Long overdue ... Reagan was the Great Communicator. Thus far W has either been the NonCommunicator or the Poor Enunciator. Harry Truman managed to turn things around. Does W have what it takes?
I've been waiting for a number of years to hear Bush's explaination of why the southern border situation doesn't need to be changed for full control.
"Long overdue ... Reagan was the Great Communicator. Thus far W has either been the NonCommunicator or the Poor Enunciator. Harry Truman managed to turn things around. Does W have what it takes?"
REALLY?! Here's some HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE:
HARRY TRUMAN
Barely elected to his first term (assuming office after FDR's death does NOT count as his first term), Truman's political viability was so poor that he was unable to run for re-election -- many blamed the Korean War.
RONALD REAGAN
During his second term, Ronald Reagan suffered the largest single drop in job approval ratings for any president in the history of Gallup polling (23 points). . . The culprit: Iran Contra. The Reagan 2nd term never recovered:
Fred Barnes:
". . . For Bush's consumption, there's a Republican twist to the advice. Two establishment mouthpieces who served in Republican administrations, David Gergen and Ken Duberstein, have urged Bush to act like President Reagan after Iran-contra. Reagan rejuvenated his presidency and left Washington on a high note, they claim, and Bush can do the same.
The Reagan recovery they describe, however, is largely fictional. Yes, Reagan apologized for a guns-for-hostages deal with Iran. But he didn't believe a word of it. When I interviewed Reagan a few weeks later, he insisted there had been no guns-for-hostages arrangement. Duberstein boasted in the New York Times that Justice Anthony Kennedy was "confirmed overwhelmingly by a Democratic Senate" in 1987. He didn't mention what preceded it: the historic rejection of Robert Bork for that same Supreme Court seat. Bork, by the way, blames a feckless White House, stocked with fresh talent, for doing nothing to help his nomination.
Reagan's final years in office were ones of presidential weakness. He was humiliated by the Senate when it brushed aside his ardent appeals and overrode his veto of a highway bill. To give the president some innocuous talking points, the White House dreamed up something called the "economic bill of rights." It had no connection with political reality. His success in foreign policy was cooked in the cake from his pre-scandal days.
What the Gergens and Dubersteins are offering Bush is the establishment option. And it has been enthusiastically endorsed by Democratic congressional leaders--and the more partisan the Democrat, the more enthusiastic they are. Naturally, firing Rove is a step Bush must take if he and Democrats are to "come together," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid and his House counterpart Nancy Pelosi said in a letter addressed to the president but sent to the press.
The other possible course for Bush is the Rove option. That means Bush would retain his loyal staff, pursue a conservative agenda consistent with his campaign promises, and continue to thumb his nose at the Washington priesthood. Bush loathes Washington. He doesn't socialize with the establishment crowd or seek its advice. It's this strategy that irks Washington the most. In pursuing it, Bush accepts polarization as a fact of life and wins victories (legislative and electoral) not by heavily diluting his conservatism but by assembling narrow conservative majorities. This is the approach that gained Bush a second term.
You can tell which option Bush is likely to take from Rove's work schedule. He arrives daily at 7 a.m. He and Bush counselor Michael Gerson are working on next year's State of the Union address. Rove is the chief administration mediator with congressional Republicans on the touchy immigration issue. He's talking to public intellectuals, think tank scholars, and business leaders, and arranging for them to come to the White House for brainstorming sessions. Bush wants to unveil new proposals in 2006 since those he touted in his first campaign have been either enacted or defeated. Rove, I'm told, got teary-eyed when talking about how Bush and White House staffers have stood by him.
You can read the entire article at
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/306sjnbg.asp?pg=1
I think W does. He's tried to play nice .. but they have forced his hand.