Posted on 01/27/2005 5:53:16 PM PST by RWR8189
Undeniably, it was a good year for Time’s Man of the Year. For the second election in a row, George W. Bush increased his party’s strength in Congress as he secured the second term his father failed to win.
Not since FDR has a new president done so well by his party. But here the comparisons end. Where FDR carried every state but Maine and Vermont in his re-election campaign in 1936, and Ike carried every state but Missouri and a few Dixiecrat bastions in 1956, and Nixon and Reagan carried 49 states, George W. Bush won only 31. His margin was 3 percent.
An historic victory this was not. No wartime president had ever been turned out of office. But Bush came closest. A turnaround of 60,000 votes in Ohio, and he would have lost to a liberal from Massachusetts with a voting record indistinguishable from Teddy Kennedy’s.
I have political capital in the bank and I intend to spend it, says the president. But that capital is shrinking as fast as the dollar.
What, then, are the yardsticks of success for a second Bush term?
On the “moral values” front, there is but one test. Can he, will he, reshape the Supreme Court and ring down the curtain on the revolution it has been imposing upon this country, illegitimately, for 50 years? If he succeeds here, President Bush will have achieved what Ike, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and his father all failed to do—together.
As for the Bush guest-worker plan for illegal aliens, it is in trouble in the House, as he is condemned in his own party for refusing to secure America’s borders. One major terror attack by an alien who sneaked across the Mexican border, and the president will lose the terrorism issue for the balance of his term.
Bush’s trade policy cost America 2.7 million manufacturing jobs in his first term. With the Multifiber Agreement expiring, the imminent loss of hundreds of thousands of textile and apparel jobs will create a crisis for free-trade Republicans. Yet to the deindustrialization of America, Bush has no answer other than “I believe free trade is good for America.” This is mindless ideology.
Arthur Laffer and Lawrence Kudlow may see a trade deficit of $600 billion and a sinking dollar as signs the world loves America as a place to invest. But the financial world dissents, as does Steve Forbes, who sees the soaring price of gold, oil, copper and other commodities, and housing, as fire bells of inflation.
After having turned a $200 billion Clinton surplus into a $400 billion deficit, the president, prodded by his own deficit hawks, is going to have to perform fiscal surgery. He is going to have to address the Social Security and Medicare deficits. Neither will be popular, and the president is already below 50 percent approval again.
Only one in nine economists predicts a recession in 2005, and two of nine by the end of 2006. This points to clear sailing for the economy, but the political question remains: will working America share equitably in Wall Street’s prosperity?
It is in foreign policy, however, that the president has been hailed as a revolutionary for his Bush Doctrine of preventive war and his Wilsonian declaration of a “world democratic revolution.” And it is here that his presidency will be made or broken.
Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are the proving grounds of the Bush Doctrine. While Afghanistan just held its first national election, the country also appears on the way to becoming a narco-democracy, the world supplier of the raw material for heroin, as it was before the Taliban eradicated the drug trade.
North Korea appears to have successfully defied the president and crashed the club of nuclear nations. Iran has begun to take steps toward the threshold. Yet the Bush Doctrine, which calls for preventive wars and “regime change” for axis-of-evil nations that defy America’s will, has yet to be applied. To the dismay of neoconservatives, the Big Stick remains in the closet.
Ultimately, the success or failure of the Bush foreign policy, the Bush Doctrine, the “world democratic revolution,” comes down to Iraq. The price in dead and wounded, American and Iraqi, in divisions within this country and with our allies, in the anger and alienation of the Arab and Islamic street, is already high and rising.
If January’s elections produce an Iraq that looks to America as a friend and ally and offers a model democracy for the Arab world, Bush’s war will be judged a success. But if the Sunni insurgency tears Iraq apart in chaos and civil war, leading to a U.S. withdrawal, or a second Vietnam, Bush’s fate is sealed. He will have launched a war of choice, not necessity, and lost it, something no other president has ever done.
