Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus thinks the Bush Presidency suffers from too much “manliness.”

In response to the upcoming book “Manliness,” by Harvey C. Mansfield (a conservative professor of government at Harvard University) — in which his thesis is that manliness, which he sums up as “confidence in the face of risk,” is a misunderstood and unappreciated attribute — columnist Marcus says:

No wimpiness worries now. This is an administration headed by a cowboy boot-wearing brush-clearer, backstopped by a quail-shooting fly fisherman comfortable with long stretches of manly silence — very “Brokeback Mountain,” except this crowd considers itself too manly for such PC Hollywood fare. “I would be glad to talk about ranchin’, but I haven’t seen the movie,” Bush told a questioner.

She further writes:

The undisputed manliness of the Bush White House stands in contrast to its predecessors and wannabes. If Republicans are the Daddy Party and Democrats the Mommy Party, the Clinton White House often operated like Mansfield’s vision of an estrogen-fueled kaffeeklatsch: indecisive and undisciplined. (Okay, there were some unfortunate, testosterone-filled moments, too.) Bill Clinton’s would-be successor, Al Gore, was mocked for enlisting Naomi Wolf to help him emerge as an alpha male; after that, French-speaking John Kerry had to give up windsurfing and don hunting gear to prove he was a real man. And Bush’s father, of course, had to battle the Wimp Factor. Mansfield recalls Thatcher’s manly admonition to 41 on the eve of the Persian Gulf War: “Don’t go wobbly on me, George.”

But is that really the problem? Marcus continues:

But the manliness of the Bush White House has a darker side that has proved more curse than advantage. The prime example is the war in Iraq: the administration’s assertion of the right to engage in preemptive and unilateral war; the resolute avoidance of debate about the “slam-dunk” intelligence on weapons of mass destruction; the determined lack of introspection or self-doubt about the course of the war; and the swaggering dismissal of dissenting views as the carping of those not on the team.

I have written here at length about my agreements and disagreements with the various policies of President Bush. But one thing I will not fault Mr. Bush on is his “gumption” or “stick-to-it-iveness.” And there is one issue over which I will absolutely insist on a president displaying those qualities: terrorism. I want a president unwavering in his or her commitment to keep my country safe. Marcus writes:

What this country could use is a little less manliness — and a little more of what you would describe as womanly qualities: restraint, introspection, a desire for consensus, maybe even a touch of self-doubt.

I submit: regarding terrorism, that’s precisely what we do want: more “manliness.”

THIS JUST IN:

In a further display of heinous “manliness,” President Bush said the decision about when to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq will fall to future presidents and Iraqi leaders, suggesting that U.S. involvement will continue at least through 2008.

Acknowledging the public’s growing unease with the war – and election-year skittishness among fellow Republicans – the president nonetheless vowed to keep U.S. soldiers in the fight.

“If I didn’t believe we could succeed, I wouldn’t be there. I wouldn’t put those kids there,” Bush declared.

He also stood by embattled Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld.

BUSH ALSO BLASTS HELEN THOMAS:

Mr. Bush called on Helen Thomas today for the first time in literally a few years, and she wasted no time in an attempt to slam the president and his administration:

Q: I’d like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet — your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth — what was your real reason? You have said it wasn’t oil — quest for oil, it hasn’t been Israel, or anything else. What was it?

THE PRESIDENT: I think your premise — in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist — is that — I didn’t want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect —

Q: Everything —

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on for a second, please.

Q: — everything I’ve heard —

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. No President wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it’s just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We — when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy. But we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I’m never going to forget it. And I’m never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people. Part of that meant to make sure that we didn’t allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that’s why I went into Iraq — hold on for a second —

Q: They didn’t do anything to you, or to our country.

THE PRESIDENT: Look — excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That’s where al Qaeda trained —

Q: I’m talking about Iraq —

THE PRESIDENT: Helen, excuse me. That’s where — Afghanistan provided safe haven for al Qaeda. That’s where they trained. That’s where they plotted. That’s where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans. I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That’s why I went to the Security Council; that’s why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences —

Q: — go to war —

THE PRESIDENT: — and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.

Once again — too much “manliness?” I think not.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Interior Secretary Gale Norton said on Monday said that it was “increasingly likely” that bird flu would be detected in the United States as early as this year.

Speaking to reporters, Norton and Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns unveiled a plan to increase monitoring of migratory birds that are likely to bring the bird flu virus to U.S. shores.

Norton said bird flu would likely first be detected in the Pacific islands in Alaska, where testing for the disease will be a priority.

Norton stressed that detecting the disease in birds in the United States would not signal the start of a human pandemic.

H5N1, by the way, has already mutated within itself, I should like to point out. It is not impossible for it to cross species lines. I find this a remarkable and honest admission by an American bureaucrat. This might be an interesting time to begin to stock up on some provisions for your home.

I do not customarily recommend particular musical pieces but I deviate from this norm now.

I have listened to and have had time to ponder David Gilmour’s new release, On An Island.

It took at least five or six listenings before I appreciated what was present.

