Bush blocks his own way while giving Kerry a free pass [Sad but true]

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | February 12, 2004 | BY ROBERT NOVAK

[johnny7]

All week long in the capital, worried Republicans buzzed about George W. Bush's Sunday interview on NBC's ''Meet the Press.'' Supporters of the president were surprised that he would ask to be questioned by Tim Russert. What flabbergasted them was the absence of any plan to use this event to stop being the target as the 2004 campaign began.

This failure was Strike Two for President Bush. Strike One was his humdrum State of the Union address. Fortunately for the president, this is not baseball, where three strikes are out. During more than eight months before Election Day, Bush will have many opportunities for recuperation. For now, however, the president is in political retreat, with Democrats unimpeded in challenging his competency and credibility.

The ''Meet the Press'' performance raised disturbing questions for Republicans. How could Bush be put out to confront the most feared questioner in Washington without a careful scenario? How could he face Russert without precise answers on the decision to go to war in Iraq and on his National Guard service? The suspicion is that his 2004 campaign organization, a fund-raising juggernaut, is otherwise inadequate. The Bush White House is cloistered, where even Bush aides seem restrained from debating strategy even behind closed doors. The belief in Republican circles is that Bush, tired of battering by Democrats and alarmed by his descent in the polls, asked for an hour on television. This questions how it could be possible for a president who claims to neither read newspapers nor watch television. In any event, no aide dissuaded Bush from embarking on this course or devised a plan to make the most of it.

Democratic operatives, including Sen. John Kerry's advisers, groused that Russert permitted Bush to escape -- reflecting presidential blood lust by Democrats in the sight of Bush's wounds. Actually, no president ever before had been subjected to such tough questioning in the Oval Office. The private Republican complaint is not with Russert but with Bush. It was thought the president would have sat down with carefully structured language to defend himself or even produce news. Yet, the newsiest tidbit contained in excerpts of the taped interview distributed last Saturday was the unsurprising declaration he would not fire CIA Director George Tenet.

While gay marriage embarrasses Democrats because of their homosexual constituency, Bush did not try to capitalize on this Sunday. He was informed in advance that Russert had no plans to bring it up but that the president, of course, could raise this important social issue. He did not. Most disturbing to the president's supporters was his reaction to whether young Lt. Bush skipped Alabama National Guard duty in 1972. This chestnut from the 2000 campaign dropped when leftist agitator Michael Moore called Bush a military ''deserter'' and Democratic National Chairman Terry McAuliffe labeled him AWOL. Kerry linked Bush's National Guard service with ''going to Canada, going to jail, being a conscientious objector'' as forms of draft avoidance he would not criticize. ''The political season's here,'' Bush told Russert, launching a tepid defense of his service record. The president did not lash back by exposing Kerry's unsavory record in the antiwar movement's extreme wing following his heroic service in Vietnam. That reluctance might have been prudent, but it maintained the protective shell around Bush's probable challenger. The president would not deign to even touch the senator. Nearly a year ago in March, Vogue magazine reported Kerry as denigrating Bush's ''lack of knowledge,'' adding: ''He was two years behind me at Yale, and I knew him, and he's still the same guy.'' I reported the president telling aides he did not know Kerry at Yale. On Sunday, Russert cited the Vogue quotations and asked: ''Did you know him at Yale?'' ''No,'' Bush replied. ''How do you respond to that?'' Russert persisted. The president answered with one word: ''Politics.''

That's not nearly an adequate retort to John Kerry. Republican heavy thinkers regard him as second only to Howard Dean as a vulnerable nominee. But Kerry, merciless in slashing at the president, remains untouched. It seems difficult for an incumbent president to lose amid economic recovery, but George W. Bush is showing it might be possible.

   

[skip2myloo]

I don't know -- I can't assess the question objectively.

For the life of me, I can't envision how anyone who considers themselves in any context that includes the word conservative, could bring themselves to vote for Kerry.

To me, suicide is a preferable option.

Third party perhaps, or not vote at all -- but an outright vote for Kerry -- I'm aghast at the very idea.

In fact, I don't see how anyone who considers themselves to be one of those enigmatic "moderates" could cast a vote for Kerry.

[Consort]

¿Third party perhaps, or not vote at all...?

There are several ways that voters can help to elect Kerry: 1) They can vote for him, 2) They can stay home and sit out the election (not vote at all), 3) Vote for a Third Party Candidate,.... Can you think of any other ways?

[MissAmericanPie]

Bush suffers from the ivory tower syndrome common to most elites. He is aloof, and deaf, to those outside his protective circle. Karl Rove is his Rasputin.

[veronica]

I'm no fan of Novak -- but, let's stay focused on the big picture here. Noonan has said much the same things about SOTU and MTP.

Noonan can be good, but nobody is right all the time.

It is very EARLY in the process.

Anyone who is really familiar with Bush's record as a campaigner, knows he holds his fire very cleverly.

