Posted on 10/01/2003 7:49:18 AM PDT by GulliverSwift
Linda Chavez (back to web version) | Send
October 1, 2003
Democrats are salivating at the prospect they may be able to cut short another Bush presidency. "He's got the same gene pool as his father," Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) recently smirked to the Washington Post. Although it's a little premature for the Democrats to be ordering tuxes and gowns for their Inaugural Ball, President Bush may be in more trouble than his advisors are willing to concede. Like his father, George W. Bush faces a mostly hostile press, out to prove that the economy is in the toilet and the U.S. military victory in Iraq is irrelevant. It's as if liberal editors and producers are simply recycling stories from 12 years ago.
In the 1992 election, the Democrats used the media to convince Americans that the first President Bush was presiding over "the worst economy since the Great Depression" -- a phrase then vice presidential candidate Al Gore coined to describe the short, relatively mild recession that lasted from July 1990 until March 1991. Although the recession was officially over long before the 1992 presidential campaign officially kicked off, news stories continued to describe a "Bush recession" right up until Election Day. Whatever credit Americans gave the first President Bush for winning the Gulf War couldn't overcome the antagonism created by the impression that he had single-handedly ruined the economy.
Today, the Democrats are invoking the Great Depression once again, this time to compare George W. Bush's presidency with that of Herbert Hoover's as only the second time in modern history a president has "lost" more American jobs than he "created." Never mind that presidents don't create jobs in the first place, except for those in the federal government.
Turn on the evening news or glance at the headlines of your local paper, and you'll learn that the current economic growth rate -- a healthy 3.3 percent last quarter -- represents a "jobless recovery." You won't hear much about the big improvements in productivity rates over the last couple of years, which are largely responsible for an economy that could grow at a decent rate but still not create thousands of new jobs. But you will hear lots of stories about the quagmire in Iraq and the Bush administration's "failure" to plan better for rebuilding the country and securing the peace.
But harping about bias in the media won't win the president re-election. If he wants to win, George W. Bush should take a page from Bill Clinton's playbook. Clinton didn't let the media control the message in 1996 -- he used a substantial political war chest to dominate the airwaves with paid advertising 16 months before the Republicans had even picked their nominee to run against him.
Clinton targeted states where he might be vulnerable and set about creating an image for himself and his administration as patriotic, law-and-order Democrats, tough on welfare cheats. And his ads were masterful -- with American flags billowing in the background, Clinton took credit for welfare reform, even though he had done little to push the idea while the Democrats controlled the Congress. It wasn't until the Republicans took over that Congress finally passed genuine welfare reform, over the objections of many in the Clinton administration and the Democratic Party.
But the Bush campaign shows no inclination to follow Clinton's example. Although Republicans have huge advantages in money raised so far for the 2004 presidential election, there's no intention to run ads anytime soon. Theoretically, the president could garner free, positive news coverage just by performing his presidential duties -- but that certainly hasn't happened recently. Whenever the president or anyone else in the administration makes news these days, it's usually negative, or it's reported that way.
Unless the Bush campaign begins to counteract these stories -- and soon -- the Democrats could just get their wish. Republicans are counting on the Democrats to defeat themselves with outrageous rhetoric and far left proposals. But if the Bush campaign isn't careful, the American public won't even notice how outside the mainstream the Democrats are. They'll be too busy being mad at George W. Bush for his "jobless recovery" and his "failed" war in Iraq.
Linda Chavez is President of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a TownHall.com member organization.
His judicial appointments have been consistently conservative. Have you heard about the Democrat fillibusters? Did you know Federal judges are there for life? Did you know they have a huge impact on life in this country? Then there's the partial birth abortion bill that Clinton vetoed twice that he will sign as soon as Congress puts it on his desk. Are you paying attention?
I'm glad you at least recognize the AWB is not even a legitimate issue yet. I just wish folks would look at that against the context of other, good 2nd Amendment legislation that has passed during his Presidency. A defeat for Bush in 04 will NOT be a good thing for gunowners.
