Posted on 11/02/2005 11:21:40 PM PST by neverdem
IN the depths of the Iran-contra fallout in early 1987, President Ronald Reagan was at 37 percent approval in some polls, lower than President Bush is today. Many viewed him as not just a lame duck but a dead duck. Pundits and politicians predicted that the country would drift aimlessly for the last two years of his term. The Soviet Union would become more adventurous abroad. And a Democrat would next win the presidency.
Obviously, none of those things happened. And if George W. Bush is going to change his presidential momentum, he might take a few lessons from the Reagan playbook.
First, every second term needs new blood. Reagan's initial move was to change his inner circle: he dismissed old hands like Donald Regan, John Poindexter and Oliver North, and brought former Senator Howard Baker as chief of staff, me as his deputy, Frank Carlucci as national security adviser, and a little-known general, Colin Powell, as Mr. Carlucci's second in command. Not only were we experienced managers and not tainted by Iran-contra, but Senator Baker gave the operation an instant dose of integrity: it was he, as a Republican legislator during Watergate, who demanded, "What did the president know, and when did he know it?"
Together, we made an important structural change, ending the historical antagonism between the National Security Council, which wants the president's ear, and the White House staff, which wants to control all information going into the Oval Office. We decided to reach agreement among ourselves on policies before we presented them to the president.
Stopping the infighting was vital to the success of our biggest issue: the summit meetings with Mikhail Gorbachev in December 1987 and June 1988. The national security team made clear to Senator Baker and me what they felt was necessary in...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
For a number of reasons I am not a bug Bush supporter. That being said, it really ticks me off to see publications like the NY Times suggest that Bush needs to clean house.
One person was charged with perjury and lying. Big whoop-de-doo! He hasn't been convicted of anything. Now some of the publications are talking about the corruption in the White House. This is shere childishness.
Bush should keep the people he trusts. If that be Rove, then damn well keep Rove. The NYT can go ---- itself!
The MSM is doing it's level best to destroy Bush. I may not be a big fan, but corruption and devious actions by the press to this level are absolutely unacceptable to me.
First and foremost, neither you nor Mr. Bush are bugs! :)Anyway, you certainly are correct in your assessment that The New York Times and its ilk has no interest in the smooth functioning of any Republican administration.
And Mr. Duberstein is self-serving to propose that a remedy which Reagan employed which included Mr. Duberstein is naturally suited to all seasons. Sounds a little John McCainish to me . . .
It really bigs me when I do that!
What the dems are really scared of is Rove staying on to help solidify a Republican majority in 2006. Period. That is what all this is really about.
The dems want to take back the house and senate to impeach Bush. Without Rove there helping out the campaign - there could be serious problems.
Remove Rove and the dems chances of taking back the houses and impeaching Bush rises.
I think they are scared to death that Cheney will decide to run. IMO, taking him down is job one.
Bush wouldn't need a "comeback" without the relentless hammering the Socialist Media has given him over the past three years. If the news had been reported accurately and fairly, a huge percentage of the nation would be regarding him as he should be regarded: one of our greatest Presidents.
The Clinton Administration had numerous indictments including 2 cabinet secretaries. I never saw a circus like Friday.
This illustrates the difficulty facing Bush, he is a poor communicator dealing with a hostile media. I've been suggesting for months that he pick a fight with the media.
He won't do that so we have a steady erosion of 20 points in his approval and all his major initiative.
The media could not defeat his last year, but they are rendering his useless anyway.
Well they are trying like hell to do so, at the very least.
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.