It Doesn't Get Any Better Than This

The Weekly Standard ^ | December 29, 2003 | Fred Barnes

[RWR8189]

PRESIDENT BUSH has gotten a bigger reelection boost in a shorter period of time than any other president ever. And that may be putting it mildly. Yes, Sherman's taking of Atlanta in early September 1864 was critical to Lincoln's reelection, and Bill Clinton's signing of welfare reform in 1996 assured him a second term. But those don't quite match the gust of good news for Bush between Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Here's the list: capture of Saddam Hussein, Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi's about-face, enactment of a prescription drug entitlement, signing of the first rollback of Roe v. Wade, fastest economic growth in 19 years, quickest pace in worker productivity gains in 20 years, two-decade high in increased manufacturing activity, significant drop in jobless claims, lowest underlying rate of inflation in 38 years, and rock-bottom interest rates. Oh, yes, the stock market: A week before Christmas, the Dow's up 23 percent for the year, 4 percent since Thanksgiving.

Let's not give Bush a big head and declare his reelection a done deal. He still faces daunting problems (job losses, post-Saddam insurgency in Iraq, al Qaeda, nukes in Iran and North Korea, energized opponents at home). But, to Bush's credit, the string of accomplishments on the eve of 2004 are mostly his own doing. It turns out more troops were not needed in Iraq, at least not to seize Saddam. The answer, as the administration insisted, was better intelligence. Bush's tax cuts, nearly everyone agrees, were the catalyst in rejuvenating the economy. A full-blown recovery is now a given. Bush had helpers like Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and a good bit of luck. As the baseball saying goes, it's better to be lucky than good. It's better still to be in Bush's situation, lucky and good.

Grabbing Saddam produced a reversal in the Iraq debate. Saddam at large was the symbol of Bush's losing the battle of postwar Iraq. His captivity is the symbol of Bush's winning that battle. For months now, Saddam will be the story--his imprisonment, his interrogation, his atrocities, his prosecution, his punishment. When the spotlight is on Saddam in chains, Bush gains. If the terrorism directed by Saddam's cronies continues to abate, as it did in the days after his capture, Bush will gain further. In any case, he's no longer on defense in the debate over Iraq.

His foes are no longer on offense. Democrats were flummoxed by Saddam's capture. Columnist Robert Novak reported that Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, a top deputy to Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle, had taped a radio statement, sneering at the prospects of seizing Saddam. It was to be broadcast the day after Saddam was captured. The Democratic presidential candidates, along with Sen. Hillary Clinton, responded to the capture with the cliché that Bush must "internationalize" the war in Iraq. This was a non sequitur: Because Bush's policy in Iraq was working, it was time to change the policy. That is not a serious argument.

Democrats exuded an air of unreality. They called for the United Nations to assume a bigger role in Iraq just days after Secretary General Kofi Annan announced the United Nations had no intention of doing that. They said Bush should recruit more foreign troops to replace American soldiers in Iraq. But there was no evidence any country was prepared to dispatch troops. And the Saddam capture led to more conspiracy-theorizing by Democrats. Congressman Jim McDermott of Washington suggested Saddam was ripe for seizure any time and Bush had planned the event for political gain. Of course this clashed with the standard Democratic criticism that Bush had lost control of postwar Iraq.

Democratic presidential frontrunner Howard Dean reacted with remarkable pigheadedness. He inserted in a speech the claim that Saddam's jailing did not make America safer. Earlier he had said Saddam was a "threat" to the United States. So Dean would have it that a threat was removed with no gain in safety for America. That defies logic. Besides, documents from Saddam's briefcase showed he was in regular touch, by courier, with terrorist cells perpetrating attacks on American soldiers and Iraqis. Once that was known, Dean could have revised his view. He didn't. He tossed out three charges against the president. One, Bush had claimed a direct link between al Qaeda and Saddam and later retracted the claim. Two, Bush had said the United States knew where Saddam's weapons of mass destruction were. Three, Bush had declared Saddam an "imminent danger." Dean was wrong on all three counts.

When was Bush lucky? That occurred as he dispatched former secretary of state James Baker on a mission to win debt relief for Iraq. Months ago, the administration made it known that countries not helping in Iraq would be ineligible for contracts to rebuild the country. The press missed this. Shortly before Baker departed for France and Germany, a routine Defense Department memo formally limiting the contracts was reported in the press. The belated scoop was the lucky part for the president. It created a media firestorm that Bush exploited to reiterate his policy and show the United States wouldn't be "played for patsies," as a White House official said. And the French and others finally "understood the ground rule is you've got to help" in Iraq. The result: They began to help, welcoming Baker and promising to forgive some or all of the Iraqi debt amassed by Saddam.

The White House has refrained from gloating. "We're happy with success, but we're looking forward" to 2004, Bush adviser Karl Rove said. Bush has a theme, the "ownership society," and a fat agenda that includes "lifetime savings accounts"--essentially tax-free IRAs with no penalties for withdrawal--and Social Security investment accounts. Bush's idea is to give Americans ownership of their money for retirement, health care, and everything now in the hands of government or other providers. Achieving all this would be a major feat, almost as amazing as what Bush wrought in late 2003.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard

[ironman]

You are not overstating the impact. Hundreds of years from now, this will be seen as a turning point in this planet's history.

I agree we have made some great progress in the War on Terror but it's going to take a long time and continued vigalence to finish the job. We very may get hit back hard before it's all over with. W's strategery is working!

