The Anchoress

I started doing this back in April, and for some reason people like this Q&A format and keep asking for more, and more, so…here’s more.

Q: Anchoress, you wrote a frivolous piece about your soul and coffee; does that mean you’re feeling better?

A: Praise God, yes, I am finally emerging from my exhausted fog and my numbers this morning were markedly better. Thanks for your kind notes and prayers (which always leave me touched and humbled.) If this is the worst thing going on in my life, my life ain’t bad at all, and I know it.

Q: Is that why you changed the end of this piece, which originally had a snarky line about how Jenna Bush was not working for a hedge fund?

A: Oh, you caught that, did you? I took the line out because it was a cheap, easy shot at Chelsea Clinton, who seems like a very nice young woman; I try not to do the “cheap, easy” thing here, and I didn’t like myself writing it. That said, I will say the snark was precipitated by reading several obnoxious press accounts of Jenna Bush’s upcoming wedding and thinking about how - were she the daughter of a Democrat - her choice to teach inner-city school children would accompany every sentence written about her, and every article about her would not include the obligatory revelation that while she was in college, she acted like most college students. I just get damn tired of the needlessly spiteful way the press writes about anyone connected to a president with an R after his name, while anyone connected to a president with a D after his name is a paragon of virtue, intelligence and unselfishness. I say that as someone with an I after her name.

I mean, God-forbid a little balance? Can you imagine, fer instance, the press actually noting which party has members saying things like “I have the votes of hard-working white Americans?” and referring to “white n-words?” How come the press will sneer (and cry about “church-and-state”) when Christians gather to pray for peace (and for our troops) but they don’t have the same conniption when Code Pink takes their charms, spells and boas to the street?

Why no balance, that’s all I’m asking. And I ask it even as I admit, I have an affection of sorts for those amusing Code Pink Performance Artists.

Q: Well, but the Republicans are all privileged people; it’s the party of the rich, so the press would naturally be harder on them, than on the middle-class loving, blue-collar-respecting Democrats, right?

A: Hmmm, that’s a good question. Betsy Newmark wonders which is the party of the rich:

It’s funny. The Democratic politicians like to portray the Republican party as the party for the rich. Yet the rich are going with the Democrats this year. The Democrats don’t seem to think it’s as odd that those wealthy donors are voting against their supposed economic interests as they do when Kansans vote for Republican candidates.

As near as I can tell, the Democrats are heavily supported by the rather wealthy folk who own the coastal enclaves you and I can’t afford, but if you google rich republicans and wealthy democrats you see that the press has a one-way narrative. That is possibly because, hanging out at Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard, Malibu, Southampton or Myrtle Beach, with their kids in the same private schools the children of politicians attend, the folks in the press are simply so out of touch they think they are not wealthy democrats…or something.

This is another reason I momentarily succumbed to a temptation to the ignoble snark referenced above, which I quickly regretted. A lot of people like to say “Jenna Bush should be in the army fighting her father’s war,” but they never say Chelsea should be in Bosnia or Rwanda working with the Peace Corp to restore those areas. They don’t suggest that since Hillary enthusiastically supported and voted for the war and Bill Clinton (in 1998) initiated the policy of Regime Change in Iraq, Chelsea should be doing her part over there. It’s just damned tiresome. Chelsea Clinton is not a bad person for choosing to work in hedge funds, but there is an irony there, that shouldn’t be ignored.

Q: Ironies supporting Bushes or GOPers or Conservatives are always ignored; find one people will listen to.

A: Umm, people are all plugged into their iPods or their echo chambers, so they don’t listen to anyone, and certainly not to me, but another important irony might be that those “gun-free cities” that are supposed to be havens of safety? The police want assault rifles to function within them. Not getting much coverage.

Q: You don’t like the press much, do you?

A: Hush you, I love the free press - it is the hardy spine of liberty:

“…Liberty lives only when the press is free and unencumbered - when it is detached from events instead of entwined in them. That Liberty lives when people refuse to be intimidated into silence or acquiescence, whether in the workplace or within the community.

