Posted on 11/06/2001 7:39:26 AM PST by Starmaker
The year was 1969. A year earlier Richard Nixon had won what was up to then one of the closest elections in American history. It was 5 a.m. the morning after the 1968 election when Ohio was declared to be in the Nixon column, thus officially depriving Vice President Hubert Humphrey of any chance to win the Presidency.
Nixon had been through it all before. Eight years earlier it was then Vice President Richard Nixon who watched as Illinois was declared to be in the John F. Kennedy camp by just a few thousand votes (votes which almost certainly were stolen). That gave Kennedy the presidency.
Nixon had spent his first year in the White House consolidating support. He essentially won over the support of those who had voted for Alabama Governor George Wallace by applying what Kevin Phillips called "The Southern Strategy." Nixon and Wallace together took 57% of the popular vote and by making it clear he was for "strict constructionist" Supreme Court nominees, Nixon was enjoying now an approval rating that hovered around 60%.
There were two off-year elections that year, just as there are this year. Both Virginia and New Jersey had tight races for governor, just as they do this year. Through friends of mine in the political office of the White House I followed the debate. Some argued that Nixon would be strengthened if he were seen as having campaigned for both GOP candidates for governor, and if either or of them or both won he could claim credit for pulling them through. Nixon had a far more hostile Senate back then than Bush has now and anything which might give the strongly liberal majority pause would be useful.
The other camp argued that such a venture was too risky. When men walked on the moon that year, and Nixon was right there to congratulate them, he benefited from the afterglow of the success of a program set up by the late President Kennedy. Nixon had taken on an aura of non-partisanship, the camp opposed to his campaigning argued. Why spoil the image by bringing Nixon back to earth, with the old style image of politics again?
The matter could not be resolved. Neither side wanted to make the decision for Nixon. So the issue was brought to the president himself. He asked a few questions and then sent for his scheduler. He would appear in both states. Both Republican candidates won (although the victor in Virginia was the ever-liberal Lynwood Holton, who today has a TV spot endorsing Democrat Mark Warner in the race for governor. Something else Nixon had on his conscience before death).
The issue is not what sort of governors these GOP candidates turned out to be. The issue is what this did for Richard Nixon. In truth it greatly strengthened his hand with the Congress. Nixon soon put out the word that he was recruiting for a new kind of Senate in 1970. Nixon actually gained Senate seats in 1970, contrary to the trend. Among those elected that year? Bill Brock of Tennessee who knocked off Al Gore Sr., J. Glenn Beall of Maryland who defeated Senator Millard Tydings, one of the biggest proponents of gun control ever to have graced the Senate, and James Buckley, William F.'s brother who was actually elected in a three-way race as the nominee of the Conservative Party. Had Nixon held back, none of that might have happened.
Nixon took the political gamble and it paid off big time. All of this is relevant because George W. Bush in 2000 won the closest election in our history. Events out of his control have put him in a stellar orbit when it comes to approval ratings. Those same two gubernatorial races are up again and both of them are tight races, despite the Virginia GOP candidate having run one of the worst races in gubernatorial history.
What did George Bush do when the same argument emerged from his political office? He elected to send a letter to both candidates. A letter? Rudy Giuliani, the mayor of New York, did a TV commercial for both of them despite the fact that Rudy doesn't agree with either candidate on abortion, the homosexual agenda and other issues.
But if Bush had agreed to make a big time appearance (even if for just an hour in each state) it would have been something even Earley couldn't screw up. Given the fact that both races are single digits, had Bush elected to spend some political capital, he likely would have pulled both of them through. That would have helped him in his relations with Majority Leader Tom Daschle and as he looks at 2002 and the effort by the GOP to re-capture the Senate and keep the House, a little fear of Bush out in prairie land wouldn't hurt.
Bush had enormous political capital and he chose not to use it. He will likely pay for this for the rest of his presidency.
The public is not granting Bush a 90-percent approval rating to wage politcs - but instead to wage war. If he were to use that rating for political gain, he would lose much of it.
Yeah...I'm sure he'll get the Taliban vote in the next election.
That was one of the most inane replies I have seen in some time. Do you think that, in the wake of the WTC attacks, that so many people who voted for Gore turned their support to Bush so he could wage politics?
But by and large, Schundler and Earley (and possibly Bloomberg) will lose because no one in the GOP was groomed to succeed the strong incumbents (Whitman, Gilmore and Giuliani). And the Dems had candidates who had already stood for major elections before, and thus did not seem as unknown quantities. I also think the GOP needs to find more women candidates.
