Advantage Bush

The Weekly Standard ^ | February 2, 2004 | Fred Barnes

[RWR8189]

They would have preferred Dean, but the Bushies are still confident.

Manchester, New Hampshire EVEN BEFORE Howard Dean's campaign began to fall apart, President Bush's underlings were paying attention to Dean's rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination. As the Iowa caucuses drew near, I chatted with a Bush operative at a rally for John Edwards. He was checking out the Democratic senator's campaign apparatus and stump spiel. He held a large Edwards sign in his hands. No doubt other Bush supporters were keeping tabs on Senator John Kerry and retired General Wesley Clark. That's smart politics.

The emergence of Kerry and Edwards in Iowa and Dean's collapse have been widely treated as bad news for Bush. And it's partly true. Dean would probably be the easiest Democrat for Bush to beat. Kerry and Edwards are far more electable. But Dean at least has the money to combat Bush from the time the nomination is locked up, probably in February or early March, until the conventions in late summer when public financing begins. Kerry and Edwards don't, though Kerry could tap his wife's largesse. Also, Iowa drove Dick Gephardt from the race. He was more feared as a potential opponent by the Bush team than either Kerry or Edwards.

If Bush strategists ranked the Democratic candidates as threats to Bush, the list would look like this: (1) Senator Joe Lieberman, (2) Gephardt, (3) Edwards, (4) Kerry, (5) Dean, (6) Clark. And since they regard the Lieberman campaign as dead, too, Bush advisers count the two toughest opponents for Bush as eliminated. Lieberman was feared because he's a centrist with a strong appeal on values issues, a point Lieberman himself made at the last New Hampshire debate here. Gephardt was viewed as a serious foe because of his Midwest roots, personal decency, and what one Bush aide calls his "authentic populism." Gephardt would have challenged Bush in states like Ohio and Missouri that the president won in 2000 and possibly thwarted Bush in states he lost but hopes to pick up this year (Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania).

For more than a year, Republicans have been vetting Kerry. Is he vulnerable? Oh, yes, because of his 19-year record in Congress. Bush aides can rattle off Senate votes on national security issues they would use to knock Kerry: votes against the B1 bomber, against the Abrams tank, against the Patriot missile, against the $87 billion to fund the military in postwar Iraq, against full funding for the CIA as the terrorist threat grew. And the Bush camp disputes Kerry's populist credentials since Kerry and his wife are worth roughly $500 million.

Edwards is more competitive than Kerry, if only because his record in Congress is shorter (five years). That means he has little experience in national policymaking, which is a handicap but hardly a disabling one. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were elected with little experience on the national stage. Edwards is in the odd position of running for president explicitly on his supposed electability after deciding not to seek reelection in North Carolina, where his prospects for a second term were no better than 50-50. Edwards may be a greater threat to Senator Hillary Clinton for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination than he would be to Bush in 2004.

What the Iowa caucuses didn't do was prompt the Bush campaign to accelerate its campaign plans. Bush's State of the Union address did not mark the kickoff. Instead, the campaign will go full-throttle when the Democratic nominee is clear. The longer that takes, the better from Bush's viewpoint. The campaign will spend in excess of $100 million, mostly on TV ads. The shorter the period in which Bush goes head to head, the more likely these ads will produce shock and awe.

Let's assume Dean is the political equivalent of Bruce Willis in the movie "The Sixth Sense"--that is, dead but he doesn't know it. And assume Clark, who isn't taken seriously by the Bush operation, won't be the nominee. Where does that leave Bush in the five major issue clusters against Kerry and Edwards? Let's see.

* National security. The issue here is the two wars, terror and Iraq. Kerry and Edwards scarcely mention Iraq anymore, except when asked. The Bush team interprets this as their having concluded the war issue helps Bush, not them. This is true. Dick Morris's idea that Bush must bring the troops home to win reelection is nonsense. What Bush needs is real progress in Iraq on military and political fronts. And Bush can make the case, as he did last week, that the war on terror is going well. Advantage Bush.