Journalists were my first heroes. I simply deplore the fact that our free press seems to be no longer free, and that they have not been overtaken…they’ve simply handed their freedom over to their own agendas. For heaven’s sake, this worries me so much, that I even fret about it when I am over-medicated:

I personally think every American should be concerned with her press - the great and remarkable treasure of her free press - which is being subsumed by advocates and partisans who do not seriously question anyone whom they do not hate, and who therefore betray the public trust (and themselves) and leave the whole nation wide open for something which by the prickling of my thumbs something wicked this way comes.

Some days, now, I’d rather read the Onion.

Q: Well, thank God, you’re at least off the Bush/Clinton rant. What WILL you write about in 2009? It does feel, though, like we’re never going to get out from under these two families, doesn’t it?

A: No, they’re never going to go away. Eventually you’ll see Chelsea running against George Prescott Bush. I have officially declared that we should have no more Bushes or Clintons in the White House because it renders the country mad-beyond-saving, but no one will listen because I am not an influential conservative - which makes sense, since I’m a classical liberal, and we have no home. I do think Ed Morrissey should have been on that list, though.

Also, apropos of nothing, except that someone sent me the video clip - I have always admired the class, intelligence and dignified mien of Dem operative Donna Brazile, even though I hardly ever agree with her! She’s a bright, cool customer, and if I were anyone important, I’d want her on my side. Don’t you watch that clip and wish she could just reach through her screen smack that watery smile off of Paul Begala’s face?

Q: Hmm, you don’t like Paul Begala, and you sound like you have a girl-crush on Donna Brazile.

A: Well…Brazile is gorgeous. And I love her hair. But I love her manner, more - I wish I could be that collected. I completely believe that she’s had more beers with those “working class whites” than any of her white counterparts. And I must say, as a little aside, I winced to hear Begala call the GOP “monochromatic” but that is still largely true, and if you notice, he just casually subsumed the Latino vote into the Democrat side, which is probably wrong…but the GOP has not done anything to ingratiate itself with the largest-growing voting bloc in the nation.

Q: But which ones are smarter? Republicans or Democrats?

A: I won’t say Democrats are smart; they do too many oddball things like scrapping trade with our allies in Colombia while helping the thug Chavez. But…having said that, the GOP really is stupid-beyond-saving. Gateway Pundit here spells out an enormously winning tactic for them for ‘08, and they are either too stupid, too spineless or too beholden to lobbyists to follow the lead. And count on it, they won’t have the testicular fortitude to call Al Gore on his opportunistic attempt to hijack a human tragedy for his own agenda. Like there were never tornados, typhoons, tsunamis or catastrophic floods before manbearpig made its appearance. Going green may kill people but it sure is profitable, so it is credible, right? Hoo-hah.

Q: Okay, so, who are worse, far-left folks who want to stomp on free speech and silence any opposition to their beliefs, or far-right folks who freak out when a teacher performs a magic trick and have him fired for wizardry?

A: They deserve each other, and our nation can and should do better than either of them. They both embody and re-inforce the worst stereotypes on both sides. But perhaps we need them, if only to shine a light on the fact that zealots always - ultimately - weaken their “own side.”

Q: So, this miserable ranter of a post…this is what you’re like when you’re feeling better?

A: I’m not wholly well, yet. A little grouchy. Sorry. I’ll be better soon. As Queen Victoria said when she was an eleven-year old Princess confronted with her future: “I will be good.” Here, I’ll even end on a generous happy note and tell you that Laura Ingraham has adopted a baby girl! Congrats to Ms. Ingraham.

Q: I thought she called you a termagant, once?

A: Well, that’s what I was told, but I don’t know it, and anyway, she wouldn’t have been the first. I wish her all good things and many blessings on her daughter, Maria Caroline. Lovely name.

You know, I’ve been - inarguably - one of President Bush’s staunchest supporters through some pre-tty rough days, and I’m really, really glad to see Ed Morrissey post this video and add his typically well-reasoned commentary.

But I just want to know - and with all due respect - where the HELL has this version of President Bush been for…oh…the last couple years???????

Go check out the video and Ed’s comments. But come back and read this piece by Jay Nordlinger who writes about the UK’s Clare Short, who is dreaming before an Arab audience of the day George W. Bush and Tony Blair may be brought to trial in an international court:

I don’t believe that Blair and Bush will be arrested right away, but this issue may haunt them, because, after all, they will not die very soon, since they are not old. Just like Pinochet was tried — who knows? There are brave lawyers who are waiting for this opportunity, which will come one day.

