Posted on 10/31/2003 3:26:43 PM PST by Chapita
I don't handle national security issues that often, so when I get e-mails on the military I can presume that what I am hearing is widely understood elsewhere. Folks are telling me that their children who are in Iraq are telling them that they have been misled about why they are there. The young people who, according to their parents, were eager to go to Iraq when they were called up, now are bitter about their mission there. I think presidents used to call what they are doing "nation building."
Whatever antagonistic attitudes our troops have are derived disproportionately from various sources and from hearsay - meaning what their folks and friends at home write them, e-mail them or telephone them. Well-intended friends and family members are inundated by the news media, which for the most part, are reflecting the views of seven of the nine Democrat candidates for president who oppose our current presence in Iraq.
I have compared notes with some of my colleagues and indeed they are hearing the same thing from young people in Iraq. That is dangerous for the Administration. The parents who are receiving these messages from their children are sharing them with relatives, neighbors and friends.
These issues must be answered. In fact, the Administration ought to understand that all of the charges made by their opponents need to be answered. Not once. Not twice. But at least a dozen times.
Coke and Pepsi don't just run a single ad. In politics we have what we call the principle of the seventh mentioning. The average voter has to hear a point seven times before it registers.
When charges are made, the voter doesn't believe them. He waits to see what the response is. If there is a reasonable response, then the charges are disbelieved. If there is no response, and the charges are repeated over and over, then they are believed.
The President has hostile news media with which to contend. So naturally, when the nine Democrats daily make charges against the Administration they are echoed by the media. The fact is that the charges against the Administration have received inadequate response for a long while. This is one, albeit not the only, reason why the President's approval rating keeps on dropping.
A good example is the economy. Now the truth is, a president really can't control the economy, although his policies do have some effect on it. But the president gets the blame when the economy hits the skids and he should, therefore, get the credit when things are going well. Last week, third quarter economic growth was pegged at 7.2 %, the best since 1984. Now the Democratic candidates as well as the Senate and House leadership of that party have been saying that this President has produced the worst economy since Herbert Hoover, who had the misfortune of being president when the Great Depression began. I don't recall any quarters with 7.2% economic growth during the Great Depression and while unemployment remains at an unacceptably high 6.2%, still it is a great deal better than Hoover's 20% unemployment.
When the favorable data were announced, the Democrats didn't miss a beat. They repeated the charges that this President has given us a terrible economy. The White House seems to think that an occasional presidential press conference, or speeches by the President as he travels around the country, will take care of these distortions and outright lies.
They won't. Both on Iraq and the economy, the President ought to be asking his friends in the Congress to pound away on what the opposition has been saying. You don't have to have wanted this war to believe that the President deliberately lied to get us there -- or that Dick Cheney and Karl Rove advised George W. Bush to initiate the war supposedly so that the President's poll numbers would look better. These are serious charges, much beyond policy disagreements. Those who make them should be held accountable for them. Likewise when the charge is made that we are suffering through the worst economy since Herbert Hoover, those who make the charges ought to be made to prove them.
The White House alone cannot hold its opponents accountable. That has to be done by its allies. C-SPAN may not show up in the ratings, but I'll tell you it has one heck of an audience. "Special Orders" in the House, which often play in prime time, as well as group efforts by Senators to drive home a point, would be seen by lots of voters. Likewise, there is talk radio. If the Senate and House Majority Leaders or Whips place a half dozen strategic phone calls they will have informed millions. In addition, every Senator can command attention in his own state on talk radio. So can House Members to a lesser extent, depending on the media makeup of the market. They all need to be asked to make the case for the President. Even governors can be called to help.
If this is done, the President's numbers will begin to go up. If it is not done, watch those numbers continue to decline even if the economy continues to improve and even in the unlikely event that American servicemen cease being killed on a daily basis in Iraq.
I am trying to impress this point on the White House. Perhaps some of you reading this can help.
Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.
Negative thinking has never brought good results. Let your light shine amoung men instead.
A look at our history and form of government shows clearly the relative importance of reporting about Washington to us:
1. What is the President saying or doing?
2. What is the House majority saying and doing?
3. What is the Senate majority saying and doing?
4 (and lastly). What are their opponents (Senate, House, other) saying or doing?
The media isn't interested in providing that. They want conflict, simple conflict.
Anyway, I suspect Bush may have been wise to save his fire so far. Iraq and the economy will either be satisfactory before the election or not.
There is nothing to fear about Hillary. She's just Arkansas trailor trash - always has been a low life crimminal element.
Don't let your concern become a self-fullfilliing prophacy. Remember, everything Hillary has tried politically has become a total failure. She's not done one thing successfully. She has nothing in her history to offer.
Many here fear the simple suggestion."She's the smartest woman in the world", well, they're pretty much saying the same thing about Clark, right? "He's got a degree in politics, economy, and philosaphy! A roughe scolar!!!" The guys an idiot!!!
Hillary is nothing. She never has been. Get over it. We'll cream her. So it is.
People said the same thing about Bill Clinton. We paid dearly for underestimating the lack of concern that the press (and, consequently, the majority of voters) had over his lack of character. Don't think Hillary won't get a free pass as well.
Ah yes, I remember 'Silence Is Golden'..Not a good practice for those that expect their government to work for them!
For some real whining on this subject go over to
...any thread posted here on FR
The electorate is as flaky as dandruff.
He barely squeeked by in the first election. His re-election used a decoy (Perot) and right wing voters fell for it.
As the Democrats would say - "He never got a majority of the votes", either.
Now, Hillary has Bill riding her coat tails. An impeached, discraced ex-president, who'll be comming back with her.
Plus, all the Hillary scandles can be brought back up "just in conversation."
Hillary not only has a problem with the character issue, but the scandles and a rapist for a husband. Politically, that would hurt her. (All this stuff needs to be brought up "nicely" though, so she can't use the victim factor.)
She carries too much baggage. We'd cream her.
And even liberal NY has learned it's lesson the hard way. I doubt she'd get re-elected now. After 9/11, she blew that, too.
True. Now do you really want to take the chance that Hillary can "squeak by"? I know I don't.
Just take a look around and note acutely how many special interest groups are fawning over her. Note also that she had no trouble getting elected as a Senator of New York. It's long been known that serving as a Senator or a Governor puts a politician on the fast track to the Presidency if they are so motivated.
Say what you will, but never underestimate the guile of true evil...and never "leave it for dead." It has a way of being resurrected.
You're giving her too much credit. She's a low life Democrat. With your kind of thinking - defeatist - she'll get elected with your help!
She's a low life skank. Period.
Just take a look around and note acutely how many special interest groups are fawning over her.
That's about the usual 30% socialist extremists. The usual far left Democrat base.
Independants will run the other way. They'll not want another Clinton. They've lived through it once, no way will they want it again.
That's contradictory thinking. I regard her as a threat not to be taken lightly. That means I will certainly be keeping an eye on her.
Your overconfidence will only lead you to discount any threat she poses. As a consequence, if anyone in this discussion is likely to let her consolidate power, it's the side that considers her a non-issue.
And that side is not mine.
PS.......talk at the luch tables - "The economy is up. Bush just won his re-election".
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.