* Economy and taxes. Kerry and Edwards benefit from wanting to keep the Bush tax cuts for the middle class. That helps against Dean but less against Bush. The economy is roaring and the stock market is climbing, but the jobs picture could give Kerry or Edwards an opening. Bush is still 2 million jobs short of where he started in 2001. Advantage Bush (for now).

* Education. With passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, Bush neutralized the education issue, long a Democratic talking point. But Democrats have pounded him for not spending more, and his hold on the issue has eroded. He's beginning to fight back, but not as aggressively as Kerry and Edwards are attacking. Advantage Democrats.

* Health care. This is the best Democratic issue. Sure, Bush got a prescription drug benefit for the elderly, but polls show the public isn't appreciative. Meanwhile there's strong support for more government aid on health care. Bush will never be able to out-promise Kerry and Edwards. Advantage Democrats.

* Culture. One of the most politically potent passages in the State of the Union was Bush's take on gay marriage. It was a threefer, attacking judicial activism, gay marriage itself, and (by implication) Kerry's home state, Massachusetts, whose supreme court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. Advantage Bush.

The president has another advantage, the ability to alter the political landscape, at least briefly. He can command the nation's attention at any time, change policies, announce new initiatives, meet with foreign leaders at summits, and so on. In their first big political test in Iowa, neither Kerry nor Edwards showed the ability to create openings on his own. They were reactive, and they got lucky. Kerry got the endorsement of an ex-Green Beret whose life he saved in Vietnam. The fellow, whom Kerry hadn't seen in 35 years, phoned out of the blue. Edwards played off the bitter squabbling in speeches and ads between Dean and Gephardt. To beat Bush, Kerry or Edwards will have to do a lot better.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

[Texasforever]

How old are you?

[Fledermaus]

Oh, that's just wrong. Spending has not exploded. And the Medicare prescription drug bill may be expensive as it's labeled, but it's not proven since we don't know how many people will actually sign up for it since it's voluntary.

And given the demographics of Medicare now and over the next 20 years, the use of drugs will decrease the use of doctors, hospitals, procedures and operations.

I'll take an actual doctor's word, Sen. Bill Frist, over posters or other politicians when he says heart drugs alone would save Medicare billions over the next 10-20 years in savings on surgeries alone.

So before anyone can whine and complain about the drug portion of Medicare costing $400 billion over the next ten years, they better be sure they know the facts. Sure, most government programs do cost more than projected, but the simple reforms in this bill, along with HSA's, will lower the cost eventually if the GOP continues in Congress.

And Bush isn't spending near as much as the Democrats did, with both Dem and GOP presidents, in the last 50 years. Bush and a GOP Congress could actually put in a privatization plan with Soc Sec that will slowly eliminate this worthless ponzi scheme. That's a savings of over $25 trillion in unfunded liabilities in the future. And don't listen to the liars about a "transition cost" of $1 trillion (notice how that figure is totally pulled out of a hat)...since a future promise to pay can't be measured in any shape or form and thus there is no real transition cost.

And don't buy into the Dem lies about non-discrentionary spending going through the roof. These are the same idiots that told us a decrease in the increase of Medicare in 1995 from 14% to less than 7% (which Clinton originally proposed and Howard Dean agreed with, along with John Kerry and LIEberman) was a "cut".

Face it, none of these figures they give us are worth crap. Kids running lemonade stands keep better books. Heck, Enron kept better books. So why are Enron execs going to jail but we never send bureaucratic morons to jail?

And the deficit isn't a problem. The liars have, for decades, said it raises interest rates and it never does. Even Clinton's 1995 fiscal budget projected $200 billion a year deficits for 10 years. Remember his whining about a balanced budget (we could do it in 9 years, 7 years, 5 years, maybe 4 years)?

The idea that he had trillions in surpluses is again government-speak with their "let's project today into the next decade" idea of budgeting. The federal government, since World War II, has only been in "surplus" (a total lie given the IOU's in Medicare and Soc Sec) for two years.

And the national debt compared to the the yearly national GDP is like buying a home with a 15 year mortgage. It's a way to finance our expenditures which I agree should be smaller. But other countries buy our debt because it's a good, safe investment. Lots of us buy Treasury Bonds and Savings Bonds. I love to hear the whiners say, "we need to eliminate our debt"...oh? Are you going to take away all those Savings Bonds from all those families by paying them off? Are you going to deny rich, little old ladies their T-bills?

The best run corporations have the same percentage of debt since it's cheaper to borrow money than it is to save it.

[MJY1288]

"Plan on it? Folks born after ~1971 are going to get a negative return on their FDR approved social security 'contributions'. Baby Boomers are about to turn FDR's naked tax grab, pyramid scheme into a money loser for government. You knew that, right?"

Chuck Schumer could not have said it better

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

Wheeeewww!

Thought for a minute you were serious until I saw the sly "sarc" icon at the end. But of course after I saw your name, I had to grin. And the message was hard to deny if one has any shred of intelligence. (Grin-ON)

[Texasforever]

Never mind, you indicated that you were born after 1971. You are stil in that "I am invincible" stage. Do you still live at home?

[nopardons]

Don't confuse the poor child with facts and a rational refutation. LOL

Great post, old fcriend. :-)

[BlackbirdSST]

Tax cuts-3 so far

And you know that bill will be coming back to haunt our kids and grand kids. On the surface, I'll give you one.

Kyoto

Bush and Congress had nothing to do with Kyoto, the Senate refused to ratify it.

the ICC

Well the jury is still out on this one, W has at least given it lip service, so I guess in a stretch you can claim it, that's 2.

National security

It's a given with anyone with half a brain that you don't have National Security without borders, but I knew this would be one you'd attempt to slide on, no way. Still just 2.

Partial birth abortion ban

Which will stop not one single abortion.

Complete immasculation of the UN

Considering that you keep using the UN resolution for justification on invading Iraq, you'll find it harder and harder to use this one. Last I looked the UN is still in NY, and still taking our Billions. Try not letting the facts get in the way. A slim 2 doesn't equal 30. Keep trying. Blackbird.

[BlackbirdSST]

Beat it kid. I am past the point of patience with you.

No way Tex, you ain't sliding on this one. Post your 30 examples of GW's and Congress' Conservatism, so far I've let you sldie on 2, and they're weak. Post them or retract your claim, no way out, junior. Blackbird.

[Fledermaus]

Tax cuts-3 so far

And you know that bill will be coming back to haunt our kids and grand kids. On the surface, I'll give you one.

Another static use of arithemetic by someone that buys into the BS of the media.

If you can't understand the difference in tax rates, then do us all a favor and post your drivel at DU.com where they believe that mumbo-jumbo.

According to your understanding, Wal-Mart would have gone bankrupt 10 years ago by "rolling back prices" and our kids and grandkids will have to pay more for toasters in the future.

Don't confuse tax "cuts" with changes in tax rates. For example, under your static thinking, like the CBO, the 1996 lowering of the capital gains tax rate by the GOP was going to "cost" the treasury in "lost" tax revenue. Oh, but what actually happened? They gained twice the projected loss.

But, as usual, the static thinker will go back and say, "ah, but if that rate had have been maintained the government would have even more" because they ignore the increase in the taxable capital gains created by the lower rate. It's so simple I can't believe people can't comprehend it.

[MJY1288]

:-), Messing with these NYT's reading tools for the left is way too much fun, When a so called "true" Conservative references the "Baby Boomers" or suggesting the USO is an example of wasted tax dollars, I forget about sleep, cause it reminds me of a 12 point Buck so close from being within range, that I start smelling blood

[Fledermaus]

I don't even know why I bother sometimes. Must be the old grad student teaching while I got my Masters in Economics that keeps coming out!

