I Told You So

No, the above banner is not really flying over President Bush's Texas home though for the consumption of the al Fedaban-Americans, other liberal extremists and other liberal demagogues it ought.

From President Bush's speech thanking the 6,600 U.S. troops aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln who had just completed the longest war-time deployment on a ship of the Lincoln's class, ". . . The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror . . . and still goes on . . . Yet we also have dangerous work to complete. Our mission continues . . . The war on terror is not over . . . ."

Eight years to the day, President Obama spoke similar words, "(bin Laden's) death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us. We must and we will remain vigilant at home and abroad."

God bless America.

Obama's 100 Year War

From the New York Times, April 8, 2011 - "Some American troops could stay in Iraq for years, well beyond the scheduled withdrawal of all United States forces at the end of 2011, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Friday.

"In remarks to American soldiers in Mosul, north of Baghdad, Mr. Gates said that the United States and Iraq would have to negotiate the terms of any American presence in the country beyond this year. But he held out the possibility that it could happen, or at least that he had been thinking of several situations that might keep American forces in Iraq, perhaps indefinitely.

"'That would be part of any negotiation, whether it be for a finite period of time, whether it would be negotiated that there be a further ramp-down over a period of two or three years, or whether we would have a continuing advise-and-assist role as we have in a number of countries,' Mr. Gates said."

Hysterical.

I Can Lead People to Knowledge; I Can't Make Them Think

The U.N. Security Council vote to liberate Iraq and remove Hussein and his psychotic and ruthless sons from power was 15 - 0, no abstentions.

I cannot make up this stuff.

Kansas wins!

Kansas over Kentucky to win the 2011 Men's NCAA national basketball championship.

(UConn over Stanford on the Women's side.)

Bush's Third Term CCX

I've lost track of how many posts I've made noting President Obama's reassertion of President George W. Bush so I just threw out a big number, it's not exact.

Two weeks ago, as I noted in my prior post, the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate passed a bill extending the expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act by respective, massively bipartisan votes of 279 - 143 and 86 - 12.

Last Friday, February 25, under the cover of darkness, U.S.-Constitution-Shredder-in-Chief Obama signed the extension into law.

The literally millions upon millions of liberal hypocrites proved themselves zackly that as there was no condemnation of Obama by the liberal extremists who control the media nor were there any protests in the streets of every major American city on Saturday. Of course there were not.

The Million Liberal Hypocrite March

Late last night, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill extending through early December the expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act.

In a statement I cannot find at www.WhiteHouse.gov but referenced in countless news accounts of US-Constitution-Shredder-in-Chief Obama's position, Obama "would strongly prefer enactment of reauthorizing legislation that would extend these authorities until December 2013."

US-Constitution-Shredder-in-Chief Obama also argued that "longer duration provides the necessary certainty and predictability that our nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies require."

The liberal hypocrites and demagogues are predictably silent.

ZACKlyRight Knows Football

" . . . the Green Bay Packers will defeat the Pittsburgh Steelers 31 - 24 in one of the greatest Super Bowls ever . . . ." - ZACKlyRight, January 24, 2011

Importance of Convention Sites Overblown

Earlier this week it was reported that President Obama has selected Charlotte, North Carolina as the site for the 2012 Democratic Party of No's convention in an open pander to keep North Carolina in his column on election day.

I can't overstate enough the insult to North Carolinians. Two wars, Egypt on fire, $3.25 gasoline, 10% unemployment, a Country still gagging on having ObamaCare shoved down our throats, etc., and North Carolinians are going to vote for Obama because he chose Charlotte for a convention site? I haven't seen the numbers on how many people in Raleigh and Chapel Hill and other North Carolina locations with a passionate dislike for Charlotte that Obama will offend by his offensive decision (to say nothing of the other 49 states Obama snubbed!).