Writes Nordlinger:

“…there is a sickness in the West, as manifested by Clare Short on Al-Jazeera. She is one of those who repeatedly condemn Israel as an “apartheid state.” In fact, she has stated that Israel is “much worse” than the old South Africa. Yes, there is a sickness, one of whose most powerful symptoms is a deep misunderstanding of Israel, and a hatred of it. Will the West recover?

To add insult to injury, Clare Short was talking to people — Arabs — whose governments are world-class torturers, and whose officials are certainly never held accountable in any international court. Yet she was talking about Bush and Blair, who have done more to help Arab people than a billion Clare Shorts ever could.”
[…]
It seems that Israel’s enemies are in the catbird seat: They can lose and lose, and still survive. Israel is not interested in eliminating a single state. But Israel’s enemies: the opposite.

Nordlinger is spot-on all around - all things that are never said enough.

Bush and Blair are two witnesses. There is a deep reason neither one of them has ever wavered in the war on terror or the action in Iraq. I suspect is a reason that runs along the lines of more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies. But that’s my opinion, and I’ll keep the rest of it to myself.

Brutally Honest notes (as I do in the comments section) that Bush is very fluent when passionate. We need to see more of this.

Vanderleun feels the same way, says he’d pay “folding money” to see more of that and has more interesting links.

Meanwhile, more of the usual from Mrs. Pelosi

:::UPDATE: All my Benedict coverage so far linked here:::END UPDATE:::

In my piece currently featured at Pajamas Media I note that the reality of Pope Benedict XVI has been very different from the projections of pundits and media gasbags who fretted over his election. As the pope makes his first address to America-at-large on the White House South Lawn, US Catholics, and really, the world get their first up-close look at man routinely reviled as the “hard-line enforcer” and “God’s Rottweiller.”

They are probably surprised by many things, not the least that Benedict is not John Paul.

That’s obvious, of course, but I think until now perhaps folks have not realized what that means.

John Paul was an actor who enjoyed an audience. He was an extrovert who fed off the energy of the crowds (can anyone forget how, at the Toronto World Youth Day JPII arrived looking enfeebled and departed looking ten years younger) - he understood the dramatic moment, and he loved nothing better to engage the crowd and work them.

Benedict is a professor and a teacher who loves nothing better than the solitude of his books. He is an introvert who is spent of energy around crowds. He is not a dramatist and does not instinctively “prolong a moment” for the cameras or anything else. His arrival at the White House was described as “almost serenely quiet”.

In speaking English, John Paul was halting and heavily accented; he spoke slowly and dared you to hang in and listen. Benedict is fluent and fast - he expects you to keep up.

John Paul II, while in public, showed you what he was feeling and wanted to know what you were feeling. Public Benedict does not show you his feelings; he is too busy thinking, and you can see it. On the WH lawn, he clearly appreciated the music and seemed mildly amused by the remarkable pipe-and-drum band, but he was not playing to the audience; he was watching and observing.

Where Benedict resembles his predecessor, however, is in content. This morning’s speech was a remarkable “opening” to the six days of dialogue and instruction that will characterize his visit. He said:

“Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience — almost every town in this country has its monuments honouring those who sacrificed their lives in defence of freedom, both at home and abroad. The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good and a sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate. It also demands the courage to engage in civic life and to bring one’s deepest beliefs and values to reasoned public debate. In a word, freedom is ever new. It is a challenge held out to each generation, and it must constantly be won over for the cause of good. Few have understood this as clearly as the late Pope John Paul II. In reflecting on the spiritual victory of freedom over totalitarianism in his native Poland and in eastern Europe, he reminded us that history shows, time and again, that “in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation,” and a democracy without values can lose its very soul. Those prophetic words in some sense echo the conviction of President Washington, expressed in his Farewell Address, that religion and morality represent “indispensable supports” of political prosperity

So, externals and personalities aside, the beat goes on.

As a friend wrote to me when Benedict ended his speech:

This guy is brilliant; the speech was superb. JPII hit you in the chest and gut. This guy hits you right between the eyes.

Yes. He is the cerebral pope. John Paul made you feel; Benedict makes you think. If you’re looking for catharsis and “feelings” you won’t get them. Just the truth delivered at 160 wpm.

