Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kristol: Misunderestimated
The Weekly Standard ^ | November 15, 2004 | William Kristol

Posted on 11/05/2004 10:30:58 AM PST by RWR8189

The hair-pullers and teeth-gnashers won't like it, of course, but we're nevertheless inclined to call this a Mandate.

IT HAS HAPPENED AGAIN. Here at home, a great many people who fashion themselves his moral and intellectual superiors turn out once more--as he might put it--to have misunderestimated George W. Bush. And it has happened abroad, as well, where the president's opponents and enemies--which is to say America's opponents and enemies--must now be pulling their hair and gnashing their teeth with frustration and resentment. The exit polls said Kerry would win. The New Yorker had endorsed him. And still those idiot Americans reelected Bush!

How sweet it is to contemplate the misery of people who think like this. And how doubly sweet the joy felt by the president's supporters after those same (misleading) exit polls had plunged them--us--into 12 long hours of anxious gloom. "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result," Churchill quipped. This week millions of Republicans know just what he was talking about.

But they should know something else, as well. Exit polls aside, the election was not, in fact, a "squeaker."

On November 2, 2004, George W. Bush won more American votes than any other presidential candidate in history--8 million more than he won in 2000, as a matter of fact. He was the first presidential candidate since 1988 to win more than 50 percent of the popular vote. He was the first incumbent since 1964 to win reelection while simultaneously expanding his party's representation in both houses of Congress. He had coattails, in other words; Republicans were elected to no fewer than six Senate seats that had previously been occupied by Democrats, for example, and in all six of those states, Bush ran well ahead of the rest of his party's ticket.

The hair-pullers and teeth-gnashers won't like it, of course, but we're nevertheless inclined to call this a Mandate. Indeed, in one sense, we think it an even larger and clearer mandate than those won in the landslide reelection campaigns of Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1984, and Clinton in 1996. Needless to say, the Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton victory margins were much, much bigger. But that's in no small part because each of those preceding presidents could plausibly claim to be stage-directing a Morning in America, or building a Bridge to the Twenty-First Century.

George W. Bush could run no such smiley-face campaign. He is a war president. So he has run a war president's remarkably serious and substantive campaign. That campaign was not without its flaws; Bush had his bad moments, especially in the first debate. But he won the overall campaign debate. And because he won that overall debate--not because the visuals were nifty; not because it was the economy, stupid--he won the right to lead the United States for another four momentous years. George W. Bush's 2004 election is an accomplishment of ideological confirmation not unlike--obvious box-score distinctions notwithstanding--the one Franklin Roosevelt achieved in 1936.

Except that Roosevelt's, if anything, was easier. Bush chose the steepest possible climb. A year ago, when the president announced the July 1 transfer of power in Iraq, it was the consensus of cynics everywhere that Karl Rove had informed his boss that politics required him to slither away from Baghdad. Everyone who was anyone, here and in Europe, "knew" that this transfer of sovereignty would be an exit strategy in disguise. Everyone "knew" that Rove would never place his client president before the electorate while 150,000 American troops were still taking daily casualties--and considerable criticism--in the Middle East. Whatever mistakes the administration has made these past 18 months--and there've been more than a few too many--President Bush deserves enormous credit simply for staying the course, for rejecting bad advice to cut and run from purported friends and foes alike. On this central question of national security and principle, George W. Bush has proved himself an extraordinarily courageous president.

And the American people deserve enormous credit for backing up and ratifying his resolve. Let those who would dispute the point pull their hair till they're bald.

Now, the day after Election Day, is not the time to begin debating what sort of ambitious second-term agenda the president should adopt. It is enough to say that its ambitiousness will prove the key to its success. In his elegant Boston concession speech on Wednesday, John Kerry made a public plea for bipartisanship in the Washington, D.C., of a second Bush administration. And the president would be well advised to take Kerry up on the offer; bipartisanship is a fine thing, and nuance is a useful and admirable political grace.

But true statesmanship, and the landmark achievements that attend it, demand something more. L'audace, toujours l'audace, said Danton.

Who says George W. Bush doesn't understand the French?

--William Kristol


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush43; bushvictory; kerry; kristol; mandate; misunderestimated; weeklystandard; williamkristol
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last

1 posted on 11/05/2004 10:30:59 AM PST by RWR8189
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Nice job by Kristol.


2 posted on 11/05/2004 10:34:04 AM PST by The G Man (Are Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein better off now then they were 4 years ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189
He was the first incumbent since 1964 to win reelection while simultaneously expanding his party's representation in both houses of Congress

BUSH: the majority maker!

3 posted on 11/05/2004 10:35:07 AM PST by frog_jerk_2004
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

bttt!