From the last cut, entitled “Where We Start:”

Where we start, is where we end
We step out sweetly, with nothing planned
Along by the river we feed bread to the swans
And then over the footbridge to the woods beyond

We walk ourselves weary, you and I
There’s just this moment

I light a campfire away from the path
We lie in the bluebells, a woodpecker laughs

Time passes slowly our hearts entwined
All of the dark times left behind

The day is done
The sun sinks low
We fold up the blanket, it’s time to go

We walk ourselves weary, arm in arm
Back through the twilight
Home again
We’re home again

We waltz in the moonlight and the embers glow
So much behind us
Still far to go
So far to go.

We have, all, so far yet to go.

BZ

Some people think Maureen Dowd needs to be muzzled, a la Hannibal Lecter (see Left). I mirror Lecter’s words when he once said: “I myself do not.” She manages to step on her throat, seemingly unprodded, with sufficient pressure — and no additional assistance necessary — just like the Dems and the DEM themselves.

From the current March 17th issue of The Week:

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd asked an Australian newspaper last week to help her find romance. Dowd was in Australia to promote her feminist manifesto, Are Men Necessary?, when she confessed that she always had a thing for Australian guys. “If they can take a strong, sassy woman, Australian men should please apply,” she told the Sydney Australian. The paper got dozens of replies.

“If she can answer this question, I’ll let her have me,” wrote one man. “How many blokes does it take to open a beer can? None. Maureen should have had it opened when she brought it to me.”

‘Nuff said, mate.

IN THAT SAME ISSUE, AND IN A SIMILAR VEIN:

Charlotte Allen wrote recently in the Los Angeles Times: “Betty Friedan, it seems, died just in time to roll over in her grave.” Why is that, you might wonder? It would seem that a new University of Virginia study has disproved feminism’s principal tenet — that traditional marriage leaves women unfulfilled and miserable.

In a survey of more than 5,000 couples, sociologists found that 52% of “stay-at-home” wives rates themselves as “very happy.” That was contrasted with 41% of working wives who likewise described themselves as “very happy.”

The survey also managed to challenge the so-called “utopian” notion that housework and child care should be split evenly. The survey, in a clear non-PC fashion, revealed that women are happiest when their husbands are committed to the marriage, appreciative of their wives’ contributions, and emotionally open. “It doesn’t much matter whether they dust and do the dishes,” The Week noted.

John Tierney of The New York Times responded by writing that “the happiest wives, regardless of the family’s overall income, were the ones whose husbands brought in at least 2/3rds of the money.” Even feminists who said they believed in “a partnership of equals” were far happier with men who provided most of the family’s income.

Further, Jenice Armstrong of the Philadelphia Daily News observed: Women may be hard-wired to prefer men who are good providers, but the findings clearly indicate women are happiest with “a loving partner” who is “romantic, affectionate, and understanding.”

“In the end,” she says, “the answer to the age-old question of what women want is no surprise. It’s simply love.”

BUT WAIT: THE FEMINISTS WEIGH IN

Meghan O’Rourke from Slate.com said that women still aren’t sure what they want. She writes that “the more you scrutinize a relationship, the more likely you are to find fault with it. That’s why,” she continues, “feminists are less likely to be happy than traditional, religious women. The latter, on the other hand, are free to think (italics are from the article itself — BZ) of themselves as traditionalists, even though many of them work outside the home (strictly for finanacial reasons, of course), and expect their husbands to share in the housework and the child-rearing.”

Traditional women, in other words, are generally happier because “they’re free riders on the women’s movement (though they’d deny it), whereas feminists have descended into a tangle of second guesses.”

Or, I might add, if you’re a so-called “traditionalist” (read: a woman possessing any hint of a religious embrace): you’re simply too stupid to know what you are missing.

Senator Russell Feingold (left, of course) introduced a resolution on Monday this week to censure President Bush for the NSA wiretapping issue. From Feingold’s speech on his website:

The President authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled Congress and the public about the existence and legality of that program. It is up to this body to reaffirm the rule of law by condemning the President’s actions.

Never mind that Clinton tapped the crap when it served his purposes — and Carter as well. This has been documented.

Never mind that the horrendous tapping involved terrorist activity with the goal being to protect this sovereign nation.

The bottom line from all this? The Democrats voted with their feet and stayed away from Feingold in droves — instead of lining up in lockstep. Imagine that.

Unhappy with their proverbial feetsie-vote, Feingold took the Dems to task yesterday by saying: “Democrats run and hide” when the administration invokes the war on terrorism. Feingold also said: “I’m amazed at Democrats . . . cowering with this president’s numbers so low.”

In addition (now that it’s apprent this strike isn’t sticking as hoped) another Dem, Senator Debbie Stabenow (Michigan), hit the senate floor yesterday with a huge red sign that read “dangerously incompetent” while giving a speech attacking the Bush administration over first responder and Homeland Security funding.

Apparently unsatisfied by simply submitting a $5 billion federal funding increase, she felt compelled to grandstand with the sign and her statement: “God forbid that there is another terrorist attack or a natural disaster.”

Keep it up Boys and Girls; keep it up. Whereas in truth it would have been simple work (at least in theory) to chew up the GOP and completely retake the House and Senate this year — well, Dems, you’re doing your damnedest to ensure no guarantee of that outcome.

I repeat: keep it up.