Some of that, also, is cultural. John Paul, a Pole, brought into his papacy all of the warmth and gregariousness that makes up the brilliance and resilience of Poland. Bavarian Benedict carries with him the reserves and proprieties of that land. My dear, late brother-in-law’s parents came from Germany. They were people as generous and giving as you could want, but I don’t believe I ever saw either of them break into a huge smile. That was just their way; thoughtful, quiet and hard-working.

Thus, some in America may find themselves disappointed that Benedict seems so “unresponsive” to the crowds hooting and calling to him. A friend emailing from her job wrote:

I know they’re different men but I wish he’d blow a few kisses, like JPII. When the crowd goes loud, they seem to get unsure and quiet down because they can’t read his response, and they keep waiting for the big gesture from him.

I suspect Benedict, shy and probably wishing he was home with a purring cat in his lap and a good book, simply is not comfortable with it. One cannot change one’s essential nature, especially when one is 81. And really, there is something to be said for “serenely quiet” in our age full of empty noise.

I was struck by the images attending the Pope’s visit to the White House, particularly the shot of the pope and the president standing shoulder-to-shoulder. Striking and more powerful than a thousand pundits. Looking at all those Catholics on the South Lawn, both clergy and laity, I couldn’t help think: forty years ago this would have been unthinkable. Greg Kandra had the same thought and expands upon that here:

Back then, in the early days of the 20th century, Catholics were considered Papists, or pagans, or worse. They were the cooks and housekeepers and bus drivers and janitors. Some became priests or teachers. A few with money and connections would ascend to higher places – think of the Kennedys — but it was rare.

So what I witnessed this morning was, for me, moving – and monumental.

Not so very long ago, the idea that a President of the United States would greet the Pope at the White House was unthinkable.

The prospect of a pontiff addressing 12,000 people – and millions more across the country by TV — on the White House lawn was laughable.

Btw, the press is trying to make a big deal out of the fact that Benedict is not attending a White House dinner in his honor and they’re hinting it is a “snub” of President Bush. Hello…as John Allen - who would know - writes, the pope does not eat in public. Ever. The pope does not “go to dinners.” The American Press really does not understand that the pope is not an American politico.

Fun trivia: Rocco mentions that the first verse of today’s final song at the White House, The Battle Hymn of the Republic, was inspired by the first reading in today’s Office of Readings.

Kathryn Jean Lopez interviews Mary Ann Glendon, US Ambassador to the Holy See.

Also writing:
Patrick O’ Hannigan notes the unsurprising huffing of the press.
Inside Catholic Blog is wall-to-wall Benedict
Great links at Pro Ecclesia; just keep scrolling!
Fausta on lecturing the pope
Siggy on the pope and Virginia Tech
Delia Gallagher on how Benedict surrendered to the papacy
Memo: Pope found to be Catholic.

Check back as I’ll be linking to more as I find them. Deacon Greg highlights the running NY Times blog which features better writers than me.

WELCOME: Instapundit Readers! While you’re here, please look around. Today we’re also talking about how Benedict’s serious message in to an unserious society and how this Peter is a lot like St. Paul, the Bodylanguage of Benedict, the shame of the scandals and - if you need a break from Benedict, how Madison Avenue is waking up to men and, finally glorious Miss Ella Fitzgerald giving chills and swinging out!

Watching Benedict exit the plane in DC and greet President & Mrs. Bush and Jenna Bush,* I was struck by the difference in his body language vs John Paul II.

John Paul would greet someone by clasping their hands in both of his and leaning in toward them. Benedict extends one hand and leans slightly back. He’s true introvert, and he looked touchingly surprised at the young people hooting and singing “Happy Birthday” to him.

He is nothing like John Paul II except in faith, but for all he lacks JP’s vibrant charisma, there is something about Benedict and his sweetly humble persona, that draws you in. Viva Papa!

Sissy Willis and I exchanged emails and wondered - and we are not the first to do so, obviously - if President Bush, who is inarguably the most “Catholic” president we’ve ever had, will pull a Tony Blair and enter into full communion with the Catholic church after he leaves office. I wondered at how unusual it was for a president to go to the airport to, essentially, “pick up” the pope and she writes: [Bush meeting Benedict at Andrews AFB ] “makes it known to the world that the Leader of the Free World is humble before the Vicar of Christ . . .”

