Posted on 02/09/2004 4:13:03 PM PST by ontos-on
BUSH'S MBA: A fellow student and subsequent professor analyzes George W. Bush from the Harvard Business School perspective. It's interesting reading. Money quote:
By reputation, the President was a very avid and skillful poker player when he was an MBA student. One of the secrets of a successful poker player is to encourage your opponent to bet a lot of chips on a losing hand. This is a pattern of behavior one sees repeatedly in George W. Bush’s political career. He is not one to loudly proclaim his strengths at the beginning of a campaign. Instead, he bides his time, does not respond forcefully, a least at first, to critiques from his enemies, no matter how loud and annoying they get. If anything, this apparent passivity only goads them into making their case more emphatically.
Only time will tell, whether Saddam ever had any WMDs. Their non-existence has not been proven. Only time will tell whether or not Osama bin Laden (or his corpse) will be taken into custody by American Troops. Only time will tell whether or not Iraq will continue to make progress toward a transition toward a peaceful democratic government. George W. Bush knows much more information about these topics than his domestic political opponents do. At the moment, they are betting a lot of their chips on one side of these questions.
We will see by November who has the winning hand.
[snip]Doesn't sound like anything more to me than that he's not going to divulge anything one way or the other that may or may not be helpful to the enemy.... Keep Bin Laden wondering what they know or don't know.Russert: Senator Charles Grassley, a Republican
President Bush: Yes.
Russert: said he is absolutely convinced we will capture Osama bin Laden before the election.
President Bush: Well, I appreciate his optimism. I have no idea whether we will capture or bring him to justice, may be the best way to put it. I know we are on the hunt, and Osama bin Laden is a cold blooded killer, and he represents the nature of the enemy that we face.
These are these are people that will kill on a moment's notice, and they will kill innocent women and children. And he's hiding, and we're trying to find him.
There's a I know there is a lot of focus on Iraq, and there should be, but we’ve got thousands of troops, agents, allies on the hunt, and we are doing a pretty good job of dismantling al Qaeda better than a pretty good job, a very good job. I keep saying in my speeches, two thirds of known al Qaeda leaders have been captured or killed, and that's the truth.
Russert: Do you have a pretty good idea where Osama is?
President Bush: You know, I'm not going to comment on that.
[end snip]
And that was the whole point of his demeanor in the interview.I would add to the list $200 million. The demoCREEPs aren't going to know what hit them come the day after the election.
He didn't allow himself to swing at any low pitches. He didn't give a whole lot away in this interview.
As has been noted in several other posts, this is a game of poker. A very high stakes game of poker, but a game of poker nonetheless. And Bush is a good poker player.
I am not professing to be a good poker player at all and I apologize to those who think this is a crude analogy, but I would say that President Bush is looking at a Full House right now with high aces. I think he has J-J-J-A-A or another very strong "boat".
Bush's Hand
A - Saddam - He is deposed and one of the critical distributors of chemical, biological (both already proven), and, possibly, nuclear material is no more.
A - Osama; he will either be captured, killed or still on the run. While Al Queda isn't gone, they have been critically wounded. (My bet is that they will get Osama soon; the recent operations in Eastern Afghanistan make me think that they are getting closer. A special ops mission to cross into Pakistan and grab the mother 'effer is close).
J - The Economy - It has been turning around with employement lagging a little behind as it always does
J - National Security/9-11 - People want and crave leadership and security. When they find it, they stick with it for as long as possible. The images of GWB leading the country are burned into the memories all Americans -- political junkies, "informed" voters, and the politically naive. This will be remembered extremely well by the politically naive and generally uninformed.
J - The Left's Hatred - This is odd, I know, but this is going to work against the demoCREEPs. They can't contain themselves and their hate (Hitler ads, denigrating the National Guard, hate, hate, hate, etc.). This will show. If people are sick of the "usual" politics, then demoCREEPs will be giving the electorate exactly what they don't want.
A Full House isn't the best poker hand you can have, but it is pretty damn close to what gets played out. The only things that can beat a Full House is 1) Four of a Kind; 2) Straight Flush, or 3) a Royal Flush.
The demoCREEPs Hand
If you look at what the left has, they might have a pair: NO WMDs in Iraq and sagging employment. Both of these are low cards to play. And, even that is weak.
One, there may be WMDs that haven't been found or uncovered (after all, enough ricin to kill everyone in the United States can be stored in a normal-sized garage). And two, the sagging employment is, already, somewhat debatable and some forecasts have it going up enough to take it off the table.
What else does the left have?
» Gay marriage? That won't play with mainstream America.
» Prescription Drugs? GWB took this away from them, even if the current proposal sucks.
» Education? I can't speak for the whole country, but the Education stats in Florida are up. AND...Bush has already done something about Education.
If the left is going to get a stronger hand, they are necessarily going to have to pick up an issue and talk like conservatives, which they don't have the capability of doing.
