the worst of the worst), Guantanamo, rendition, etc., you'd think that the Bush Regime would rank as one of the "worst of the worst".

But no. Reality sings a different tune from the shrill chorus of the conspiratorial nuts and BDS sufferers.

Oh, and another news flash to The World Can’t Wait crowd: The Bush Administration will be out of office in several months from now, and you’ll be irrelevant and proven nothing more than an ineffective sideshow. But you were allowed to exist during the Bush years; and had the freedom to spew your moronic hatespeak, despite (or thanks to?) the “repressive” totalitarian police-state known as the “evil” Bush Regime. It took amazing guts and courage for you to have stood up against Bushitler. Congratulations on your accomplishments!

Basra Will be Just Another Comma

As Scott writes:

troop levels MUST be determined by conditions on the ground, and not by political conditions at home. The entire strategy of an insurgent is to degrade the enemy’s will to fight-not the will of their frontline forces, but that of their supporting populations.

He points out that the British withdrawal from Basra and the subsequent increase in violence demonstrates that the withdrawal strategy doesn't work.

As Curt writes:

You can feel the utter joy coming from the writers at the NYT’s and the tabloid newspaper, Mclatchy, on their reporting of Iraq today. Joy at maybe, just maybe!, the Surge will fail and they can go back to blaming Bush. First, take a look at this doozy of a headline by Mclatchy, written by Leila Fadel and Ali al Basri:

“Battles Wrack Basra, Threatening Success of U.S. Surge.”

And as I wrote:

When the final history is written on Basra, this latest turn of violence will look like just a comma.

For the last 5 years, every step of the way, the media has gone into partisan hysterics for any signs of setbacks, for any show of difficulties, for any dark failure cloud attached to every silver lining of success. They highlight, underscore, embolden, circle, and magnify the negative while under-reporting and burying the positives. The sky is perpetually falling. And the molehill is perceived and propagandized to be a mountain that cannot be climbed.

And when all is finally said and done, in the end, I think history will vindicate the decisions of George W. Bush. And those who opposed him during these difficult times will have to rationalize it to their grandchildren. Those who stood by him when things were darkest, and kept their resolve in the face of so much BDS hysteric opposition, will be able to tell their grand kids how they stood on the right side of history.

One of the new liberal mantras has been to huff about how this Administration is going to leave it up to the next administration to "clean up their mess".

Here’s a juicy tidbit from the 2002 SotU Address that you can use the next time a liberal whines about it:

Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch

The fact of the matter is, life doesn't operate on a timeline that is dependent upon U.S. elections. Wars don't come with expiration dates and timetables. Each administration picks up where the previous one left off. I'm sure President Carter would have loved to have seen the resolution to the Hostage Crisis happen under his watch and not President Reagan's. And I'm sure if it wasn't for the 22nd Amendment, President Bush would have loved to see the war that the Islamists began (it didn't begin on his watch) ended on his watch. But given his age, I doubt President Bush has another 50 years in him, as the Decider or as a witness to the long war.

A lot of politicians kick the can down the curb, passing hot political potatoes off for future politicians to deal with. President Clinton did it to Bush 43 with the Kyoto Treaty. But this president has been different.

9/11 transformed President George W. Bush into someone who "thinks big". A fan of Winston Churchill (describing him as 'the best example of how individuals can shape history'), President Bush tried to tackle the big issues, head first.

I think the history books will remember George Bush's place in it as more than occupying just a footnote....or comma. Even if I am wrong about him being vindicated by historians as a good leader, there is no question that he has left an indelible imprint upon the pages of human history. His judicial appointments alone will affect the United States for generations to come.

For good or ill, his presidency mattered, and it is one that changed the landscape of the world to affect the course of human events, for generations to come. Even where he was unable to push through radical change, he clearly wanted to. Bogged down by Iraq, President Bush was unable to invest his political capital into such concerns as social security reform and tax simplification. But he was certainly thinking big. He was thinking "change".

President Bush has been a consequential president who made a dent in the course-flow of history. A leader who mattered; who made a difference. Who wasn't afraid of risk; who didn't concern himself with his popularity; who didn't make the big decisions based upon the fickle nature of the latest gallup polls.