Some might argue the use of the word “humble,” but I do think it demonstrates the leader of the free world “making way” for the Vicar of Christ. And it is very dramatic. It’s a little earthquake, really, but not everyone will feel it.

Meanwhile, our bishop has decided that rather than plug the local Catholic channel into EWTN - which would make too much sense - they’ve got the Vatican feed in, “anchored” by locals. Ugh. He could have saved the money and gone with the network.

UPDATE: Sr. Lorraine is looking at Benedict’s encyclical on Hope and wondering why we don’t “offer it up” anymore. And the Media Research gang is keeping tabs on all the times the press calls Benedict a “hardliner”. My favorite is the one who suggests that Americans are “fearful” of the pope.

I don’t think the press realizes that their words will not match up with the pictures of this gentleman. The public will catch the cognitive dissonance before the press will realize that they’ve once again hurt their own credibility.

*[edited for clarity - admin]

RELATED: How a non-Catholic respectfully communes at Mass

Deacon Greg, and Miss Kelly and Sissy Willis are all writing about Peggy Noonan’s very good piece on the upcoming visit of Pope Benedict to the United States (and Sissy has a few words for those who don’t appreciate the full genius of Papa Ratzinger, besides).

Because so many are discussing Noonan’s piece, I don’t have to say much about it other than recommend you read it. I like how she notes that Benedict - unlike most “world leaders” - has no problem praising his predecessor and how she points out his use of the word “supernatural.” Benedict is a man of precise speech, so that is interesting. Noonan also writes:

John Paul made you burst into tears. Benedict makes you think. It is more pleasurable to weep, but at the moment, perhaps it is more important to think.

A Vatican reporter last week said John Paul was the perfect pope for the television age, “a man of images.” …

Benedict, the reporter noted, is the perfect pope for the Internet age. He is a man of the word. You download the text of what he said, print it, ponder it.

Yes, this is what I was writing about yesterday. You saw John Paul - the “mighty organ” and you were stirred and inspired. Benedict - the tinkling piano in the other room - makes you wonder “what is it,” and you seek him out in his writings, and then fall in love.

Noonan is at her best when she is writing about her heroes, whether they be secular or religious or some combination of both - in fact, if you like today’s piece you should really go back and read her 2002 piece, John Paul the Great which is breathtakingly well done, and very moving; a definitive snapshot of that astonishing man, and his effect on us.

To me the only burr in today’s otherwise excellent article was her rather gratuitous-seeming snark at the expense of President Bush, which seemed both uncharitable and out of place, like a pothole (on an otherwise smooth road) that needn’t have been hit.

The trip begins in Washington, and the White House has announced that the pope and the president will “continue their dialogue on the interplay of faith and reason.” (This prompted a long-suffering Bush supporter to say, “I’m seeing the collision of matter and antimatter.”)

It is so easy to go for a cheap laugh at Bush’s expense that I felt the gag was beneath Noonan, and was sorry to see it. For all that Bush has clearly disappointed Noonan and many conservatives, the sincerity of his faith and his obvious respect for Catholicism and for two popes should have been enough to have led her not into that temptation.

Speaking of Benedict and Bush, Rocco at Whispers on the Loggia has a long and terrific piece up on the upcoming meeting. My Li’l Bro Thom sent it my way with the remark: “I can’t imagine Hillary or Obama ever referring to him as ‘His Holiness’ or ‘The Holy Father.’” No, nor can I.

Meanwhile, Brits at their Best report on some of the musical folks at the Yankee mass and AggiesCatholics has all things “Benedicte-visit” wise, including links to EWTN’s live stuff.

UPDATE: Predictions that Benedict will again anger Islamists, at Ground Zero

I’m finding myself out of patience with blogging today - maybe I have spring fever. I’m craving a cup of coffee and a walk through a woods - so here’s a quick look at what I’ve been looking at online, and then I think I’ll make myself a large cup of Mystic Monk Dark Roast and I’ll travel-mug it outside:

The other day I wrote about Bobby Kennedy, today at Inside Catholic Mark Stricherz writes about the death of the Bobby Kennedy Coalition

Also relating slightly to something else I wrote last week, Zoe Romanowsky writes of a pastor who reflects on at the pederasty scandals that so roiled the church and where we have come from there, and William Donohue notes that the spin keeps spinning.