[Verginius Rufus]

I remember reading about this on Free Republic a long time ago. A Google search for Rambouillet Albright cleaning turned up (among other links):
www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38a19187322e.htm
from 02/09/2000. Sorry, but I don't know how to make it clickable.

[LS]

I'm referring to Francis Russell, Sacco and Vanzetti, The Case Resolved. He was quoting the defense attorney for the two, Fred Moore, who said Sacco was guilty, Vanzetti probably guilty. Later, another anarchist, a fellow named Tresca, who had inside knowledge, confirmed that In fact, however, Sacco was guilty and Vanzettin innocent---even though V. was armed and had already been convicted of an armed robbery elsewhere. Already, however, Russell had examined the ballistics evidence and although a conspiracy believer (i.e., the two were "scapegoats") was already convinced that the ballistics showed they committed the murder. Further, V had a single shotgun shell that was a match to the Bridgewater robbery shotgun in his pocket.

Yet another anarchist named Gambera, very late in life, confirmed that the anarchists knew Sacco, at least, was guilty.

I haven't finished the book yet, so I can't tell you if the evidence shows V guilty as well.

[oyez]

You got a picture of Warren Christopher to go with that? Its time to get out the garlic and the crucifix.

[Victoria Delsoul]

But, to Bush's credit, the string of accomplishments on the eve of 2004 are mostly his own doing. It turns out more troops were not needed in Iraq, at least not to seize Saddam. The answer, as the administration insisted, was better intelligence. Bush's tax cuts, nearly everyone agrees, were the catalyst in rejuvenating the economy. A full-blown recovery is now a given. Bush had helpers like Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and a good bit of luck.

LOL, no wonder the liberals are looking miserable. Hmm, I wonder what their next soundbite will be.

[gcruse]

Thanks. Tresca is what I remembered.
Didn't Francis Russell also write Shadow of Blooming Grove?
That's the major Harding biography. If you enjoy the history of that era, I highly recommend the aforementioned.

[Billthedrill]

But...but...but the turkey was a fake!

[SAMWolf]

Thanks for the ping Victoria.

Now if he'd only start doing something about illegal immigration and quit passing the Liberal's Social Agenda...

[LS]

Yes, he did. He's quite prolific.

[MeekOneGOP]

I, er, uh ... 'borrowed' your pic to make my own ...

[Rummyfan]

As for the accomplishments of the Administration and President..... the dems continue to "misunderestimate" the "stratergery". Failing any bad turn of events, I suspect the perfect storm is brewing for the democrats in 2004. The shift will be seismic - in the presidential election and congress. It will be as much the President's doing as it will be the dems. The map on election night will be red, baby!

This is what I am hoping and praying for next November!

[MeekOneGOP]

You got a picture of Warren Christopher to go with that?
Its time to get out the garlic and the crucifix.

ha ! ha ! Man, you are right. And a pig for punishment,
but here he is !!! ha ! ha !

[Michael121]

Seems to me Bush is the character Matthew Quigley. At the end when Tom Selleck was given the pistol and shot all three dead. He said, "I said I didn't care for them, never said I didn't know how to use it."

Rats come out and feed on garbage.

[gitmo]

Good article.

However, the price we're going to be paying is pretty frightening. A few really scary pieces of legislation under President Bush's watch:

The Farm Bill (huge government subsidies)
The Education Bill (a Ted Kennedy wish list for NEA)
The Drug Bill (another entitlement that wasn't even wanted by the recipients)
The Patriot Act (opens the door for tyranny in the US)
Campaign Finance Reform (Freedom of speech ruled irrelevant)

What did I leave out?

[autoresponder]

bump

[sausageseller]

Sounds more like an undercover freeper deep in the center of hades.

[gatorbait]

FR's UNAPPEASEABLES refuse to give President Bush any credit at all, he and his team HAVE worked, what used to be called " miracles "

Surprise! They're crawling out of their ratholes as we speak....

[oyez]

Hollywood has come up with some great horror films, but the real life editions of Hillery Clintoon, Mad Albright,and Warren antiChristopher are truly frightening.

[Lando Lincoln]

This is what I am hoping and praying for next November!

You and me, both!! Intellectually, I believe this to be true. But, as the saying goes, a year can be a lifetime in politics. But, let's examine things rationally:

-- The economy is on a real upswing. Jobs will come, output will increase and 401(k) accounts are increasing in value;

-- We have captured Saddam and killed his sons;

-- Iraq is stabilizing - despite the mainstream media spin and the dems;

-- You have the favorable fallout from Libya which has not even been measured yet;

-- GWB lost states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa and Missouri by the slimmest of margins. GWB will sweep these states;

-- Texas has been redistricted which should create a swing of 7, yes 7, seats in the house. In Texas alone!

-- GWB has made the most impressive overture to seniors with the prescription drug plan - endorsed by AARP;

-- You have the filibuster mess with the judicial nominees which will explode even larger on the political scene in 2004;

-- "Memogate" - more exposure in 2004;

-- The bickering and leftward movement of the dems will alienate the "middle American" voter.

-- And.....And.... the front runner of the Dems is Dean...angry, far-to-the-left Dean!! From a state of 700,000! I gotta believe he will be eaten alive. There are those who will suggest Hillary will step in. But, believe me, if these trends continue (as they should), her "tea leaves" will tell her it's a losing proposition. If she has anything, it is vainglorious pride. She will not enter if she feels she will lose.

That is my take. A lot can happen in the coming months to change it. But, as I said, the perfect storm is brewing. And I hope it blows upon democratic shores with a fury not seen before.

Lando

[oyez]

"WOMEN AND MINORITIES HURT THE WORST"