Posted on 12/03/2005 6:17:25 AM PST by Pokey78
WE NOW KNOW WHAT WAS behind President Bush's mysterious refusal for so many months to respond to Democratic attacks on his Iraq policy--a refusal that came at great political cost to himself and to the American effort in Iraq. It wasn't that Bush was too focused on Social Security reform to bother. Nor did he believe Iraq was a drag on his presidency and should be downplayed. Rather, Bush had made a conscious decision after his reelection to be "nonpolitical" on the subject of Iraq. It is a decision he now regrets. And has reversed.
Here's how a senior White House aide explains the decision not to answer criticism of the administration's course in Iraq: "The strategic decision was to be forward-looking. The public was more interested in the future and not the past, since it was just hashed over during the election." The president didn't ignore the subject of Iraq entirely. He delivered a half-dozen speeches on Iraq and the war on terror, including an evening, prime-time address, in the first 10 months of 2005. He just didn't rebut partisan attacks.
Harm was done. "Obviously the bombardment of misleading ads and the earned media by MoveOn et al. had an impact," the Bush aide says, "and culminated during the Libby indictment and the [Democratic] stunt of the closed session of the Senate" on prewar intelligence. "That's when we pivoted."
By then--and we're talking about early November--Bush's job approval had plummeted. So had public support for the Iraq war. And there's a direct correlation
between the two. The president stood at 51 percent job approval in the Gallup poll when he was inaugurated to a second term last January and 52 percent in the Fox News survey. Now he's at 37 percent in Gallup, 42 percent in Fox.
Support for his Iraq policy did not fall as precipitously, but it was in gradual decline, and that accelerated. Gallup asks interviewees if the Iraq intervention was worth it. Forty-six percent said yes last January, 38 percent in November. When only a little more than one third of the country believes the most important national security policy of the era is worth pursuing, the president has a huge political problem. Even Republican members of Congress were getting queasy. Bush, with less sway in Washington today than 10 months ago, has been hard-put to reassure them.
Though the White House hasn't said so, there was more to the president's no-response decision than aides have let on. In Bush's defense, he's never routinely responded to attacks. And the successful election in Iraq on January 30 was followed by several months of euphoria about Iraq. There was hope the insurgency would collapse. It didn't.
I think the president, after a contentious first term, wanted to soften the partisan edge of his image and be more statesmanlike. His speeches on Iraq, tough-minded as they were, reflected that. And so did his willingness to reject cues from his conservative base of supporters and to offer, in public concessions, to compromise with his opponents.
In short, it was a purple detour, a blend of Republican red and Democratic blue. A White House official insists there was no specific decision to be less hard-nosed on domestic issues in the president's second term and drift to the center. But that happened, just as his approach to Democrats on Iraq was easing up. A mere coincidence? No way.
Next to Iraq, the most controversial item on Bush's agenda, especially among Democrats, is tax cuts. At the outset of 2005, he decided to put off a drive in Congress to make his deep tax cuts permanent, a move that upset conservatives. Later, the Bush administration steered the presidential tax commission away from radical tax reform. He also put aside the proposed amendment banning gay marriage, another red flag to Democrats and liberals but a favorite issue of conservatives.
On Social Security reform, he broke with his own strategy for winning congressional approval. The plan was to agree, but only as a last resort, to raise the ceiling on the amount of personal income subject to payroll taxes. Instead, Bush announced early on that he'd agree to lift the ceiling. He also backed progressive benefits reduction--the well-off would be hit the hardest--which is opposed by conservatives.
In filling vacancies on the Supreme Court, the president chose conservative nominees who wouldn't ignite instant opposition by Democrats. He took responsibility for the slow response to Hurricane Katrina, though the mayor of New Orleans and governor of Louisiana were more to blame. And so on. Overall, while Bush is a conservative, he often didn't act like one.
The nonpolitical strategy was a failure. Democrats picked up on none of his overtures. Once they began a campaign of accusing Bush of lying to the country about prewar intelligence to justify invading Iraq--an impeachable offense--Bush abandoned the strategy. The pivotal moment came after nine months of unanswered charges by Democrats
concerning prewar intelligence. The president was a slow learner.