But now that North Carolina is in the news for 24 hours, let me repost from my November 8, 2008 analysis of election results noting the racism of black Americans, their racism not being the differnce in the national Presidential results, but their racism certainly the difference in North Carolina's results:

"Sen. McCain lost North Carolina by 14,053 votes (2,123,334 to 2,109,281). Exit polls say whites voted for McCain 65 – 35 while blacks voted for Sen. Obama along the national average 95 – 5. Digging deeper into the numbers though, black women voted for Sen. Obama 100 – 0! Black women made up 14% of the electorate in North Carolina. If they voted for Sen. Obama 98 – 2, Sen. McCain would have won the state by more than 7,000 votes. I don’t know what percentage of black women in North Carolina are racists but I’m quite positive more than 2% cast a racist vote on election day. Black racists definitely were the difference in the election results in North Carolina."

Indeed, Where's the Outrage?

Since November 2008, when then-President-elect Obama announced he was keeping President Bush's Secretary of Defense (you know, the senior advisor most responsible for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan), I've been mocking the liberal extremists with each significant Obama reassertion of Bush. Every day seems to bring another reason why a liberal with any core principles should direct their hate at Obama (or, I guess, feel some remorse for the feigned outrage directed at Bush). Here's yesterday's Wall Street Journal's editorial picking up on my 27-month-old theme:

The Trials of Gitmo
Where's the outrage?
The Wall Street Journal
January 27, 2011

So maybe we aren't reading our friends in the liberal media as carefully as we should. Earlier this month several media sources reported that the Obama Administration will soon resume trying Guantanamo detainees in military tribunals, almost a year to the day after the prison was supposed to have been closed for good. Yet somehow we missed the avalanche of commentary denouncing "kangaroo courts," "legal black holes" and all the other epithets once reserved for the Bush Administration when it was doing precisely the same thing. Critics in Europe are also notably silent.

That said, we welcome evidence of liberal maturity in the war on terror, and in the last two years the Administration has been growing up faster than expected. The decision to resume the tribunals was forced by the Democratic Congress's decision in December to forbid the Pentagon from spending money to transfer Gitmo's remaining detainees to the U.S. mainland.

Barring that option, the Administration's only choices were to re-open the tribunals, hold the prisoners indefinitely without trial, or otherwise let them go. Given that the recidivism rate of released Gitmo detainees is estimated at 25%, we'd say the Administration is choosing wisely.

And justly. Among the first detainees likely to be tried in the tribunals is Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the Saudi mastermind of the 2000 USS Cole bombing in which 17 U.S. sailors were killed. The relatives of Nashiri's victims deserve a verdict.

And the American people deserve a trial that won't be turned into a legal farce, which is what nearly happened last year in New York when terrorist Ahmed Ghailani was acquitted of 284 of the 285 counts held against him. This week Ghailani received a life sentence on that charge, saving the Administration from what might have been a major embarrassment.

Still, it's worth noting that even as the Administration prepares to try some 30 detainees, it also plans to hold another 50 without trial. We won't hold our breath awaiting the outpouring of liberal outrage. But we do breathe a sigh of relief that President Obama has seen the wisdom of his predecessor's ways. (End of WSJ editorial.)

Obama's Fulfillment of Low Expectations


Does he really surround himself with so many people with no imagination, with no ability to motivate and energize? Sputnik? That's what we aspire to? And we're really going to put a Russian word on our moment?

Yes, I understand the Sputnik reference but could it not have been acknowledged more cleverly? Would it have been so difficult to send a more prideful American message? This generation's Mercury moment? Gemini moment? Apollo moment? If SOTUs are about imagery and broad themes, American exceptionalism couldn't have been leveraged?

I wonder if the President's handlers are going to make replicas of the Russian satellite available for every American household so we can put them in our kitchens and dens and be reminded of our moment on a daily basis.

Packers Win Super Bowl!

In an attempt to prove I know something about sports in light of my atrocious 2010 NCAA basketball and World Series predictions, the Green Bay Packers will defeat the Pittsburgh Steelers 31 - 24 in one of the greatest Super Bowls ever, marked by lead changes and big plays.

On a flyer, Packers RB John Kuhn will be the Super Bowl MVP with 3 TDs (2 rushing, 1 receiving).

Reporting for Duty

"Or I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone." - Sen. John F. Kerry, on killing President George W. Bush, 2006.

