…so said President Bush in an interview conducted by Politico.com, the first presidential interview done for a web site.

The reader comments on Politico’s blog are revealing. Democrats hate him. They cannot see the dignity he’s brought to the office, his good nature, his determination to do what’s right, regardless of what’s popular.

These are the same folks who once fawned over Bill Clinton, Bush’s polar opposite. Clinton “lead” by opinion poll. Bush is doing what he thinks is right. And if you hate him for it, call him a miserable failure, declare him the worse president ever etc. it doesn’t seem to faze him.

Thank god for a man like him. Some tidbits:

THE PRESIDENT:  The Oval Office is a place where there’s been, obviously, a lot of amazing experiences over a seven-and-a-half year period. My presidency is one where I’ve had to make some very tough decisions. I guess some presidencies are kind of — were real smooth, there were no real big issues. Well, that’s not the way mine is.

Q. Consequential. That’s what you want —

THE PRESIDENT: Consequential — if that’s how it turns out to be, that’s a good word, because I didn’t want to come to Washington, D.C. and just hold the office for the sake of holding it. I wanted to come to Washington, D.C. and help be a transformative President. And I think history, when they look back, will say this is a fellow who knew how to make decisions, and made some tough ones, stood by them, wasn’t driven by the latest opinion poll, but was driven by some core principles from which he would not deviate.

Indeed.

 Q. Mr. President, for the record, is global warming real?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it is real, sure is. But the solutions — having said that, the solutions have got to be measured and realistic — you can’t have a solution to global warming unless China and India are part of any international pact. It’s one of the reasons I didn’t accept what’s called the Kyoto Protocol, and therefore was labeled as anti-environment. I’m a realistic guy. If the major emitters of greenhouse gases are not a part of a solution, then those who are part of a solution are acting in a way that’s simply not going to — it will affect their own economies, but it won’t affect the overall global warming issue.

So, yes, I put forth a very realistic, straightforward program that makes sense. 

Q. Mr. President, acknowledging those constraints, you’re an oil man — some people say that climate change, global warming could have been your Nixon-to-China. Do you wish you’d done more?

THE PRESIDENT: I did what I think is necessary to actually work, Michael. I mean, I could have signed a — I could have supported a lousy treaty and everybody would have went, “Oh, man, what a wonderful sounding fellow he is.” But it just wouldn’t have worked. I don’t think you want your President trying to be the cool guy and not end up with policies that actually make a difference.

So the policies I’ve outlined are policies that will actually make a difference: nuclear power for generating electricity; battery driven cars; ethanol. There’s a variety of initiatives — clean coal technology — all of which will help us sustain our economic vitality and at the same time be better stewards of the environment. 

Actually, I think his position is pretty cool. Read the whole thing.

Victor Davis Hanson wrote about Bush as pariah, noting the similarity with Harry Truman:

…Bush’s own legacy will be affected by who succeeds him. Ronald Reagan received great press after leaving office in part because a Republican followed him for four years — quite the opposite from the senior George Bush who was thrown out of office in 1992 and blamed for assorted sins the next eight years. Likewise, compare the image of Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton when a president from the opposite party followed each into office.

Second, public perceptions, such as ongoing consumer confidence or support for the war, can dramatically affect policy success or failure. Defending past decisions can sometimes improve their outcomes.

Third, it would elevate the arguments of all three candidates if someone could remind them that energy and food problems, foreign policy crises and economic woes usually involve bad and worse choices.

The American people are more interested in exactly how they are going to improve things, rather than hearing each hour how our collective problems are simply the fault of one man. Searing “Bush did it” into the public conscious won’t resolve our energy, economic or foreign policy challenges.

The truth is that America is providing unprecedented amounts of money to address the AIDS epidemic in Africa. Tax cuts brought in greater, not less total revenue. International trade agreements created more, not fewer, jobs. Security measures at home, and losses suffered by terrorists abroad, in part explain the absence of a second 9/11.

And drilling in ANWR and off the coasts and building more nuclear power plants, refineries, and clean coal plants — if the Congress would only approve — could provide a short-term mitigation of energy prices until we reach a new generation of clean-burning and renewable fuels.

George Bush could learn from “Give ‘em Hell, Harry.” A disliked Truman never went silent into the night, but defended his record until the very end — and was ultimately rewarded for it.