Buchanan, the ultimate nattering nabob of negativism.
Pat, I would hope you would resist the dark side and avoid the Vietnam mentality so prevalent on the left.
Bush did not campaign on SS reform. SS was hardly even a blip on the radar. It was after his election was safely secure that he advanced his current SS agenda.
I was going to read this, but got bored after the first few sentences. Too much hot air and not enough substance, again, from Pat.
Actually, no. The war is validated no matter the outcome. The long term results of his policies in the M.E., Iraq being one, is essential only in that success is necessary to provide the will to continue. Success provides successors the courage to continue to pro-actively protect America by spreading freedom.
and lost it, something no other president has ever done.
Ever hear of Vietnam?
An historic victory this was not.
Yet before he cites this...
For the second election in a row, George W. Bush increased his party’s strength in Congress as he secured the second term his father failed to win. Not since FDR has a new president done so well by his party.
This isn't an historic victory? Buchanon would do well to consult the model Bush & Rove consulted for victory. the outcome matched it near exactly. Had they wished an electoral landslide, the model would have differed.
Yes he did. He also campaigned on it back in 2000--and back then it was a blip on the radar. Remember the "3% personal accounts" proposal?
The fulfilling of Bush's campaign promises--which are conservative in nature (a RINO wouldn't campaign on Social Security reform)--is the measure of his second term's success.
======
Agreed. The time for rhetoric and hand-waving is over. Bush's sucsess will be measured by WHAT HE DOES, not by what he says, or what anyone else says. He has all the tools to do it right, and leave a legacy that real Americans will appreciate and remember.
"As for the Bush guest-worker plan for illegal aliens, it is in trouble in the House, as he is condemned in his own party for refusing to secure America’s borders."
Oh so very true.
Pat is a good Christian man.
If hordes of illegal aliens (estimated at as much as 20 millions) are given amnesty with subsequent citizenship, this country's cultural heritage would be transformed from a Christian one to a Third World one.
yup.....not much campaigning on it.....Buchanan is still just bitter about not getting thru the primaries those couple of election trys..........his sister Bay is alot more thoughtful and supportive of Bush
Buchanan, the ultimate nattering nabob of negativism.
I never could figure him out. All I know is that he is often out there. Somtimes he's all over the outfield.
he sure has turned into one hasn't he....too bad he turned into what his old boss hated most
I don't know about you, but every damn liberal and conservative I know knew that Bush intended to privatize social security.
It may not have been the centerpiece of his campaign, but unlike kerry and gay marriage, he made it clear and plain where he stood and what his plans were.
If it was a blimp, that blimp was the size of the goodyear fleet.
Actually, no. The war is validated no matter the outcome. The long term results of his policies in the M.E., Iraq being one, is essential only in that success is necessary to provide the will to continue. Success provides successors the courage to continue to pro-actively protect America by spreading freedom.
and lost it, something no other president has ever done.
Ever hear of Vietnam?
An historic victory this was not.
Yet before he cites this...
For the second election in a row, George W. Bush increased his party’s strength in Congress as he secured the second term his father failed to win. Not since FDR has a new president done so well by his party.
This isn't an historic victory? Buchanon would do well to consult the model Bush & Rove consulted for victory. the outcome matched it near exactly. Had they wished an electoral landslide, the model would have differed.
Pat is trying so hard to stay relevant, but he doesn't realize people stopped caring about him in 1992.
"Bush's sucsess will be measured by WHAT HE DOES, not by what he says, or what anyone else says."
In effect what you're saying is that we should not trust Bush in what he says.
I think he says what he means and means what it says.
Bump
I guess your mostly right, but it would be a 3rd world version of a christian culture.
Most of the illegals are catholic, and pretty devout, and more pro-life then the population at large, yet still supporting dems.
Pat who?
The name sounds vaguely familiar, as does the idiotic, bitter rant. But I just can't quite place him...
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.