If Bush had gone after Dean, when it looked like a lock for Dean, Bush would look foolish now. Right now the Dems are playing spaghetti politics. Throw it up in the air and see what sticks. Not much of it is sticking. And Bush is getting the chance to refute most of the jabs early in the process, before KERRY has really been vetted. :)

Bush has plenty of time to defend his record and go after the Dem. nominee. My money is on Bush and Rove. They find a way to win, and events have a way of working out for Bush.

[veronica]

Bush suffers from the ivory tower syndrome common to most elites. He is aloof, and deaf, to those outside his protective circle. Karl Rove is his Rasputin.

Was that written in jest? There is nothing "ivory tower" about Bush. He's very down-to-earth, and he and Rove have always had a solid strategy for getting Bush elected, plus Rove can also adjust to changing events.

Your post is not different that old Dem rap on Bush that he a vapid puppet whose strings are pulled by others. A shallow and tired rap on Bush, who didn't get where he is by being a sieve.

Why some Conservatives are so insecure that they jump on the bash-Bush bandwagon is a mystery to me.

[johnny7]

Gay marriage?! How did you read that into what I said? Why are you so offended? I touch a nerve? AND DON'T CALL ME CHIEF!

[Puppage]

Gay marriage?! How did you read that into what I said?

I threw that in there because your reply to my post lead me to believe that you felt my opinion on what would tip the scale in 04, had no validity. So consequently I threw a few more issues out there to determine what YOU thought would be the big issue. THAT'S why it was said. Okay, ace?

[MEG33]

I went over and read her column.I did not write her but I thought she was too critical.Words are her life's work and people who are not articulate enough will drive her nuts.

I thought she had good advice on preparing the message for the campaign.

I thought her "fear" accusation against the writers who wrote in and disagreed with her assessment of the Russert interview was a bit harsh,too.

We've had dem talking points and dem interviews 24/7 during the primary season .We want our conservatives to lay off joining in the chorus of beating up on the President while the dems and media is doing it full time,perhaps.

I don't suggest ,however, the President should be spared from constructive criticism.

[MEG33]

Oops!dems and media are doing it full time.

[over3Owithabrain]

Novak is full of it. I'm tired of his constant curmudgeonly carping. Shouldn't he be testifying somewhere regarding his leaking of classified info? I still think that he intended to harm this administration.

If the sky is falling around Bush, why is the current worst-case scenario 50 percent approval and a tie w/Kerry? If Bush has been so horrible and this is the worst the polls can reflect, I say he's in pretty good shape.

[johnny7]

I'm not 'ace' either. You are assuming things I did not say. You have a short fuse and serious comprehension deficiencies.

[wayoverontheright]

Here's a question... do you think American voters have become more or less rational since 1992?

Good question. Emotion certainly overrode rational thought in '92 and '96. Hopefully 9-11 caused many to realize that our very survival is riding on our choice in leaders now, and rationality will trump emotion in '04.

[Puppage]

You are assuming things I did not say

I know you didn't SAY them. I told you WHY I wrote them, geez do understand anything I've written? Allow me to try again,maybe you'll understand....

I threw that in there because your reply to my post lead me to believe that you felt my opinion on what would tip the scale in 04, had no validity. So consequently I threw a few more issues out there to determine what YOU thought would be the big issue. THAT'S why it was said.

Now, just WHERE did I write that you mentioned those "things", hmm?

I am through trying to explain the obvious to you. You need some school'n up,Junior.

[skip2myloo]

I'm not suggesting Bush attack Kerry, I'm suggesting rather than responding to every idiotic Democrat criticism, he should keep his mouth shut, and quit providing every old NG record he can dig out of an old filing cabinet -- all that does is fuel the debate.

Just to use that as an example, now the Dems are claiming the records we forged and cleaned up to make him electable in Texas.

By responding to every one of these "have you stopped beating your wife" questions -- he is just dragging out and legitimizing the debate.

Where in my post did you read that I suggest he attack Kerry, or Dean for that matter ??

[GraniteStateConservative]

I think half the people here at FR think half the country are FReepers.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Laura Ingraham thought it wasn't a great job by Bush, either.

[Sabertooth]

In '92, voters got mad at Bush and shot themselves in the foot (screwing things up for the rest of us in the process) and some of those fools are talking about doing it again this year.

No, in 1992 Bush 41 ran a lousy campaign and took key constituencies for granted, and lost both them and the election.

Republicans and Bush 43 partisans who continue to give Bush 41 a pass have not learned History, and risk repeating it.

[GraniteStateConservative]

Saddam had the same problem as David Kay tells it.

[cyncooper]

The president did not lash back by exposing Kerry's unsavory record in the antiwar movement's extreme wing following his heroic service in Vietnam.

Of all the idiotic complaints. What a disaster that would have been. Of course the president didn't "lash back" and bring up Kerry's unsavory record then.

It's coming out now, though.

[lewislynn]

There are several ways that voters can help to elect Kerry:

Actually it would be more accurate to say "there are several ways the GOP can help elect Kerry"....They're on that path right now.