And for that, love him or hate him, I contest that he has been a strong, effective leader.

Laying the Smack Down

Great comment in David Mamet's piece (although I think he misconstrued Mamet's intent in rehashing all the liberal bds talking points), Why I am No Longer a 'Brain Dead' Liberal, in Village Voice last week:

Gregg Calkins on Wed Mar 12, 2008, 13:21, says:

David Mamet's actually come a long way, but I wonder how much further along he might be without the obligatory Bush-bashing which includes a suspension of rational thought?

For instance, HOW did Bush steal Florida, especially in comparison with the way that Kennedy stole Chicago? If your reflexive answer is via the Supreme Court, isn't this a trifle different than Chicago back-room dead-voters politics? For one thing, Bush didn't even need to go to the Supreme Court in the first place, because he WON the original Florida vote count.

It might seem foolish to some to argue that Bush later stole something he already owned, so what did he do, rig the original count? No, the polls were controlled by Democrats at that time and the infamous 'butterfly ballot' was designed and approved by Democrats. Some claim that he prevented blacks from voting, but the complainers never showed this to actually be the case and finally had to back down on that one.

Let alone asking how, WHY should Bush steal something he already owned, the Florida original count? Why would Bush go to the Supreme Court and ask them to uphold a victory he already had? The answer, of course, is that he didn't. Gore protested the original count, appropriately and sensibly, and also within the rules. The wrangling took place over what votes would be recounted, with the Gore team wishing only a very selective recount, and eventually Gore filed a lawsuit which worked its way all the way up to the Supreme Court before it was finished, the way contentious lawsuits do when lower courts decide this way and that during the proceedings.

And did the Supreme Court rule that Bush won, as Liberals believe? Well, no, it did not. Essentially the USSC said that if Gore wanted a recount, that was fine, but that the Constitution, silly old document, said that if you were going to do that, then ALL of the votes had to be recounted, not just a selected few of those you considered to be your friends. Oh.

In practice, however, the total recount could not be done because time had run out. But this meant the original winner, Bush, remained the winner. Bush was the winner at all times throughout the entire process, from beginning to end.

Since the only way you can get 'stole' out of this is by the application of Liberal Logic, this writer is still a brain-dead liberal despite his protestations.

Nor did Bush "out" a CIA agent, as testimony at the end of the struggle clearly showed that Valerie Plame's identity had first been revealed to the press by a State Department apparatchik who was definitely no friend of either Bush or his administration; in fact quite the opposite. Like losing your virginity, a CIA agent can be outed only once. In fact, one of the reasons that Valerie no longer worked in the field was because she had already been outed years earlier by convicted rogue agent Gary Powers. Oh.

Did Bush 'lie' about his military service? What did he say? He said that he served honorably in the National Guard, completed his obligation, and was honorably discharged afterward. Some argued that he did not put in all of the time required by his obligation, but in the end their argument was never substantiated...by them or anyone else. And the complaint did not argue that Bush did not serve at all, or was not really a qualified fighter pilot, but that he MISSED SOME MEETINGS! Dan Rather's fall came about because in a desperate attempt to substantiate their argument, his people came up with forged documents to support their case.

Now if Bush had come up with forged documents then you'd have a real complaint worthy of being called a 'lie', but as it happened, Bush signed a release allowing all of his military records to be released to the press and the public. All of them. And what did they show? They showed that he fulfilled his obligation, just like he claimed.

Again, it's hard to find a 'lie' in this without the application of Liberal Logic.

(There was a corollary complaint that Bush pulled strings to get to the head of the waiting-line of applicants for the limited number of National Guard openings available. As it turned out, there was no waiting list for pilot applicants, probably because so few were qualified and also because the job was, well, dangerous. National Guard pilots, like all military pilots, get killed all too frequently. Nevertheless, that canard is probably also still part of the Liberal catechism.)

And equating the Saudis, a foreign country and a major source of America's imported oil, with the Mafia, a domestic criminal institution and a major source of America's imported illegal drugs...well...

Well, I'm afraid that our brain-dead liberal is still with us.