Sen. Kerry is in the news today for making a speech yesterday on softening the national dialogue.

Below is Sen. Kerry "reporting for duty".

"Punish Our Enemies"


Not two days after a gunman killed six people in Tuscon, Arizona and gravely wounded Rep. Gabby Giffords, the Editorial Board of the Boston Globe included this in its lead editorial today, "Liberals are justified in expressing alarm over the coarsening of the political diaglogue." Usually the Boston Globe allows comments opposite its editorial. Today, the gutless cowards at the Boston Globe, led by coward and editorial page editor Peter Canellos, did not allow any comments.

"Hostage-takers." What Punisher-in-Chief Obama called Republicans for wanting to preserve tax cuts for taxpayers.

Prior to Saturday, some liberals and Democrats openly desired Obama have an "Oklahoma City moment" to exploit; these shamelss liberals and Democrats I guess think they got their wish.

Jeb Declares Presidential Run!

For more than 5 years now I've been writing about Jeb Bush running for President and winning in a landslide. Well, yesterday, with a piece on education reform published in the Wall Street Journal, I think Bush announced he was running in 2012. The piece:

Accountability Is Working in Florida's Schools
In 1998, nearly half of its fourth-graders were functionally illiterate. Today, 72% of them can read.
By Jeb Bush
The Wall Street Journal
January 3, 2011

In November, voters in 37 states elected governors, most of whom are new to office. Job creation and economic growth will likely top the list of challenges these leaders will tackle first, and rightly so. But let's hope education reform is not far behind. Florida's investment in reform is already paying off.

Providing a quality education to every student will strengthen U.S. competitiveness in the world economy. The export of knowledge-driven industry is a far greater threat to our prosperity than is illegal immigration, which seems to dominate the news and political discourse. Without a pipeline of homegrown talent to fuel growth, the lure of cheaper labor, lower operating costs, and less government regulation outside the U.S. will be difficult to overcome.

An educated work force that attracts global investment also helps alleviate the problem of dwindling tax revenue and growing entitlements. Students who learn more typically earn more, spend more, invest more, save more—and pay more in taxes. According to the U.S. Census, a high-school dropout earns around $19,000 a year on average. A high-school diploma raises that average to $28,600. A college degree will nearly double your earning potential, to $51,500.

While preparing kids for college and careers starts on the first day of kindergarten, the first good indicator of their chances for success may come in fourth grade. That is when students transition from learning to read to reading to learn. A Manhattan Institute study found that students who can't read and yet are promoted fall further behind over time. Alarmingly, 33% of fourth-graders in America are functionally illiterate, according to the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Yet failure does not have to be our destiny. Florida's experience in reform during the last decade gives us the road map to avoid this slow-moving economic calamity.

In 1998, nearly half of Florida's fourth-graders were functionally illiterate. Today, 72% of them can read. Florida's Hispanic fourth-graders are reading as well or better than the average student in 31 other states and the District of Columbia. That is what I call a real game-changer.

If Florida can do it, every state can. With 2.7 million students, Florida has the fourth-largest student population in the country. A majority of our public school children are minorities, and about half of the students are eligible for subsidized lunches based on low family income.

Success starts with a bedrock belief that all students can learn. All Sunshine State students are held to the same standards. As we had hoped, more and more are exceeding expectations.

Accountability must have a hard edge, which means that the responsibilities of educators must be clearly defined, easily understood and uniformly enforced. All students matter. No excuses.

Here is an example. For the last decade, Florida has graded schools on a scale of A to F, based solely on standardized test scores. When we started, many complained that "labeling" a school with an F would demoralize students and do more harm than good. Instead, it energized parents and the community to demand change from the adults running the system. School leadership responded with innovation and a sense of urgency. The number of F schools has since plummeted while the number of A and B schools has quadrupled.

Another reform: Florida ended automatic, "social" promotion for third-grade students who couldn't read. Again, the opposition to this hard-edged policy was fierce. Holding back illiterate students seemed to generate a far greater outcry than did the disturbing reality that more than 25% of students couldn't read by the time they entered fourth grade. But today? According to Florida state reading tests, illiteracy in the third grade is down to 16%.