Meanwhile Margaret Cabaniss fisks a NY Times piece with How to write about religion and miss the point entirely.

Yes, you see I have been having fun wading through the Crisis Magazine/Inside Catholic site - they’ve got some great stuff and their blog is going gangbusters. You’ll enjoy. I particularly liked this article on how some women and children, armed only with “thanks yous” for their priests, have beaten back protesters.

At America Magazine, Fr. James Martin wonders whether Pope Benedict Loves America, not the magazine, the Country. I think he does, and I don’t think he’s much fazed by the “maddening diversity.” Europe is post-Christian and incredibly diverse, and Benedict doesn’t seem intimidated by that. America is not yet post-Christian (far from, I think).

In non-religious news, I like Instapundit’s beautiful bit of snark here about the Imperial Presidency of George Bush, and how the story changes, when the agenda is different.

The more I see of John McCain, the more I like the cut of his jib, and I looooove his new campaign ad, which is so grown up and which appeals to all of our better natures. Classy ad.

While it looks like Mooky has surrendered, which is big news, Vodkapundit awaits the new round of Petraeus hearings

Oink.

Pope Benedict XVI will soon be in America - is this the first time a pope has made it into the doors of the White House? I seem to think perhaps Carter hosted JPII, but I’m not sure; does anyone know? Anyway, Sissy Willis has a terrific round-up on the visit; she gives you all the best links, and Miss Kelly has tickets, so she’ll be giving us some first-hand reporting on it. A contact over at Catholic University of America in DC may be able to give us some direct news or a photo, too.

Meanwhile, Glenn Reynolds thankfully keeps us up to date on zombie survival methods. My children have me well-trained, thanks to Max Brooks and his books, but some of you had better get on the ball! Too many of you are not taking the threat seriously enough. You’ll be sorry when the zombies come!

(click here to view)

Joel Pett Lexington Herald-Leader Feb 20, 2008 EditorialCartoonists.com

The best read of the day may well be this Time Magazine piece by Bob Geldof, a report of Geldof’s time with President Bush during his recent, and mostly ignored, tour of Africa.

To start with, the reader gets a taste of just how powerfully America has been acting for good in the matter of AIDS in Africa. The numbers are just astonishing.

It was, for example, Bush who initiated the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) with cross-party support led by Senators John Kerry and Bill Frist. In 2003, only 50,000 Africans were on HIV antiretroviral drugs — and they had to pay for their own medicine. Today, 1.3 million are receiving medicines free of charge.
[…]
So why doesn’t America know about this? “I tried to tell them. But the press weren’t much interested,” says Bush. It’s half true. There are always a couple of lines in the State of the Union, but not enough so that anyone noticed, and the press really isn’t interested. For them, like America itself, Africa is a continent of which little is known save the odd horror.

There is some truth to that, but I suspect that the press would be more interested in all of this if only the president had a D after his name, too.

Read the whole article - it is quite enlightening. I was particularly interested in reading the president’s thoughts on the innovative idea of training African nations in conflict resolution:

People in Africa are worried about this new, seemingly military command. I thought it was an inappropriate and knee-jerk U.S. militaristic response to clumsy Chinese mercantilism that could only end in tears for everyone concerned. (And so did many Africans, if the local press was anything to go by.)

“That’s ridiculous,” says Bush. “We’re still working on it. We’re trying to build a humanitarian mission that would train up soldiers for peace and security so that African nations are more capable of dealing with Africa’s conflicts. You agree with that dontcha?” Indeed I do….Trouble is, it sounds to me a lot like what the U.S. did in the early Vietnam years with the advisers who became something else. Mission creep, I think it’s called.

“No, that won’t happen,” Bush insists. “We’re still working on what exactly it’ll be, but it will be a humanitarian mission, training in peace and security, conflict resolution … It’s a new concept and we want to get it right.” He muses for a while on the U.S. and China, and their policies on Africa — Africans are increasingly resentful that the Chinese bring their own labor force and supplies with them. Then, in what I took to be a reference to the supposed Chinese influence over the cynical Khartoum regime, Bush adds, “One thing I will say: Human suffering should preempt commercial interest.”

Geldof has a blind spot on Iraq and I think he should have just engaged the president on the question when he seemed to want to. But I also suspect that the press is so heavily invested in the Iraq narrative they’ve built that had Geldof engaged, TIME would not have printed it anyway.

