President Punching Bag
Ever since he landed on that aircraft carrier fourteen months ago President Bush has sat back and let his enemies beat the living hell out of him without so much as a whimper of protest. And the whole time I’ve said it was a mistake, because it was allowing his enemies to define him most unfavorably. And when, or if, at some point he decided to get into the campaign and fight, he would find the political landscape as intractable as it would be hostile.
The polls seem to bear that out. Within a matter of days of the Iowa caucuses that propelled John Kerry on his presumptive way to the Democrat nomination, Lurch surged into a dead heat with the President and has been there ever since, despite being the worst national candidate in at least sixteen years. Indeed, it appears to have taken sixty or seventy million dollars in negative advertising just to keep Bush from falling significantly behind.
We know, of course, that the Bushies have said for over a year that they expected a “close” election, and some like pollster Matt Dowd have predicted a fifteen-point Kerry lead after next week’s Dem convention. Nobody is really buying this given the polarization of the electorate, but there comes a point where “lowering expectations” crosses over to a frank concession of weakness, or even defeat, at least in terms of public perception.
From my perspective, this Bush re-election bid has borne the increasing stench that blanketed his father’s hideously disappointing effort twelve years ago. And this one would be far worse because, let’s face it, John Kerry is no Bill Clinton.
But then, low and behold, this week we started hearing that the Bush-Cheney effort, which heretofore has confused assertion of its past record for an explanatory defense of it when it’s bothered to say anything at all, would, over the course of the next month, begin laying out a blockbuster second term agenda that would transform the race and leave John-John in the dust.
One would like to think so, given that even a mid-single-digit lead for Kerry after next week may be a formidable hill for the embattled incumbent to climb.
And then, in the last twenty-four hours, I came across these two items:
“THE WAR, OR, ER, PEACE PRESIDENT: Bush seems to be changing his tune a little on the campaign trail:
…annnnnnd…
What does this suggest? Well, it reminds me of the last two losing GOP presidential bids in that it seems as if Bush is being over-handled. I mean, come on, he’s too “hard-edged” for women? Hasn’t Karl Rove read Michelle Malkin’s latest column about “security moms”? Besides, whom do they think they’re fooling? Bush isn’t a war president because he chose it, but because it was chosen for him by events. And he’s performed strongly and ably in the role. It’s been said on many occasions that he believes it to have been why God put him in charge at this time in our history. So now it doesn’t fit him anymore? I can understand why he’d hunger for quieter times, but if that’s what he wants, defeat in November would get that for him quite efficiently, just as voters can get a “peace president” by electing his opponent. Indeed, that whole paragraph could go, lock, stock, and barrel, into a Kerry campaign ad as effectively as the Bushies used Kerry’s “I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it” gaffe against him. Particularly the “the next four years will be peaceful” part, which I guarantee will be used should another major terrorist attack hit before Election Day.
As for the domestic side, again, if voters want eye-glazing wonkery, they’ve got a ready source of it in Senator Kerry. What the President needs to do is make a big splash, as well as minimizing or negating his prescription drug boondogglery, with the only such option left available to him: Social Security privatization. Such a move would be bold, galvanize the GOP base, add to it by appealing to the still largely-neglected and ever-growing investor class, and completely eclipse John Kerry’s “I served in Vietnam!” gimmick and force him to react to it (to hold onto his raging base – itself a growing liability - he’d have no choice) in order to even remain visible in the race.
Would it outrage the left? Sure. But guess what? They’re already “outraged.” They’re insanely pissed that George W. Bush continues to draw breath and have been for over three years. And from what I’ve read, a growing number of people beyond just Republicans are getting sick of it. So could it really get any worse? Especially when there is so much to be gained in return?
I wouldn’t stop there. I would make the complete refurbishment of our intelligence apparatus, incorporating at least a representative sample of the 9/11 commission’s recommendations, a top priority. Such an overhaul is about thirty years overdue, and people like John Kerry are the ones responsible for denuding it to the point where it’s just another bureaucracy that doesn’t know which end is up and has a vested interest in remaining ignorant, instead of the kind of rapier weapon the government needs to fight terrorism in the shadows so that we won’t have to fight as many wars in the light. I would hang that, and his votes to cut intelligence funding by billions, which even his mentor Uncle Ted didn’t support, around Kerry’s neck now while he’s still mumbling about calling an “emergency domestic intelligence summit” or whatever the hell he’s calling it as his idea of counter-terrorism.