Rewards and consequences work. Florida schools that earn an A or improve by a letter grade are rewarded with cash—up to $100 per pupil annually. If a public school doesn't measure up, families have an unprecedented array of other options: public school choice, charter schools, vouchers for pre-K students, virtual schools, tax-credit scholarships, and vouchers for students with disabilities.

Choice is the catalytic converter here, accelerating the benefits of other education reforms. Almost 300,000 students opt for one of these alternatives, and research from the Manhattan Institute, Cornell and Harvard shows that Florida's public schools have improved in the face of competition provided by the many school-choice programs.

Florida's experience busts the myth that poverty, language barriers, absent parents and broken homes explain failure in school. It is simply not true. Our experience also proves that leadership, courage and an unwavering commitment to reform—not demographics or demagoguery—will determine our destiny as a nation. (End of column by the 45th President of the United States of America.)

Delusional, Unhinged Liberals

My (news)paper, the Boston Globe, continues its hateful crusade against President Bush.

I'm not kidding, this is the asinine letter it published in yesterday's issue:

(Begin asinine letter)

RE "US seeks evidence for case against WikiLeaks founder” (Page A30, Dec. 16): I’m appalled but not surprised that the Justice Department under Attorney General Eric Holder is working assiduously to target Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. As the article states, “Justice Department officials have been struggling to come up with a way to charge Assange with a crime.”

This, of course, is the same Justice Department that has successfully struggled to come up with a way to ignore the crimes committed by members of the Bush administration against our Constitution, our laws, and a non-aggressive sovereign nation. If ever there was a rogue government that violated our nation’s laws and core beliefs, it was this bush-league bunch of troublemakers, and if we won’t shine the cleansing light of truth on their dirty deeds, then thank heavens there’s a WikiLeaks to do it for us.

Ultimately, it will be deeds done in the dark that cripple our moral authority and make a mockery of our Constitution. Attorney General Holder will do us all a favor if he points his dogs in a different direction, pursuing those who, operating under a cloak of secrecy, used their positions of power to validate and legalize wide-ranging acts of criminal behavior.

Paul Steven Stone, Cambridge

(End asinine letter by Paul Steven Stone, Cambridge)

What Paul Steven Stone does not know, or choose to ignore if he's not really as ignorant as he projects, and what the asleep-at-the-fact-checker letters editor at the Boston Globe does not know, or chooses to ignore if she/he is not really as ignorant as she/he projects, is that on September 8, 2010, the Ninth Circuit, literally the most liberally-extreme Court in the land, sided with President Obama and Attorney General Holder when they reasserted Bush's state secret arguments before that Court (Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan).

Boston Globe Now Influenced by ZACKlyRight

At the right side of the screen, click on February 2009 or March 2009 and you will see bascially ever other post running under the theme of "Bush's Third Term" or "The Emperor is Wearing Bush's Clothes". Less frequently over the next 20 months I'd note the significant policy and personnel reassertions by President Obama of President George W. Bush.

Below are the columns by Ms. Joan Vennochi and Mr. Jeff Jacoby of my (news)paper, the Boston Globe, from Sunday, December 12 (my bold for emphasis):

In Obama, they see Bush
By Joan Vennochi
December 12, 2010

President Obama’s so-called compromise — tax cuts for the rich in exchange for unemployment benefits — does not make him look like Bill Clinton, the great triangulator. To hardcore liberals, he looks like George W. Bush, the not-so-great decider — minus Bush’s Texas swagger and misguided conviction. It’s not a pretty picture. And, for liberals, that picture has been developing since their supposed messiah took office.

Obama won election by running against the policies of a president who left Washington to the sound of people chanting 'na-na-hey-hey-good-bye.' Vanquished to Crawford with a 22 percent approval rating, the 43d president of the United States was reduced to cartoon-like status. He was supposed to stay on the ranch brooming brush and contemplating his legacy as the Worst President Ever.

Two years later, Bush is back in the saddle. His book tops the New York Times bestseller list and his job approval ratings are higher than Obama’s. On his book publicity tour, Bush is relaxed and funny.

From the Oval Office to the basketball court, Obama can’t catch a break. When Bill Clinton bit his lip, he felt our pain. Obama’s stitched lip makes us feel his. If Bush is all hat, no cattle, Obama is a man with neither hat, cattle, nor liberal friends, thanks to his embrace of the same Bush-era policies that he denounced.

The Bush wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are now Obama’s. So are Bush’s wiretapping and detention policies. Obama took airport security beyond the Bush-imposed intrusions that require passengers to take off shoes and belts; in the Obama era, passengers submit to graphic body-imaging machines or full body pat-downs.

The health care reform legislation that conservatives demonize as socialism disappointed liberals because it is so far from it. There’s no public option or single-payer system. Indeed, its roots lie in the blueprint drawn up by a Republican governor of Massachusetts. ObamaCare is pretty close to RomneyCare, and a conceptual outgrowth of Bush’s Medicare reform.

Taxpayer-funded bailouts after Wall Street’s meltdown started under Bush and continued under Obama. Both administrations adhere to the theory that some businesses are 'too big to fail' and many little guys are too small to save.

In the run-up to midterm elections, Obama was still blaming Republicans, and Bush, by default, for the economic mess that refuses to tidy itself up. The prior administration drove the economy into a ditch, he repeatedly proclaimed, and the Bush tax cuts were part of the problem.

With each embrace of a Bush policy reviled by liberals, Obama lost a sliver of his base. But the core stuck with him. The far left agitated but John Kerry rescued him on Afghanistan. House Democrats didn’t like his health care plan, but they closed ranks for the sake of unity. Obama adds glue to the base, by holding out the promise of the Dream Act to the children of illegal immigrants — a policy Bush also supported. Reversing 'don’t ask, don’t tell' is designed to satisfy his gay constituency.

But now, he wants Democrats to accept the Bush tax cuts as part of a grand economic compromise? For the left, that’s ideological heresy and more.

It rejuvenates what supporters and detractors define as Bush’s crowning domestic achievement.

As a candidate, Obama denounced Bush’s tax cuts as 'that old, discredited Republican philosophy — give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.' He ran an ad saying John McCain’s support of the Bush tax cuts offended 'his conscience.'

Obama’s conscience is apparently no longer offended by the Bush tax cuts and that offends liberals. It’s their tipping point.

It makes them question their core beliefs and wonder about his. Did they fall in love with the idea of electing the first black president on the assumption that he is as liberal as they are?

Or, maybe they were simply blinded by hatred of Bush. (End of Vennochi column that reads an awful lot like posts previously published at ZACKlyRight.)

In tax deal, they reveal their envy
By Jeff Jacoby
December 12, 2010

Liberals and Democrats have been melting down, blowing up, and freaking out over President Obama’s agreement with Republican leaders to extend Bush-era tax rates for another two years. 'An absolute disaster,' fumes Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders in an interview on MSNBC. 'Anger of House Dems boils over,' Politico reports. 'An Odious Tax Deal,' editorializes The New York Times. 'Moral corruptness,' seethes Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

'No amount of lipstick,' roars a headline at Democratic Underground, 'can make this pig of a deal acceptable.'

Why is the left so furious?

I realize, of course, that liberals were against the Bush tax cuts from the start. I know that Obama vowed time and again to let those tax cuts expire for households earning more than $250,000 a year. He made that pledge as a candidate for president, and he was still making it on the campaign trail this fall. 'We are ready . . . to give tax cuts to every American making $250,000 or less,' the president said in Cleveland on Sept. 8. 'For any income over this amount, the tax rates would just go back to what they were under President Clinton.'

But Obama swore to end plenty of other Bush policies that nevertheless remain intact. Why aren’t Democrats in a blind rage over the tens of thousands of US troops still deployed in Iraq? Or his extension of the Patriot Act? Or the ongoing rendition of terror suspects to third countries for interrogation?

