Passion Deficit [for Bush's re-election]

World Magazine ^ | 2/21/2004 | Joel Belz

[Eala]

Many of George W. Bush's natural allies can muster only tepid support for the big-spending president

IF GEORGE W. BUSH HAS A POLITICAL PROBLEM IN this election year, it's that the people who hate him exhibit so much more passion than those who love him. That may be more an appearance than a reality, of course, because we have been so saturated for the last couple of months with the Democratic primary process. The vitriol and venom that have sloshed over the boundaries of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and a dozen other states suggest an energizing of the anti-Bush voter base that few had predicted. Most states enjoyed record turnouts for the Democratic primaries—and sometimes by thumping margins.

All of that might still prove to be misleading. It could still turn out to be another media bubble that will ultimately burst in Mr. Bush's favor.

But I have to say that right now the tone I'm hearing personally is uncharacteristically consistent with what the big media are saying. In this space last week, I summarized a few responses I received when I asked 50 WORLD readers about the depth of their own political commitments. Since writing that, I've now heard from perhaps two dozen more of those folks—and they are notable for all the reservations they hold.

Almost to a person, these folks said they still intend to vote next November for George Bush. But almost to a person, they also suggest that they are half-hearted in that commitment. And half-heartedness doesn't typically win a close election.

Ray Thompson, a businessman from Montana, typified these folks: "Between Democrats, the media, and George W. Bush, the average American has no representative. Big government socialists have them all. True, he's stolen the platform from the Democrats—and they hate him for it. It's the one area in which his integrity is suspect. His sidekick in the campaign, Mark Racicot, did the same thing in Montana. The compassionate neighbor is competing with the big government compassionate conservative."

From an opposite corner of the country, in Charleston, S.C., Will Haynie echoed the same thought: "I don't want a 'moderate' Republican in the White House or for Congress to fund the same programs a liberal Democrat would—but for less money. To me, it's not the amount; it's the principle.... I don't have a high degree of confidence in the Bush administration's commitment to limited federal government."

Former college president Frank Brock said tersely: "He must cut back federal government if he's going to cut taxes. The deficit is not tolerable." WORLD's managing editor Tim Lamer added: "If he would veto a single spending bill, that would make my support for him somewhat more enthusiastic."

One reader stressed that the interest on our national debt this coming year will be a bigger expenditure than will be our national defense—a development that almost certainly will weaken our national defense.

What really surprised me, though, was how few of my correspondents chose to defend Mr. Bush. Attorney Brian Dutton from Pittsburgh pointed out that the president inherited a recession from Bill Clinton, suffered the 9/11 attacks, and then felt forced to fight wars in two countries—"all valid reasons for a deficit." But such arguments were rare indeed—strengthening my own argument that way too many of those who will be voting for Mr. Bush will be doing so with a good bit of reservation.

Most ominous of the responses was from Ross McGee in Nevada, who said he goes to coffee every morning with a large group of retired men. "The sense there is that we need a new person in the White House—if only to get some gridlock up there," he said. "They all went for Bush last time."

Anecdotal evidence is a bad methodology for political forecasting. But neither this, nor last week's very similar collection of vignettes in this same space, is meant to be statistically valid. Both are included here simply to make the point that if a man's natural friends are fainthearted, what can you expect from his foes? Most of these folks (minus the morning coffee bunch) would likely vote for almost any Republican. They like George Bush, and they note especially their concern for electing a president who will make the right judicial selections over the next four years.

So far, though, they're a lot less excited than their political opponents.

[George W. Bush]

One reader stressed that the interest on our national debt this coming year will be a bigger expenditure than will be our national defense—a development that almost certainly will weaken our national defense.

I looked at the debt load recently and got this table from from the Bureau of the Public Debt:

Available Historical Data FISCAL Year End
2003	$318,148,529,151.51
2002	$332,536,958,599.42
2001	$359,507,635,242.41
2000	$361,997,734,302.36
1999	$353,511,471,722.87
1998	$363,823,722,920.26
1997	$355,795,834,214.66
1996	$343,955,076,695.15
1995	$332,413,555,030.62
1994	$296,277,764,246.26
1993	$292,502,219,484.25
1992	$292,361,073,070.74
1991	$286,021,921,181.04
1990	$264,852,544,615.90
1989	$240,863,231,535.71
1988	$214,145,028,847.73

In the first four months this year, we've already borrowed another $128 billion. On Februrary 5, we just passed $7 trillion of debt. The debt ceiling is at $7.4 trillion. And Bush is already pushing to get Congress to raise it another trillion to $8.3 trillion.

