Advice for the president

No, the president has not asked for my advice, but here it is. The resignation of John Bolton was the proverbial back-breaking straw, but believe me, there was plenty that went before it.

Mr. President:

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that leftists won't hate you if you pander to them. Unfortunately, as the rest of us figured out years ago, that is not true. For whatever reason, you have continuously tried to court them. In the process, you squandered the time you had with a congress on your side.

Let's see... in 2000, you won the presidential election and the house was yours. The senate was split, but with Cheney's tie breaking vote it was under the control of your party. What happened in the senate? Well, Republicans decided to power share with Democrats because it would feel nice and warm and fluffy. What was the reward for being a bunch of pansies? Sen. Jeffords switched from R to I, and gave control to Democrats, who were much less interested in the ridiculous notion of power sharing. People thought that was stupid, so they gave you a couple more senate seats in 2002, giving you the majority once again so you wouldn't feel a need to power share. Rather than taking the hint that people wanted conservative policy, you spent most of your time trying to impress Democrats. Just in case you hadn't gotten the hint yet, Americans gave you four more senate seats in 2004. And...you didn't get that hint either.

I still supported you, and not just because you were better than the alternative, Jean Francois "did-you-know-i-served-in-vietnam?" CarrIE. Obviously being president isn't an easy job, and we have to understand there will be some poor decisions along with the good ones. You appointed a couple supreme court justices who look like they'll be good, but I guess even that only happened after conservatives got on your case for wanting to appoint Harriet "maybe-i-could-be-a-judge-because-one-time-
i-saw-a-court-show-on-television" Miers (who was nominated by Democrat senator Harry Reid, by the way). You wanted to be "fair to Democrats" by keeping the balance of ideologies on the supreme court the same as it was when you took office--Rehnquist was conservative, so his replacement, Roberts, should be conservative...O'Connor is "moderate" so replace her with a "moderate" like Miers. That's very kind of you. Unfortunately, Democrats are less interested in power sharing and personal kindness. When they hold the presidency they shift the court left by appointing communists like Ruth "I'm-going-to-take-your-land-for-the-good-of-the-state" Ginsburg. So the result is a continuous creeping of the court to the left. Democrat presidents invariably appoint socialists, and Republican presidents appoint strict replacements (sometimes Republicans even appoint the leftists, as in the case of John Paul "eminent-domain-means-the-government-can-take-your-land-
and-give-it-to-someone-who-produces-more-revenue-for-the-state" Stevens).

That really seems to summarize your presidency and the nature of today's Republican leadership. Rather than assuming that the people who voted you into office actually want you to implement the platform you ran on, you assume that the people who voted you into office want you to become friends with the people who they voted against. And this brings up the fundamental problem with your presidency: a misinterpretation of what it takes to be a good president. It is because of this that, if this nation were to continue to exist for another hundred years, Bill Clinton will be a forgotten president and so will you. Why? Because in both cases the emphasis is placed on attempting to please people rather than an ideal.

Do you think Ronald Reagan won all but Minnesota in the 1984 election because he was concerned with trying to increase his poll numbers? Of course not. In fact, it was John Kerry's focus on poll numbers and being "appealing" that defeated him. The Iraq war was already very unpopular in the 2004 election season, but Kerry was such a panderer that people couldn't stomach him. Reagan won so overwhelmingly in 1984 because he was boldly pushing ahead toward a controversial ideal. Despite the controversy, he led through bad poll numbers, never shrinking from the goal. That is a characteristic of a leader who will have a legacy. A presidency like Clinton's will not have such a legacy, despite his obsession with attempting to establish one. Yours is in a danger of the same kind. History will never respect a panderer.

It's probably too late now. You've had your chance. But still, give it a go. Instead of interpreting an approval rating of 37% as "I must become more liberal," you must realize that no matter what you do, 48% will hate you. You could adopt the entire platform of the Democrats (which is pretty much what you've done) and the same 48% would still hate you because of that R next to your name. Why does that other 15% hate you? Because you've become too liberal. Your interpretation of your approval rating has been the exact opposite of reality. You've become a big government man just like the leftists. A government prescription drug program, an expansion of medicare, Ted Kennedy's "No Child Left Behind", McinSane's campaign finance reform.... If we had wanted socialism we would have voted for the socialists. You've done some good things, but you need to refocus. Consider this tough love: instead of being utterly fixated on the 48% that will permanently disapprove of everything you do or think or say or pretend, perhaps you should spend a few minutes a day thinking about the people who put you in office in the first place.

Of course...there is one alternative to everything I've said: that is, rather than pandering, you actually believe that implementing that socialist stuff was a good idea. That's too frightening to contemplate.