But I do like that he gives the president serious credit not just for his humanitarian aid to Africa, but for his smarts in general. The press narrative since 1999, has been that Bush is “incurious and slow.” Geldof writes precisely the opposite, noting after a discussion of Africa and trade tariffs, “he’s curious and quick.”

And while in not engaging the president on Iraq is a bit unfair because does not allow rebuttal to Geldof’s own meme’d musings, the Irish rocker does allow Bush to make his case as to the steadiness of his interest in Africa, going back to his debates with Gore.

I suggest that his commitment to Africa has been revolutionary in its interest curve. “That’s not true,” he says. “In my second debate with Al Gore, I came out for debt cancellation and AIDS relief. I called AIDS a genocide. I felt and still do that it was unacceptable to stand by and let a generation be eradicated.”

All in all, yes, this is a very good piece for Bush. And for Geldof, who shows himself to be a passionate and smart fellow who is able to look beyond his ingrained ideologies to give props where due.

I thought his “who will read it to you, Mr. President” remark was so disrespectful - both to Bush and to his office - as to warrant a good smack upside the head, but I credit Geldof with including that passage as a means to juxtapose his own increased respect for Bush by article’s end.

Slightly O/T: Geldof notes in his piece that the rest of the world, while happy to bloviate on issues, rarely takes constructive action on urgent issues, and he writes:

At our hotel in Ghana, the porter carrying my bag said they had thrown out all the other guests because “the President of the World was coming.”

I think perhaps the Ghanese porter was correct. Bush is “the President of the World.” For all his mistakes and weaknesses, I don’t see anyone on the political horizon - here or abroad - who really is ready to step into his shoes internationally. I am seriously hopeful about Bobby Jindal down the road, though.

Welcome Hot Air readers - thanks, Ed Morrissey for the link!. Writing here has been rather Lent-heavy, recently, but today we’re also talking about The Clintonian Conundrum, we’re remembering George Gobel, Dean Martin and Bob Hope on the the Tonight Showand we’re having a little cartoon fun, too!

H/T Buster:

President Bush and Hillary Clinton are both shuffling their feet, but only one of them seems to be enjoying it.

President Bush - a self-proclaimed “non-dancer” who has nevertheless been seen dancing at least one other time in his presidency, with free Georgians - got up and awkwardly rocked about in Liberia, where national pop stars have been serenading him with thank you’s rarely covered by the press.

Her head tilted back, Juli Endee pulled the microphone close and belted out, “Thank you, George Bush.”

“Thank you for democracy,” she crooned over the electric guitar, shaking her hips wrapped in yellow cloth. “Thank you for the rule of law,” she sang. “Thank you for debt relief.”

Don Surber calls Bush the best friend Africa ever had:

Bush’s record in Africa is amazing. Despite a $3 trillion budget, presidents don’t get a lot of say in how the money is spent. Half the money goes to entitlements. And Congress has the power of the purse. But Bush has made fighting AIDS, HIV and malaria in Africa a priority.

The American press may not have noticed, but the foreign press has. Reuters reported: “Because of the U.S. anti-malaria program, 5 percent of patients tested positive for the disease on the offshore islands of Zanzibar in 2007 compared to 40 percent three years earlier, the Tanzanian leader said.”

The coverage of Bush’s African tour there has been nothing like the messianic, day-to-day coverage of Bill Clinton’s stay there, a decade ago - and we hear little about the accountability that Bush is demanding of African nations as the payback for America’s humanitarianism.

From the International Herald Tribune:

There was the president, speaking forcefully in Tanzania about long-held American values; not just freedom as an obligatory throw away line, but of democracy in terms of good governance, and of the importance of heeding the people and serving their needs.

“I’ll put it bluntly - America doesn’t want to spend money on people who steal the money from the people,” Bush said, addressing the news media together with his Tanzanian counterpart, Jakaya Kikwete.

“We like dealing with honest people and compassionate people,” he added. “We want our money to go to help the human condition and to live human lives.”
[…]
…the United States, with its emphasis on good government, democracy and rights has positioned itself to be the friend of African peoples, while China positions itself as a friend of African governments. Where the Clinton administration often favored African strongmen, Bush’s visit tilts policy in favor of cleanliness and democracy.