4 posted on 11/05/2004 10:35:24 AM PST by nmh (Intelligent people recognize Intelligent Design (God).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

this idiot was all over the map the last month


5 posted on 11/05/2004 10:38:45 AM PST by petercooper (Everything I ever needed to know about Islam, I learned on 9-11-01.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frog_jerk_2004
Bush has decimated and eviscerated the Demacratic party in just 4 yrs. Wow, what a blood bath 2002 was was.
6 posted on 11/05/2004 10:39:43 AM PST by mlbford2 ("Never wrestle with a pig; you can't win, you just get filthy, and the pig loves it...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Wow. Nice piece.


7 posted on 11/05/2004 10:41:54 AM PST by MNnice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The G Man

Nice job except for this:

"In his elegant Boston concession speech on Wednesday, John Kerry made a public plea for bipartisanship in the Washington, D.C., of a second Bush administration. And the president would be well advised to take Kerry up on the offer; bipartisanship is a fine thing, and nuance is a useful and admirable political grace."

John Kerry's plea for bipartisanship is more empty BS from the Dems. Listen to them since the election. They seek to deny Bush his mandate. They seek to convince us we are a divided country. They seek to legitimize the platform they ran on which the American people rejected. Bush does not owe them a damn thing.


8 posted on 11/05/2004 10:42:58 AM PST by antceecee (God Bless President Bush. FOUR MORE YEARS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

BRAVO!


9 posted on 11/05/2004 10:43:25 AM PST by SmithL (Do I seem like I'm gloating?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

"That campaign was not without its flaws; Bush had his bad moments, especially in the first debate"

President Bush had a hard time in the first debate because he was tired. He had spent that day being President, touring storm damaged areas and offering encouragement.

Well, he may have "lost the debate", but he won a great many hearts that day. Hence, Florida was won easily. The greatness of this was that it wasn't due to connived treachery, he genuinely cared for those people. President Bush is the real deal.


10 posted on 11/05/2004 10:43:56 AM PST by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

BTTT


11 posted on 11/05/2004 10:45:22 AM PST by EdReform (Free Republic - helping to keep our country a free republic. Thank you for your financial support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlbford2
"Bush has decimated and eviscerated the Demacratic party in just 4 yrs. Wow, what a blood bath 2002 was."

I remember in 2000 when he announced and I first heard of Karl Rove. It was said then that W and Rove destroyed the Rat party in Texas. It was also said that is what they aimed to do on a nationwide basis. They are, as you note, well on their way. hehehehehe....

12 posted on 11/05/2004 10:48:22 AM PST by eureka! (It will not be safe to vote Democrat for a long, long, time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: petercooper
this idiot was all over the map the last month

Not true. He's pretty steady whether you agree with him or not. With that said, his vote prediction was way off but at least he came down on the right side.

13 posted on 11/05/2004 10:57:54 AM PST by paul51 (11 September 2001 - Never forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Nice win for a dumb guy.


14 posted on 11/05/2004 11:07:42 AM PST by Ann Archy (Abortion: The Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189; .45MAN
George W. Bush won more American votes than any other presidential candidate in history--8 million more than he won in 2000, as a matter of fact.

Here's this argument again. Sigh.

He won more total votes because there were more total people avaialable in the country, and more total people voting in the election. Taken by itself this raw number is as meaningless as the number that makes the current deficit the largest in recorded history.

His mandate comes from the other excellent examples Kristol uses, not this one. It weakens our argument when fuzzy, meaningless numbers like this are used.

15 posted on 11/05/2004 11:08:10 AM PST by Egon (Government is a guard-dog to be fed, not a cow to be milked.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Just a few days ago it was that horrible performance in the first debate that did him in, or was it that President Bush had not succesfully connected the War on Terror to Iraq.


16 posted on 11/05/2004 11:09:46 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paul51

Kristol is a media jack@ss just like the rest of them. One word of warning to Freepers: when Bill Kristol starts talking about a "mandate" for this administration, I would advise caution.


17 posted on 11/05/2004 11:10:28 AM PST by Alberta's Child (I made enough money to buy Miami -- but I pissed it away on the Alternative Minimum Tax.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Egon
Kristol doesn't provide any solid case for a "mandate" at all. In fact, it is just the opposite . . . the central issue in his article -- the war in Iraq -- is the one issue that damn near cost Bush his job.

Did anyone else notice that Mr. Kristol has written an article about the Republican "mandate" without even mentioning the fact that Bush's victory was primarily the result of voter turnout among people for whom domestic moral issues were the most important?

18 posted on 11/05/2004 11:13:57 AM PST by Alberta's Child (I made enough money to buy Miami -- but I pissed it away on the Alternative Minimum Tax.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

One word: strategery!


19 posted on 11/05/2004 11:13:59 AM PST by talleyman (A foreign leader told me on his deathbed: "Kerry is a liar - he just makes stuff up...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWR8189

Kristol was talking about the Bush Presidency , in the past tense, about 6:30 pm on Tuesday.
FOX should wake up and add more reliable, less flighty pundits to their discussion panels.
More Bill Sammon-less Bill Kristol.


20 posted on 11/05/2004 11:18:01 AM PST by Wild Irish Rogue ( The Grateful Red defeated the Blue Fringe !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson