Bush Prepares the Battlefield

WND.com ^ | 01-26-03 | Buchanan, Patrick J.

[Theodore R.]

Bush prepares the battlefield

Posted: January 26, 2004 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

After reading the State of the Union address, one appreciates how much greater a grasp George W. Bush has of politics than did his father.

For this was the sort of speech one would expect to hear from a candidate who had just been nominated at his party's convention, not a president in wartime. It was an acceptance speech, a war map revealing the terrain where Bush intends to fight the battle of 2004.

"Bring 'Em On!" could have been its subtitle.

Democrats on the campaign trail may be exciting the liberal base by bashing the Patriot Act, but Bush, in the first minutes of the speech, threw the glove right in their face. Calling it "an essential tool" that enables the government "to track terrorists, to disrupt their cells, and to seize their assets," Bush told Congress, "you need to renew the Patriot Act" this year.

Message: Liberals may loathe the Patriot Act, you may raise millions in direct mail decrying it, but you are going to vote on it. And if you vote to let it expire, I will charge you with disarming America in the war on terror.

On Iraq, the president fairly bristled with defiance. What he is saying is this: Perhaps we did not find the weapons we thought were there, but we did the right thing to destroy that regime, eradicate that threat and dig the rat out of his hole. And we will see this through to a democratic and free Iraq. If you want to make the war the issue, go for it.

Democrats have no such clarity. The party base was opposed to the war, but the leadership voted for it. To Democrats who say Bush should have gone to the "international community" or gotten U.N. approval, Bush's response was in your face. He recited the names of two dozen countries that support us, then declared to the nation: "There is a difference between leading a coalition and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people."

He is going to play the patriot card and the nationalism card, and they trump the U.N. card every time.

On domestic issues, Bush praised Congress for passing the No Child Left Behind Act and the prescription-drug bill, thus reminding the nation that he, George W. Bush, delivered on what used to be the Democrats' signature issues. He is now the health-care president and the education president.

On taxes, Bush told them: You may call them "tax cuts for the rich," but you will have to exhibit the courage of that conviction:

Congress has some unfinished business on the issue of taxes. The tax reductions you passed are set to expire. Unless you act, the unfair tax on marriage will go up. Unless you act, millions of families will be charged $300 more in federal taxes for every child. Unless you act, small businesses will pay higher taxes. Unless you act, the death tax will eventually come back to life. Unless you act, Americans face a tax increase.

Refuse to make my tax cuts permanent, Bush is saying, and I will do to you exactly what Reagan did to Mondale.

In the culture war, Bush came out for funding for faith-based charities, for sexual abstinence for young people, against the use of steroids by athletes and for traditional marriage. This last issue is nitroglycerine, and Bush handled it gingerly.

Having in mind the Massachusetts court declaration that homosexuals have a right to marry, Bush declared: "If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."

Bush is hinting at support for a constitutional amendment to restrict marriage to a man and woman. This would sever the socially conservative working class base of the Democrats from their San Francisco wing. Poison for the party.

On two issues, Bush indicated he is aware of the mutinous talk inside his own base. On spending, he promised a budget this year with only a 4 percent increase in discretionary spending.

But on illegal aliens, he was disingenuous, if not worse: "I oppose amnesty," he said with a straight face, "because it would encourage further illegal immigration, and unfairly reward those who break our laws."

But that is precisely what his proposal entails.

On many issues – imperial overstretch of U.S. power, loss of manufacturing jobs, outsourcing of white-collar jobs to Asia, his failure to protect our borders and his heavy spending habits – Bush is vulnerable. Unfortunately for Democrats, it is on his right flank, not his left.

[Common Tator]

There is very little that goes on in politics that is new.

The strategies and ploys used to win elections occur over and over again.

Click for my take on the strategies and counter strategies of 2000

There is nothing new going on. I point out similar situations in the past and the results.

Candidates who follow their gut... end up with a kicked butt.

[Common Tator]

2000 = 2004

[Sabertooth]

On two issues, Bush indicated he is aware of the mutinous talk inside his own base. On spending, he promised a budget this year with only a 4 percent increase in discretionary spending.

But on illegal aliens, he was disingenuous, if not worse: "I oppose amnesty," he said with a straight face, "because it would encourage further illegal immigration, and unfairly reward those who break our laws."

But that is precisely what his proposal entails.

"I did not have Amnesty with that Illegal Alien..."

On many issues – imperial overstretch of U.S. power, loss of manufacturing jobs, outsourcing of white-collar jobs to Asia, his failure to protect our borders and his heavy spending habits – Bush is vulnerable. Unfortunately for Democrats, it is on his right flank, not his left.

Unfortunately for Republicans, as well.

The Democrats are so bad the the President has no incentive to straighten out his act on these issues.