These is an area where Kerry can, believe it or not, get to Bush’s right if the President isn’t careful. Don’t laugh; it’s what Bill Clinton did to Duyba’s dad on taxes AND foreign policy twelve years ago. And while the son isn’t vulnerable on taxes, he IS on the intelligence issue simply by not swiftly holding Clinton holdovers like George Tenet (and by implication, Bill Clinton himself) accountable for the failures that allowed 9/11 to happen. To say nothing of his AWOL status on immigration and the lingering political correctness fetish that eschews racial/ethnic profiling and refuses to speak candidly about the true nature of Islam (as opposed to the fiction that people like bin Laden have “perverted” it), which are huge and continuing liabilities to homeland security efforts.
There’s an old saying: “Fortune favors the bold.” Recent political history has proven time and again that audacity and vision win elections, and timidity and moderation lose them. Nobody was more audacious than Bill Clinton, and nobody had greater visions than men like Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich, who accomplished things for the GOP that nobody believed possible. And nobody epitomizes pompous, cynically vacillating caution more than Gomer the Gigolo.
George W. Bush has displayed both of these traits. Which one he chooses to embrace now will determine how soon he goes back to fence-mending in Crawford.
The polls seem to bear that out. Within a matter of days of the Iowa caucuses that propelled John Kerry on his presumptive way to the Democrat nomination, Lurch surged into a dead heat with the President and has been there ever since, despite being the worst national candidate in at least sixteen years. Indeed, it appears to have taken sixty or seventy million dollars in negative advertising just to keep Bush from falling significantly behind.
We know, of course, that the Bushies have said for over a year that they expected a “close” election, and some like pollster Matt Dowd have predicted a fifteen-point Kerry lead after next week’s Dem convention. Nobody is really buying this given the polarization of the electorate, but there comes a point where “lowering expectations” crosses over to a frank concession of weakness, or even defeat, at least in terms of public perception.
From my perspective, this Bush re-election bid has borne the increasing stench that blanketed his father’s hideously disappointing effort twelve years ago. And this one would be far worse because, let’s face it, John Kerry is no Bill Clinton.
But then, low and behold, this week we started hearing that the Bush-Cheney effort, which heretofore has confused assertion of its past record for an explanatory defense of it when it’s bothered to say anything at all, would, over the course of the next month, begin laying out a blockbuster second term agenda that would transform the race and leave John-John in the dust.
One would like to think so, given that even a mid-single-digit lead for Kerry after next week may be a formidable hill for the embattled incumbent to climb.
And then, in the last twenty-four hours, I came across these two items:
“THE WAR, OR, ER, PEACE PRESIDENT: Bush seems to be changing his tune a little on the campaign trail:
Mr. Bush noted: "The enemy declared war on us. Nobody wants to be the war president. I want to be the peace president. The next four years will be peaceful years." He repeated the words "peace" or "peaceful" many times, as he has done increasingly in his recent appearances.
“How does he know? What if Iran gets a nuke? What if there's another major terror attack? The President has obviously been worrying about his hard-edged image with women. But he needs to avoid lapsing into incoherence.”
…annnnnnd…
Along with about 7,000 others, I listened to the remarks last evening that reportedly represented the President's new and improved stump speech. I thought, and have since learned many others agree, that it needs more improvement - and editing. It was unfocused and so drifted down every policy by-way imaginable. It sounded like a State of the Union address intended to buck up the bureaucrats by mentioning every conceivable initiative. There were some good zingers for those few still paying attention. Paraphrased from sketchy notes on the back of my program: You can't be pro-business and pro-trial lawyer at the same time. You have to choose and my opponent made a choice and put him on the ticket. Another line about "junk lawsuits" got plenty of applause as did a pledge to stand up for marriage and the family. "There is nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat," received a standing ovation. Hopefully, people didn't just take the opportunity for a seventh inning stretch to relieve the tedium. ”
Although the speech had been hyped as an opportunity to talk about the President's second term agenda, there was only an oblique reference to ushering in a new era of ownership. The President noted that John Edwards won a mention as one of our "sexiest politician," and said that one of his goals for the second term was to get Dick Cheney on that list. It was the only concrete agenda item of the night.