[Texasforever]

Look, you have proved yourself unworthy of serious discussion. I have no desire nor do I have the respect for you required to do anything other than ridicule you. I am perfectly willing to ignore you but if you can't take the hint then expect to take the heat. There are few people on this forum that I genuinely dislike but you are very close to the top of that short list.

[Mo1]

another good post ;0)

[montag813]

Also, Iowa drove Dick Gephardt from the race. He was more feared as a potential opponent by the Bush team than either Kerry or Edwards.

Barnes is wrong on two counts here...

1. As was revealed by Craig Crawford on Friday's John Batchelor program, Gephardt purposely destroyed his own sagging campaign to defeat Dean, when called upon to do so by the Party Lords. He ran nasty ads against Dean, which he knew would cut into his numbers but also Dean's. It worked, and both losses went right into the Kerry column. The party has been rescued from Dean, and Gephardt will be rewarded at a later date.
2. Gephardt was never "feared" in the slightest by the Bush team. My West Wing friends said he was never taken seriously, nor ever given the slightest chance to win the nomination. I am puzzled where Fred is coming up with this bizarre one.

[Gunslingr3]

Since when is calling something, someone has written BS an ad hominem?

It's not, I was referring to 'political naif' comment. Unnecessary and unbecoming, but you felt the need to do it.

Oh yes, call me on making an ad hominem, which I didn't and then launch into some of your own.

I can step down to your level if it helps me get through to you.

Explain to me, how a divided government helped Ronald Reagan's presidency.

Alright, here are the average annual real increases in domestic discretionary spending:

Reagan: -1.3%

Clinton: 2.5%

Bush II: 8.2%

(Source: Club for Growth, based on U.S. Budget, Historical Tables, 2004)

Tell me again, oh that's right, you never did explain it, so do so now, how a divided government lowered my taxes under Clinton and kept him from signing all of those EOs

Why am I supposed to defend the fact the GOP didn't use their power in Congress to thwart everything Clinton did? Shouldn't you be asking the GOP about that? What tax cuts did the GOP send him to sign? Legislation starts in the Congress. What did the GOP Congress do about Clinton's EO's? Their laws carry more weight, did they nullify them, or just aquiesce?

Jimmy Carter free reign in N. Korea,kept him and the Mrs. and the kid from their many world holidays,kept the ILLEGALS out of the USA,stopped abortions,and all of the other things whinged over on FR.

Did he violate legislation the GOP Congress passed with respect to these? GWB seems pretty happy with the illegals, as long as they'll pay taxes and leave after three years.

Explain away, in detail and didn't leave out the " GOP CLOSED DOWN THE GOVERNMENT " like and how that helped oh so very much ! :-)

Whose fault is it that the GOP Congress was gutless and caved? Two parties, both for bigger government. One wants to tax and spend, the other wants to borrow and spend.

[MJY1288]

Hi there Mo1, As you can see, the little bus crowd is angry with us

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

I now live in Northern Minnesota where were able to harvest 5 deer per person this season.

I took 3 nice does with a bow and 2 great bucks with my old M-40A1 issue, sniper rifle.

This is paradise for an old sniper like me.

[BlackbirdSST]

Look, you have proved yourself unworthy of serious discussion. I have no desire nor do I have the respect for you required to do anything other than ridicule you. I am perfectly willing to ignore you but if you can't take the hint then expect to take the heat. There are few people on this forum that I genuinely dislike but you are very close to the top of that short list.

Stop with the threatening diatribe and back up your claim of 30 examples of Conservatism from GW and the Congress. I could care less whether you like me or not. You only need 28 more. Blackbird.

[nopardons]

I know...I stopped posting for days again. It's like screaming into a hurricane sometimes, or banging one's head into a stone wall until bloody. Still and all, YOU do know what you're talking about and your econ. posts helps the lurkers and puts the bozos to shame.

[MJY1288]

Since your posting numbers there "peeshooter", would you mind posting how much the overall government grew under Reagan?