Mainstream Coverage in the US is pretty thin, and hardly gushing:

Tens of thousands of Liberians poured into the streets as the American convoy ranged through town. Barechested boys, toothless old men and women with babies strapped to their backs ran alongside, laughing and chanting, ”We want peace.” …
They all sang paeans to the American president, George W. Bush, but in the high-speed Liberian pidgin spoken here it sounded something like ”Jaw Boo,” as in: ”Oh, George Bush, we like you. Oh, George Bush.”

”Americans are just not used to being received this way,” confessed one member of the assessment team.

You know what? That’s really true. In places where freedom is taken for granted, our president and our troops are not received with joy. But in places where liberty is still longed for and prized, the story is quite different.

O Jaw Boo, we like you!

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is skidding around, trying to find some traction in a campaign that is careening downward. She (or her campaign) is complaining that the press is doing the bump-bump-bump with Obama, and standing her up:

Clinton was seven minutes into her speech Tuesday night, shortly after being projected to lose the Wisconsin primary, when Obama bounded onto a stage and all the cable news networks — after a brief split-screen moment — cut away from her to him.

As Obama went into overtime — while the rest of Sen. Clinton’s speech in Youngstown, Ohio, went unheard by the country — her aides were stewing over what they see as media favoritism toward the Illinois senator. …

“Whatever happened to equal time?” Clinton spokesman Phil Singer asked yesterday.

You can’t say she doesn’t have some grounds for complaint, there. However, as a New Yorker, I can’t feel too badly for her. I remember all too well how she and her campaign steamrolled over Rick Lazio’s concession speech in 2000, barely allowing him to graciously congratulate Hillary on her win before she trundled out and started doing the “clap-clap-point-point” thing - stealing all the coverage even before giving her victory speech.

It’s a cliche because it’s true; what goes around, comes around.

I disagree, though, that Hillary is done. Even if she is, she will never concede it. She don’t feel no ways tired…

President George W. Bush hugs a woman after a visit to Maasai Girls School in Arusha, Tanzania WH Photo by Eric Draper

I didn’t know Bush was still there! There is so little press coverage of Bush’s very well received visit to Africa that we don’t even know he’s there.

Contrast that to the day-to-day coverage (even his rest-stops were covered!) of President Clinton’s trip to Africa a decade ago - which was written about, analyzed, photographed and reported on endlessly and with a fervor bordering on the coverage on might expect to herald the second-coming of Christ.

Irish Rocker Bob Geldorf is insulted on Bush’s behalf at the flimsy coverage:

Mr. Geldof said…he is also “pissed off” at the press for their failure to report on this good news story.
“You guys didn’t pay attention,” Geldof said to a group of reporters from all the major newspapers.
Bush administration officials, incidentally, have also been quite displeased with some of the press coverage on this trip that they have viewed as overly negative and ignoring their achievements.

Well of course the coverage has been negative and ignoring. Good news that reflects well on President Bush is not permitted. As I’ve said before, there will be no good news allowed, anywhere in America, until the ‘08 elections are over, and especially there will be no good news about President Bush.

And why should there be? After all Bush=Hitler.

Today Bush visited a memorial to The Rwanda Horrors of 1994. The American President of that era was afraid to get involved; the polls weren’t in favor; if things had gone badly, it would have been difficult. And if Bush had held the same sort of mindset, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, with his rape rooms and his mass graves still doing business.

He won’t get credit for freeing millions of people in Iraq and helping to form a Democracy there, or for advancing the cause of women in the Middle East, or for helping millions dying in Africa. Not in this historical cycle, anyway.

Love him or hate him, agree with him or not, Bush saw a thing that needed doing and he did it, regardless of how it would affect his poll numbers and his “world love.” And I say again: will will miss him when he is gone from office. There is no one currently running for President who has his nerve or conviction.

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.” — Teddy Roosevelt

Meanwhile the pictures at the first link are great. (H/T SV)

The Wall Street Journal notices the Quagmire the press finds itself in as regards Bush. Great piece.

My Li’l Bro Thom, who watches this stuff, noted that “Bush in Africa was all over the news this morning…but only because the press was covering Castro and needed to cover Bush’s remarks.” Typical.

Rick at Brutally Honest has noticed the press’ incuriousity, too.