What does this suggest? Well, it reminds me of the last two losing GOP presidential bids in that it seems as if Bush is being over-handled. I mean, come on, he’s too “hard-edged” for women? Hasn’t Karl Rove read Michelle Malkin’s latest column about “security moms”? Besides, whom do they think they’re fooling? Bush isn’t a war president because he chose it, but because it was chosen for him by events. And he’s performed strongly and ably in the role. It’s been said on many occasions that he believes it to have been why God put him in charge at this time in our history. So now it doesn’t fit him anymore? I can understand why he’d hunger for quieter times, but if that’s what he wants, defeat in November would get that for him quite efficiently, just as voters can get a “peace president” by electing his opponent. Indeed, that whole paragraph could go, lock, stock, and barrel, into a Kerry campaign ad as effectively as the Bushies used Kerry’s “I voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it” gaffe against him. Particularly the “the next four years will be peaceful” part, which I guarantee will be used should another major terrorist attack hit before Election Day.
As for the domestic side, again, if voters want eye-glazing wonkery, they’ve got a ready source of it in Senator Kerry. What the President needs to do is make a big splash, as well as minimizing or negating his prescription drug boondogglery, with the only such option left available to him: Social Security privatization. Such a move would be bold, galvanize the GOP base, add to it by appealing to the still largely-neglected and ever-growing investor class, and completely eclipse John Kerry’s “I served in Vietnam!” gimmick and force him to react to it (to hold onto his raging base – itself a growing liability - he’d have no choice) in order to even remain visible in the race.
Would it outrage the left? Sure. But guess what? They’re already “outraged.” They’re insanely pissed that George W. Bush continues to draw breath and have been for over three years. And from what I’ve read, a growing number of people beyond just Republicans are getting sick of it. So could it really get any worse? Especially when there is so much to be gained in return?
I wouldn’t stop there. I would make the complete refurbishment of our intelligence apparatus, incorporating at least a representative sample of the 9/11 commission’s recommendations, a top priority. Such an overhaul is about thirty years overdue, and people like John Kerry are the ones responsible for denuding it to the point where it’s just another bureaucracy that doesn’t know which end is up and has a vested interest in remaining ignorant, instead of the kind of rapier weapon the government needs to fight terrorism in the shadows so that we won’t have to fight as many wars in the light. I would hang that, and his votes to cut intelligence funding by billions, which even his mentor Uncle Ted didn’t support, around Kerry’s neck now while he’s still mumbling about calling an “emergency domestic intelligence summit” or whatever the hell he’s calling it as his idea of counter-terrorism.
These is an area where Kerry can, believe it or not, get to Bush’s right if the President isn’t careful. Don’t laugh; it’s what Bill Clinton did to Duyba’s dad on taxes AND foreign policy twelve years ago. And while the son isn’t vulnerable on taxes, he IS on the intelligence issue simply by not swiftly holding Clinton holdovers like George Tenet (and by implication, Bill Clinton himself) accountable for the failures that allowed 9/11 to happen. To say nothing of his AWOL status on immigration and the lingering political correctness fetish that eschews racial/ethnic profiling and refuses to speak candidly about the true nature of Islam (as opposed to the fiction that people like bin Laden have “perverted” it), which are huge and continuing liabilities to homeland security efforts.
There’s an old saying: “Fortune favors the bold.” Recent political history has proven time and again that audacity and vision win elections, and timidity and moderation lose them. Nobody was more audacious than Bill Clinton, and nobody had greater visions than men like Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich, who accomplished things for the GOP that nobody believed possible. And nobody epitomizes pompous, cynically vacillating caution more than Gomer the Gigolo.
George W. Bush has displayed both of these traits. Which one he chooses to embrace now will determine how soon he goes back to fence-mending in Crawford.
posted by JASmius at 8:24 PM
<<< Home