Hat tip: The Anchoress

Also from The Anchoress:

Stark-Raving Moonbat Hate Spew

President Bush's Latest Outrage!!!

If only the Democrats had uncovered this breaking, scandalous news before the 2004 Election!

Not only is our President accused of being stupid, a moron, a chimp, a puppet, a liar, a deserter, a religious nut, but now the liberal Bush-haters really have his number pegged: President Bush.....*drum roll please*...................EXERCISES TOO MUCH! *Gasp* *Shock* *Horror*

How dare he!

Michael Medved led in with this LA Times article during his first hour on what is it that causes people to hate this President so much. Because it is so ridiculous...so petty...so sour grapes....I've decided to reprint the article here in it's entirety:

July 22, 2005

by Jonathan Chait:

The (over)exercise of power

A week ago, when President Bush met with Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III to interview him for a potential Supreme Court nomination, the conversation turned to exercise. When asked by the president of the United States how often he exercised, Wilkinson impressively responded that he runs 3 1/2 miles a day. Bush urged him to adopt more cross-training. "He warned me of impending doom," Wilkinson told the New York Times.Am I the only person who finds this disturbing? I don't mean the fact that Bush would vet his selection for the highest court in the land in part on something utterly trivial. That's expected. What I mean is the fact that Bush has an obsession with exercise that borders on the creepy.

Given the importance of his job, it is astonishing how much time Bush has to exercise. His full schedule is not publicly available. The few peeks we get at Bush's daily routine usually come when some sort of disaster prods the White House Press Office to reveal what the president was doing "at the time." Earlier this year, an airplane wandered into restricted Washington air space. Bush, we learned, was bicycling in Maryland. In 2001, a gunman fired shots at the White House. Bush was inside exercising. When planes struck the World Trade Center in 2001, Bush was reading to schoolchildren, but that morning he had gone for a long run with a reporter. Either this is a series of coincidences or Bush spends an enormous amount of time working out.

There's no denying that the results are impressive. Bush can bench press 185 pounds five times, and, before a recent knee injury, he ran three miles at a 6-minute, 45-second pace. That's better than I could manage when I played two sports in high school. And I wasn't holding the most powerful office on Earth. Which is sort of my point: Does the leader of the free world need to attain that level of physical achievement?

Bush not only thinks so, he thinks it goes for the rest of us as well. In 2002, he initiated a national fitness campaign. The four-day kickoff festivities included the president leading 400 White House staffers on a three-mile run. As then-Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said: "When it comes to exercise, there are many people who just need that extra little nudge to go out there and do a little bit more exercise."

Sometimes it takes more than a nudge. In 2002, Bush fired Lawrence Lindsey, his overweight economic advisor. Lindsey's main crime was admitting to Congress that the Iraq war might cost $200 billion, at a time when the administration was trying to cut taxes and was insisting that the war would cost nothing. But compounding things was the fact that, as the Washington Post reported, Bush "complained privately about [Lindsey's] failure to exercise."

My guess is that Bush associates exercise with discipline, and associates a lack of discipline with his younger, boozehound days. "The president," said Fleischer, "finds [exercise] very healthy in terms of … keeping in shape. But it's also good for the mind." The notion of a connection between physical and mental potency is, of course, silly. (Consider all the perfectly toned airheads in Hollywood — or, perhaps, the president himself.) But Bush's apparent belief in it explains why he would demand well-conditioned economic advisors and Supreme Court justices.

Bush's insistence that the entire populace follow his example, and that his staff join him on a Long March — er, Long Run — carries about it the faint whiff of a cult of personality. It also shows how out of touch he is. It's nice for Bush that he can take an hour or two out of every day to run, bike or pump iron. Unfortunately, most of us have more demanding jobs than he does.


Apparently President Bush is very disciplined. He gets up at 5 am and is very punctual at arriving at the White House by 7 am. Contrast that to the habits of former President Clinton and his Administration staffers, whose lack of discipline and unprofessionalism have been likened to that of college kids. I think it's great that President Bush devotes time to staying in such excellent shape. Honestly, what is the big deal here? Thank you for that article, Mr. Chait. You give me ever more reason to love this President. God bless George W. Bush for his religious-like devotion to physical health & fitness.