Roll Call reported last week that liberal activists angry about Obama’s compromise on tax cuts 'crashed two phone lines at the White House' and are planning to do the same to the Senate. Why have they never overloaded the White House switchboard with calls protesting the continued use of the presidential signing statements for which Bush was so sharply criticized? Or warrantless wiretapping? Or over the fact that Guantanamo still hasn’t been shut down?

Of all the ways in which 'George W. Obama' (as a Village Voice headline dubbed him in January) has disappointed his ideological supporters, why is it the prospect of not raising taxes on the wealthy that drives them into such a frenzy?

After all, it isn’t as though Obama’s deal with the GOP singles out the rich for a windfall. It is simply an agreement not to single them out for a loss. And it isn’t as though the affluent don’t already shoulder an income-tax burden disproportionately higher than their share of the national income. In 2008, the top 1 percent of tax filers accounted for 20 percent of all income earned that year, yet they paid 38 percent of all federal individual income taxes. Federal income tax rates are progressive to a fault. So why are 'progressives' spitting nails at the thought of leaving those rates where they are?

In an interview on Tuesday, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell demanded to know how Senator Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, could 'justify going along with a larger tax cut, for those who really don’t need it.' Gregg replied: 'Well, my view is: It’s their money.'

That would be my view, too — and the view of most Americans, who are not conditioned to equate wealth with dispossession, and have not been raised to resent the rich. The premise of Mitchell’s question — that government has the strongest claim on money the affluent 'really don’t need' — strikes most non-liberals as not just wrong, but pernicious.

To the left, the opposite is true. 'We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one,' Ronald Reagan, a recovered liberal, once said, 'without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one.' As long as there are have-nots, therefore — and there will always be have-nots — it is pernicious for government not to confiscate more wealth from the haves.

This envy and resentment, which liberals think of as sensitivity and compassion, are at the very core of the liberal conception of good government. That is why 'tax cuts for the rich' gets them so emotional and angry — and it only deepens their outrage that most Americans don’t think the way they do. Hence the Democrats’ apoplexy. And hence their unbridled fury at Obama for agreeing to a compromise that a majority of voters seem to like. (End of Jacoby column.)

Oh, The Irony!

For the last year or so, I'm now generally reading my (news)paper, the Boston Globe, 14 hours after it lands in my driveway and I'm reading the Wall Street Journal a full 28 hours or so after it hits my driveway. The time lag has taken a obvious toll on my ability to type original material for this blog. For those still periodically checking-in, please bear with me as I hope my days start to look a little different.

This week, two topics seemed to blanket my stale newspapers: New START and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT).

Does anyone else but me see the irony in President Obama trotting out former Secretary of State Colin Powell to lobby an international weapons treaty but not have Powell, the father of DADT, lobby the repeal of DADT?

"I’d rather get this right than get it rushed."

My (news)paper, the Boston Globe, praised President Obama in an editorial yesterday for slowing down the process of negotiating a trade agreement with South Korea that is already more than 3 years in the making (negotiations started under President Bush).

ObamaCare and New START can be jammed down America's throat and Republicans can be criticized for being obstructionists for wanting to debate the language in each but the trade deal with South Korea is something Obama says he'd "rather get this right than get it rushed."

Democrats Still Tone Deaf

The Associated Reported yesterday, "In its first action of the lame-duck session, the House voted yesterday to ban so-called crush videos that depict the abuse and killing of animals. The measure would revive, with some modifications, a 1999 law that was struck down by the Supreme Court last April on the grounds it was too broadly written and violated constitutional free speech protections."

The Associated Press did not report on when Democrats in the House addressed 10% unemployment or $3.00 gasoline.

My "news"paper, the Boston Globe, also reported the following yesterday in covering who will fill the leadership positions for the Democrats in House come January, "Things appear to have settled on the Democratic side. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, wants to stay on as Democratic leader, and a Democratic arrangement reached Friday clears the way for Maryland Representative Steny Hoyer to become second in command without a challenge from South Carolina Representative James Clyburn (pictured)."



Yes, the Democrats couldn't have an African-American serve in a leadership role. Like a good little plantation worker, Rep. Clyburn, once his place was explained to him by liberal, white leadership, dutifully took his place at the back of the bus.