Supposedly, this raise of debt ceiling is to reform Social Security. But there is no such legislation on the table yet! Just the request to raise the debt limit. One must wonder if S.S. reform is the real reason to raise the debt limit or if this is just a big fake-out so the GOP can spend even more. And the bills will start coming due for the Pill Bill in 2006.

And we have idiots here at FR that think this growth of debt is meaningless.

If we were not in debt, we could double our defense department overnight.

I don't want a peace dividend. I want my debt dividend. Screwing off more than $300 billion a year because we won't put our financial house in order is pretty appalling.

Given that the Dims live to spend, what is the excuse for the supposed business party, the GOP, allowing these debts to grow and grow by funding the biggest spending since LBJ's Great Society programs and then passing the biggest new entitlement in 40 years? (And an entitlement that hasn't even bought the votes of seniors to boot!)

When you think about this stuff and see the sodomy marriages moving forward on all fronts, you wonder if Gore did win the 2000 election.

[George W. Bush]

This crap about Bush having lukewarm support among his base is just that; crap!

New polls indicate that Bush's support among GOP voters has recently fallen from 93% to 88%.

Still very strong. But Rove can't be too happy with this.

I don't think it was the Dim attacks that have done it as much as the WMD flap, the growth of spending, the funding of programs hated by the Right for decades, nationalizing education, and his wishy-washy performance thus far on the sodomy marriage issue. And I think a lot of pro-lifers finally realize that the PBA only banned one kind of late-term abortion. So even there, very little ground was gained.

The line in the article about the old guys in Nevada, all previous Bush voters, talking about the merits of divided government rings true to me. I hear this too.

[beckysueb]

I like that, too. lol

[George W. Bush]

Here is all the reason one needs to ensure that GWB gets your vote.

That's gullible. We were told this over and over in 2000. A lot of us have already drank that Kool-Aid. And it won't wash again.

The only four strong nominees we've had were defeated. Pickering got the recess appointment and might still have to step down. Frist wouldn't push them on the filibuster, politely adjourning each day so their filibuster wouldn't inconvenience the Dims. And Rove wanted Estrada left dangling to use to try to get the Latino vote. And that tactic has already failed.

And Trent Lott still is in charge of the Rules Committee. So that means that unles we elect at least 65 GOP senators, the Dims will still block us on conservative judges. That is, if enough get appointed to make any difference.

[Wright is right!]

"How better to find and hook up with new and EASY partners?"

As Joe Klein ("Anonymous") wrote in "Primary Colors," it's also referred to as "campaign sex." Campaign sex doesn't count as real sex, the same way calories that no one sees you eat don't count, either.

Michael

[WestSylvanian]

He has yet to veto a single bloated spending bill. He proposes an immigration bill that rewards lawbreakers. He wants more workers brought into the country on green cards. I've seen search committees hire applicants with green cards to fill their "diversity" affirmative action quotas. They don't have enough domestic minorities in the applicant pool so they're more than willing to hire foreign ones. "Non-Hispanic whites," as the affirmative action forms describe white American citizens, are pushed to the end of the line. And Bush wants to make this even easier.

I don't vote for politicians who increase the size or the power of government; I don't care what party they belong to. At least Reagan had some conservative principles and used his communication skills to try to advance them. He fought back. What are Bush's principles? Pandering to this or that minority group and demonstrating his compassion by spending like there's no tomorrow? This is not conservative and it sure don't look like Republican to me.

[Check_Your_Premises]

Interesting. I always figured sci-fi conventions to be a little one sided in terms of gender?

Well in all my searches for babes in my bachelor days it never occurred to me to try the sci-fi convention.

Just awfully counter-intuitive, but thanks for the clarification.