On Veteran's Day, November 11, Bush fired back. And he and Vice President Cheney have continued to do so quite effectively. His poll numbers, measured by Fox News after the president's speech last week laying out his "plan for victory" in Iraq, showed strong improvement. Sure, it's only one poll, but his approval rating jumped six points in the Fox News survey, from 36 percent to 42 percent.
Is this the start of a Bush comeback? Could be. And there's even stronger evidence of a turnaround. Until Democrats began rallying to the call for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, the debate was between Bush and the facts on the ground. Now it's between the president, who wants to withdraw troops when conditions in Iraq allow, and Democrats, who want to set a fast timetable for pullout and stick to it, no matter what. This debate Bush should win.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
Im sorry if this is true the Republicans and Bush are all idiots and not worth support.After the Bias in the press has been so profoundly proven how can any sound thinking person think they can proceed in a position like President of the United States in a nonpolitical posture and survive .
These republicans have got to be brain dead.What planet are they on! You might as well just turn over the reins of govt to the enemy.The press will bury you
Cheers,
knews hound
Latest Article "Cutting them off at the knees"
"As soon as GWB relaunched his shamnesty plan in February of this year, he was done and lame duck. He has no one to blame but himself."
My sentiments exactly!
"You forget that GWB want's whats best for this country."
Sometimes it seems as though what GWB wants is what's best for Mexico.
Intern?
Another way to say it is "never abandon your allies in an attempt to placate your enemies".
"Now that Bush is finally getting around to it it seems disingenuous."
Exactly! The lies have been projected so many times they've become fact. He'll have three times the work now to rewrite history.
For instance when the Wilson trip and the "sixteen words" issue came up instead of folding they should have issued the following statement:
"The Niger information came from solid British Intelligence and we have no reason not to believe it. We do not know Joseph Wilson, as he is not an employee of the US Government. We've asked the Attorney General to look into who sent him to Niger and who authorized the leaking of this material."
bttt
That is the definition of a RINO.
Wrong president! Cigar boy gets that one.
You are right. Politics is about getting things done. Problem is getting things done doesn't necessarily get you reelected.
There is only three ways to get things done in politics.
1. You have such an overwhelming majority that the other party cannot stop you.
2. You own the courts so if number one comes into play, you use number two to overturn it.
3. You have term limits so it takes raising money and special interests out of the equation of getting things done according to an agenda.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-259.html
Interesting article on term limits.
He either fights them, or we all lose. It's time to get the truth about Iraq out. Time for Americans to see what we've been fighting for and what a difference it has made. It's time to start sharing some of the successes with the American people. Whoever was advising him should get another job.
I disagree. If he did, he would be fighting for open borders as many on the left do.
He has an immigration plan, it just does not satisfy the nationalist wing of the conservative movement. To go farther than GWB's position will take a sea change in the Congress and the next administration (If a "close the borders" candidate could be elected.)
The President's position on immigration has been well known. The fact that he is sticking to it is expected.
There is only three ways to get things done in politics.
Well, you are conveniently missing one more:
Have a compelling idea with overwhelming public support. I promise you, if Bush truly wanted to reform immigration, Congress would roll over in a heartbeat.
Interesting article on term limits.
Before you babble about term limits for too long, I suggest you heed the experience of a State that has had them, California. What we got was a batch of clueless idiots with no way to know where they truly stood beholden only to those with money.
Great idea. /s
He doesn't.
"I just love getting lectured by the completely clueless."
First off it is you who is coming off as holier than thou. Your utopian goal of how politics should be is commendable yet unrealistic. Politics is about ideas. Unfortunately influence peddling and special interests drives politics and the ideas and will of the people is an afterthought. That is because politicans hide and won't pass laws that will remove them from power after two terms.
I am sorry you have clueless politicians who do not know who they are beholden to. They might try the people of the state that elected them in the first place. Which is what you are preaching to me.
In my state of New Jersey, we don't have term limits. We have criminals for politicians that clueless people continue to elect because the "D" is stapled to their arm.
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.