Disagree on the "imperial overstretch of U.S. power" bit, btw, except where Bush keeps forcing Israel to try and peacefully submit to impossible coexistence with the genocidal "palestinians." The U.S. should butt out of that conflict, but the Dems are so compromised by Arabist relativism and WoT equivocation that the "road map" won't be an issue in 2004.

[Cicero]

Buchanan is itching to bash Bush, but he can't help admitting that much of what Bush said in his speech makes powerful sense.

Bush IS a far more capable politician than his father was. And IMHO that's a good thing. If you aren't a smart politician, you won't get anything done. Barry Goldwater learned that.

I agree with Buchanan that Bush is wrong on some issues; but on the whole I'm very glad to have him in the White House. He's right on the main issues. Note that paragraph on Iraq, for instance.

[The South Texan]

So is Buchann now a "Bush Brigrader?"

Welcome back Pat. Bring out the pitchforks another day.

LOL!

[Sabertooth]

Yikes, I didn't even realize I was replying to a Buchanan article.

He sounded lucid and reasonable.

Usually, I can read a few paragraphs and realize it's Pat without looking at the byline. The "imperial overreach" line should have been my tip-off, but he threw it in at the end, almost as an afterthought.

[The South Texan]

"Usually, I can read a few paragraphs and realize it's Pat without looking at the byline. The "imperial overreach" line should have been my tip-off, but he threw it in at the end, almost as an afterthought."

Right! Pat's articles usualy begin with blaiming Bush and the GOP for selling out American jobs (NAFTA), blaiming the Israel lobby in Washington for the Middle East problems or something like that.

[deport]

After reading the State of the Union address, one appreciates how much greater a grasp George W. Bush has of politics than did his father.

---

Pattie can't make up his mind..... one day President Bush is dancing to the strings as pulled by the NWO, Globalist, CFRers, etc and today he can be appreciate for his much greater grasp of politics......

Let the games begin......... Unleash the $100+ million

[ohioWfan]

To Democrats who say Bush should have gone to the "international community" or gotten U.N. approval, Bush's response was in your face. He recited the names of two dozen countries that support us, then declared to the nation: "There is a difference between leading a coalition and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people."

Best part of a strong speech.

Bush in the dems face is Bush at his best.

Bring em on!

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Buchanan followed orders and destroyed the Reform party.

Of course he's a grumpy old goat.

[gitmo]

Sabertooth,
I always enjoy your analyses. Do you have any insights into why Bush is sanctioning the invasion of our country from our southern borders?

[gitmo]

Best part of a strong speech.

I thought the speach was not as strong as his previous SOU addresses. However, the results of Bush's actions over the last couple of years spoke so loudly that they FORCED the rats to stand and applaud on issues the violently disagree with.

[Gritty]

"If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative would be the constitutional process." G.W.Bush

I rather think this was a call to reinstitute other Constitutional processes, such as impeachment of judges, denial of judicial jurisdiction and appointment of judges who actually read the Constitution.

If we passed a Constitutional Amendment for every lousy court decision by activist judges, our amended Constitution would run into the hundreds of pages. It is better to strike the head of the snake than try and administer anti-venom for each of the various deadly bites.

[ohioWfan]

Not as strong as previous speeches because of the improvement in the world's circumstances, and the lack of the need for such a speech.

And the improvement in the world's circumstances are directly due to the fact that he did what he SAID he would do in his previous SOTU speeches......

[gitmo]

I think your comments are similar to mine. His actions spoke LOUDLY. His words were softer this time, with hidden warnings to his opponents.

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

People who assume that the President is sanctioning the invasion of our borders are not aware of the difficulty or the immense cost of "sealing" the border.

It's easy to make the claim, but those who look realistically at what is involved quickly see the difficulty of the task.

I am confident the President is aware of the folly of granting amnesty which he indicated in his speech. He is not one to go back on his word, especially when he is aware of the seriousness of doing so.

I suspect that somebody will come up with a better plan on how to deal with all the illegals already here and still have accountability over the employers who enable the illegals. If employers are held severely accountable for hiring illegals and heavy penalties are enforced, the blame falls on the root of the problem.

We cannot fault the illegals themselves other than a few actual criminals, for wanting to find a way to improve their lives. The "Coyotes" who smuggle the people in here are the ones exploiting the situation and should be locked away as combatants in the War on Terror. Start clamping down on the source of the problem and the flow of people will diminish drastically.

[international american]

"Yikes, I didn't even realize I was replying to a Buchanan article.

He sounded lucid and reasonable."

Yeah, he did. I wish he was this way all the time:)

[ex-snook]

Sounds like Buchanan is going to back Bush like he did his father.

[My2Cents]

The article is a keeper. Good find.