Yes, it was. In many respects, GHWB lost the election more than Clinton won it.
However, recall how active GWB was in the mid-term elections. He showed great resolve and strength the way he stepped into the Senatorial races -- proving himself more than a match for the First Felon when it came to campaigning skills.
My impression is that the father never really enjoyed or appreciated the need for campaigning. The son, however, seems to recognize that there is a time to govern, and a time to campaign.
The hardcores have been criticizing Bush's "new tone" political style since he was a first term governor. They were proven wrong then and they'll be proven wrong again. How many times does Bush have to prove that his political style is a winner at the ballot box before people will learn?
I think that is a good strategy. USE THE MONEY WISELY.. and then BLAST THEM BIG TIME and make their HEADS SPIN!!
As is "blatantly obvious" only TWO SHORT years after 9-11, the American people have VERY SHORT memories!!
BESIDES.. HE IS A TAD BUSY RIGHT NOW!! It would be REALLY stupid to fight 10 candidates. That is like going into a gang fight with the odds 1 to 10!! How dumb is that?
BTW, to those who suggested he give more reports, he "IS" giving reports.. I see them all the time on TV. They are during the day. But you mostly see them on FOXNews. They aren't repeated on other network news, or cable tv. Surprized? He is on right now as I type Signing into law the Homeland Security Act of 2004!! Lets see if it makes ABC, NBC or CBS tonight. Want to make any bets?
To those who say "Daddy Bush" was relying on the Gulf War to bring him through.. that and his economy SHOULD have brought him through. He had a good economy AND a successful war. Clinton inherited both. The only two things that lost President Bush 41 his Presidency was "Read my lips" and "That Bozo" regarding Klintoon.. in hindsight, that's pretty amazing, isn't it?
They say that a Presidents policies take effect 5-7 years into or after his Presidency. So that being the case.. Clinton inherited "President Reagans/Bush's" economies. But!! However.. he NEVER suffered HIS OWN!! The media never talked about it. This last recession STARTED in 1998, which President Bush 43 inherited!! It was talked about before the last Presidential election, and is on TAPE. (Thank the LORD!)
Because of President Bush's dramatic tax cuts, the economy will turn around faster than normal (Sooner than the NORMAL time span of 5-7 years because of the size of the tax cuts. Which were done so by design). If we give President Bush the election again.. we will see his economy and the recovery last.. but if he loses.. those gains are lost!! We will go back to the destructive economics of the democratic/socialist agenda. God Forbid! (I mean no disrespect to our Father.. that is an ernest prayer from my mouth to His ears!!)
We better pray Americans have the good sense to re-elect President Bush. Not only for the sake of our nations security .. but for the economy!!
People and terrorist (who aren't really people) constantly underestimate this President. I say he will surprise his foes. We have never waivered in our support of him. Never. He has never let us down. We think what is happening in GITMO is nothing short of BRILLIANT. (Do a search on our name to see what we mean. BTW. When I say "we", we discuss things, and then I type our views out here in the forum). I don't have a mouse in my pocket.. LOL
Lastly.. look how QUICKLY the polls changed here in California. President Bush is saving, and will spend it wisely. We have a WHOLE year to go. I think they are waiting and will spend it WISELY. POLLS CHANGE like one changes a baby's diaper! DAILY..
Bush's electoral victories aren't accidents. From Texas to the White House to the across the board Republican gains in Election 2002, the results speak for themselves. The naysayers keep whining while Bush keeps winning.
The other thing I have noticed is this asinine media spotlight on the President's polls. Geez. Who cares? The election is a year away! I might start paying more attention to the polls then, not now.
It just seems that every damned week since he won, the media have announced new poll results. So what would happen if he wins again? Are they going to immediately start posting polls about who the next Democrat candidate would be and how well he mightdo, and keep THAT up for four years?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.