Bottom line, Bush has the strong hand. The leftist have a weak hand and a short stack. Some Bush supporters are getting more worried than they need be. Now, that doesn't mean that we should take this opportunity to pummel the left into the ground, rendering them utterly incapacitated forever (I am highly in favor of such). It just means that we should be invigorated, not worried.
Someone else posted the Sun Tzu quotes and those are quite telling. If Bush and/or any of his advisers understands the Art of War, then he is parrying.
Which might explain why a diehard Bush fan like me, who usually groans at his interview performances, found his MTP interview to be a pleasant surprise. John Kerry is not the daunting foe he is currently being made out to be. As Howard Dean can attest, being the current media darling is no predictor of future performance. Kerry is having a hard time pulling 50% in primaries where his only competition is four whackos and a trial lawyer. His support comes from democrats who check his name because they've been told he can beat Bush. I seem to recall us doing the same thing with Bob Dole in 1996. So far Kerry's main points of attack are "bring it on" catch phrases, and questioning Bush's guard record. That isn't going to carry him through February, never mind November. In the meantime, the economy is gaining increasing strength, the job market is turning around, Iraq is improving (despite bitter claims to the contrary by pundits) and countries like Libya, Iran, Syria, North Korea and Saudi Arabia are tipping like dominoes. If Bush doesn't come flying off the ropes like a WWF wrestler during a MTP interview, it is most likely because he's eyeballed the competition, and is just waiting for the chance to push them over with a feather.
Or as Hank Hill would say, That boy aint right
I pray to our Maker every morning for George and for mercy on America. I don't want to even imagine what will happen to us if the Dems take over.
And in Libya, too. And like a nuclear chain reaction, for every one that falls, they take others down with them. I can't wait to see the fall out from the Paki operation and how it affects Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Even 2,500 years ago, I think Sun Tzu would have gotten a chuckle out of "strategery"!
--Boot Hill
Most of what I know of Dubya I learned in the last four years. For some reason everytime I looked at the strategy used by 43, that old Kenny Rogers song "You got to know when to hold 'em" kept running through my head.
That artice Chris references set me to thinking. If Bush wanted to destroy Kerry what could he do. First of all he would not do it until Kerry had the nomination sewed up.
How could Bush destroy him? What if Kerry and the Democrats accused Bush of 5 bad things. And It went on until nearly everyone believed Kerry was telling the truth. Then what if Bush introduced evidence that convinced everyone Kerry was wrong or lying on those five issues. Kerry's credibility would be destroyed.
Bush said with no equivication in the inteview that he did all his training. He also said that all the records were gone. You know if the Records Existed proving bush did not train, Gore would have leaked them in 2000. As commander in Chief bet the farm Clinton had every Bush record that could be found in his office.
A few years ago I wanted to join the American Legion. I had to prove my active duty service. I do know that info is retained. But I doubt if all info is retained.
However if I had to prove when I trained, I would just look up the guys with whom I served. Bush is an extrovert. I am not. But if I had to prove service, I could find 15 guys I trained with to tesify that I trained when I was supposed to do so. I wonder if President Bush has that up his sleeve. It would be like him to let it build and then show Kerry is trying to lie to the public as 5 old National Guard buddies who haven't seen Dubya in 35 years go to the media in Alabama with pictures and memories of training with Dubya on those faitful dates.
The conventional wisdom is you must answer charges as soon as they are made. That is what every Dick Morris will tell you. Kerry has no doubt heard that stearling advice. But you only need to do that if the charges against you are true.....as in "I never had sex with that woman.. Ms Lewinski." If charges arent true and you can prove it, it might be better to let your opponents harp on the false charges. Especially if you have 200 million bucks to spend on ads that can prove your innocence. Doing ti after Kerry has the nomination using paid ads would bypass the news media and let Bush make the case Bush's way .. not the media's way. The more times your opponent accuses you, the more damage your proof of innocence will be to his credibility.
I also would bet that the Iraq situation will not be the deciding factor in the election. The war is a big deal to the left and the right... It is not a big deal to the center. The center is self centered. They vote on likability and how does an issue effect me. The war does not effect those in the center. We have a volunteer service. The ECONOMY does effect the center.
If Kerry keeps harping on Nam and and Iraq, he may not learn IT IS THE ECONOMY STUPID until it is too late.
Oh and how did Russert get the interview? First he had to ask someone in the White House. It was certainly not Bush directly. The first question out of the mouth of whom ever Russert asked is, "What do you want to ask him about?" Bet the farm that Bush knew in general what he was going to be asked before he agreed to the interview.
I would say Bush wanted to be hammered on Iraq, and Russert accomidated him.
One thing in Washington very little is exactly how it seems. And when a president does a one on one interview someone had to play ball to get the interview.
This was a big deal for Russert and Meet the Press. We just don't know what the deal was... I would bet there was a deal.
-PJ
Mort, who is a moderate Democrat, went further than that. He thanked God that Gore had not been elected in 2000.
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.