MDP

[wjcsux]

And your solution is to give up and let the RATS have this one?

[EEDUDE]

They can see it.

But some things require a second term,when politicians CAN do big things.

The sorry state of affairs in this country is the result of years of Democratic incrementalism. We may have to get out of it the same way!

Patience, my friend! The tide is turning!

[Right_in_Virginia]

" It could still turn out to be another media bubble that will ultimately burst in Mr. Bush's favor. "

Change the "could" to "will" and you've got it exactly right, Mr. Belz

[George W. Bush]

And your solution is to give up and let the RATS have this one?

I expect to see more serious pursuit of our announced policy objectives and pushing through the four nominees we let the Dims block. I expect to see the GOP play hard ball the same way the Dims do.

I expect spending to be cut sharply. I expect them to back away from nationalizing education, about huge growths in debt, about throwing so much money at Iraq and Africa, about stationing our troops everywhere except along our own borders.

They haven't lost my vote yet. But they haven't earned it yet either. I already gave them the benefit of the doubt in 2000 and most of my doubts have been proven correct. For conservatives, 9/11 was a distraction in that it kept them too busy to enact all the liberalism they really wanted. And the last two years, we've started to see exactly what the Big Tent really means. So I'm not accepting more lame excuses for why we can't get things done and enact our policy objectives.

I'm waiting and watching to see if they actually want my vote. GOP partisans, like most FReepers, will vote GOP no matter what. In this sense, the partisan voters actually are FRingers; they're money in the bank. But the 5%-10% of the conservative vote in '04 is the real swing vote. They're going to have to deliver some things or they don't get paid (votes).

It's a simple market situation. I have not yet received adequate return on my investment. If the recent record is an accurate sample of what they've decided to sell from now on, then I am not a buyer.

But they do have nine months to correct their course in a convincing way.

[George W. Bush]

But some things require a second term,when politicians CAN do big things.

I don't exactly grasp this.

Can you cite some examples where presidents enacted large reforms or initiated big programs in their second term?

I just can't think of any. The things I can think of generally happened all within the first terms. Maybe you have some examples in mind. But there is a reason why they call them lame ducks. When their political future is known, they lose a lot of political power. And it is unlikely that Bush will ever gain the influence that Reagan had because the Dims just hate him too much and because he isn't quite as appealing as Reagan was.

[Meldrim]

It is heartening to see that Clarence is to young.

[kabar]

The Presidetnial campaign hasn't even started. The Dems don't have a ticket yet and the nominating conventions start only in late Summer. Passion only lasts so long. Once the GOP campaign machine starts up and let's its base know what is at stake, I think there will be plenty of passion all the way around. This is going to be a mean, dirty election.

[Eala]

This is going to be a mean, dirty election.

You are SO correct!

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

When you think about this stuff and see the sodomy marriages moving forward on all fronts, you wonder if Gore did win the 2000 election.

Gore didn't win. You know that, GWB.

If Gore had won, the Kennedy Education Bill and the Farm Bill proposals would have been even more bloated with pork-barrel spending, and the $400 billion (oops, sorry, $530 Billion) Medicare Drug Bill would have instead been a $1 Trillion National Health Care Communization.

But, all that being said... if Gore had won, the GOP Congress wouldn't have passed these Bills at all.

This is not to say that Gore would have been a better President than GWB. He would not have been; GWB is clearly the "better man" between the two. However, it is to say (and I think this is bloody well obvious) that if Gore were President, the President would not receive the Spending expansions he desires.

FReepers can praise GWB to the skies, but the fact remains -- Federal Spending has exploded upwards because the GOP Congress has given Bush every Spending expansion he has asked for.

One may argue, if one treats all political questions as a horse-race, that this marginally accrues to Bush's advantage. One may argue, if one treats all political questions as a horse-race, that this marginally accrues to Republican Party advantage.

However, it is impossible to argue that any of this accrues to Citizen Taxpayer advantage.

It simply does not.

[George W. Bush]

However, it is impossible to argue that any of this accrues to Citizen Taxpayer advantage.

It's hard to argue that this massive debt and the interest is in anyone's interest.