CNN Now Reading ZACKlyRight

Reproduced without authorization because it's basically my words coming back to me despite CNN's disclaimer at the bottom:

- - Editor's note: Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a nationally syndicated columnist, an NPR commentator and a regular contributor to CNN.com.

Paging Jeb Bush -- for 2012
By Ruben Navarrette Jr., CNN Contributor
November 11, 2010 8:40 a.m. EST

San Diego, California (CNN) -- Americans are horribly divided over the legacy of our 43rd president: George W. Bush. These factions locked horns when Bush was in office, and they're at it again this month now that Bush has released "Decision Points," a memoir of his personal and political life.

Supporters see a good man, a compassionate conservative and a natural-born leader who said what he meant and meant what he said and shepherded the country through some of its most difficult moments after the attacks of September 11, 2001, and who didn't dodge tough issues to be popular.

Detractors see a dishonest politician who never had the smarts for the job, and thus surrendered control over the presidency to a Svengali-like cast of characters who ran the country and the economy into the ground while the president spent his days mountain biking and turning in early.

As with most things, the truth is probably somewhere in-between. One thing is certain: After nearly two years of watching President Obama try to navigate the most important job in the world like a boat without a rudder and, in the process, watching him disappoint, anger and frustrate even loyal supporters, George W. Bush never looked so good.

In fact, some folks in the GOP are so convinced that there is a Bush renaissance in the offing that they're hoping to turn that wave into another White House victory for the Bush family.

That's right. If the era of Bush fatigue is really over, then here comes baby brother. Jeb Bush, the popular former two-term governor of Florida, is being mentioned as a viable Republican candidate for the presidency in 2012, although he has denied having an interest in running.

(Both Bush brothers will be guests on a special edition of State of the Union with Candy Crowley, Sunday at 8 and 11 p.m. ET.)

While Jeb has his share of detractors, he also seems to have the same knack for bringing people together that his big brother had for driving them apart. And, with the Tea Party ready to go to war with the GOP establishment in the political equivalent of a cage match for control of the Republican Party, that skill set could come in handy.

Another thing that Republicans need right now is someone who can help them make peace with Hispanics. The nation's largest minority, and one of the fastest growing segments of the electorate, has declared a war of its own: against Republicans who treat them like piñatas with racism and scare tactics to rustle up voters from white people.

In states like California, Arizona, Nevada and Texas, that translated into solid Latino turnout for Democrats. But it was a different story in two other states; Sen.-elect Marco Rubio got 55 percent of the Latino vote in Florida, and Gov.-elect Susana Martinez got an impressive 38 percent of the Latino vote in New Mexico. But in both those cases, Rubio and Martinez took positions on the volatile immigration issue that were somewhat nuanced, and resisted the kind of racially charged rhetoric that other Republicans find so irresistible.

The lesson: Hispanics are fair-minded folks who won't issue a blanket indictment against every Republican on the ballot, but they will hold accountable those who cross the line in words or deeds.

That's good news for Jeb Bush, a fluent Spanish speaker who is married to a Latina and who, in his 1994 election and 1998 re-election as Florida governor, got as much as 60 percent of the Hispanic vote -- an even better showing than his brother registered with Hispanic voters in Texas.

George W. Bush has said he doesn't think his brother will run for president in 2012, and he might be right. But that could change, and W is right to say he hopes it does. After all, with Latinos on their way to becoming 20 percent of the U.S. population, one of W's most significant political legacies is that he showed that Republicans could get a fair hearing from Latinos -- if they gave those voters the respect denied them by Democrats who take their support for granted.

In some parts of the country, as tempers flare over the immigration issue, that legacy is now being threatened. George W. Bush built all these bridges to the Latino community, and they're being blown up one by one by idiotic and shortsighted opportunists in his own party who aren't thinking long-term.

Someone needs to get in there and repair the breach. Someone needs to convince Hispanics that Republicans aren't their enemies and point out that Democrats haven't always been very good friends. Paging baby brother.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ruben Navarrette Jr. - -