That is exactly right. I like Weyrich, but he is being short sighted on this one. I know that losses in today's elections will hurt, but if he has capital to spend, I would put it deep in the pocket and use it for when it is direly needed.
Seriously, though, Weyrich is making the mistake of fighting today's political battle on the landscape of 1969-70. That was over 30 years ago. Interesting to discuss, damn near fatal to buy into.
He's right on this one. If NJ, NYC and VA go RAT today, starting tomorrow on the Today show we'll hear Katie Couric asking Terry McAuliffe what this means. He'll reply, "Well, Katie, while we clearly stand with the President in the war on terrrorism, this is a clear indication that the American public is rejecting his domestic agenda." That'll be the start and the 90% approval rating will begin to fade.
It's not the President's fault that the GOP isn't way out front in these races. And, it pains me to admit it, but Weyrich is right that Earley has run an abysmal campaign (oh the stories I could tell...). But, Bush could've made a difference with very little effort and by losing no political clout.
If Earley and Schundler lose the blame will flow this way: 1) to the candidates, 2) to Jim Gilmore and the RNC, 3) to George W. Bush...
Bush is enough of a leader that he could ride it out, but now all the speculation will be on the 2002 race and whether the GOP can recapture the Senate.
I am not so sure it's possible to "save" political capital. It tends to dissipate with the passage of time and events. I think it really needs to be spent when ya got it or you usually lose the chance to spend it at all.
First of all, He will lose it. This is just temporary, because of 9/11. After the gulf war, his father had 90% approval ratings too. Big Deal. Clinton had good approval ratings, yet most people had an extremely low opinion of him.
So what if he lost it. He was elected to do a job, that job includes political elements. The more Republicans that get elected, the easier it will be for Bush to get his agenda passed. An agenda that our country desperately needs.
And that is one of the most inane responses I've ever read. Do you think that just because the USA was attacked by terrorists that we should allow them to disrupt the functioning of this country? President's ARE political creations and should function as such. If Bush can find time to throw out the first pitch at a baseball game...if he can travel to China and visit public schools he can participate in politics. The world goes on...life is for the living.
Here is the headline for this article:
Bush Chose Not To Use His Enormous Political Capital For GOP
Where did Bush's Political Capital come from? The need to respond to the WTC attacks. The American people will stay firmly behind Bush as long as he remembers that. It is not Bush's political capital to squander on a few political races this year, and Bush knows it.
Oh, I imagine Bush's rating will go down over time. But IMO he would be squandering the current rating by using it for politics. That can come next year, after the nation has settled into the post-WTC realities.
And competence would have helped out in VA, IMHO. Had they gotten some of the Warner stuff out earlier, things would have gone much better, IMO.
Both GOP candidates would lose, and as an added bonus we would get constant attacks from the dems in Congress (worse than they are doing now).
Campaigning wouldn't help, and would be counter-productive.
And here is another question: wasn't this guy the one who wrote a colummn two yers ago telling us we should withdraw from politics and form our own little society? I do believe so; it was a big item for discussion at the time.
So he NOW is griping that President Bush, who wasn't conservative enough for him before the Inauguration, is now not doing enough for the party in the manner in which he wants? Whine, whine, whine. State parties are responsible for gubernatorial elections and campaigns. These candidates, if they do not win, have no one to blame but themselves and their cmpaign strategy.
I know what I am talking about. David McIntosh LOST the Indiana gubernatoriail election last year, even though Indiana went for Bush by a large margin. I worked on his campaign. We were constantly anywhere from 10-20% behind, ruunning against a moderate/conservative dem. Then candidate Bush made a wonderful campaign ad for David McIntosh. It did NO good. McIntosh still lost. President Bush cannot help elect candidates in this situation, and carping about it doesn't help the party any, either.
There are more important things going on today, such as a war.
No...Bush would squander nothing by supporting Earley in VA and Schundler in NJ and his popularity at this moment could have made a difference, esp in VA where the race is extremely close. Bush is resorting to type. He's sacrificing his friends in order to not offend the democrats. He's done this over and over and over again...in Texas and now as President.
No big deal...I'll get over it and I think that Earley still has a shot in VA, and I'll support Bush again in 2004...but with a whole lot less enthusiasm and a whole lot LESS effort. Virginia kept Bush's presidential hopes alive, our primary was crucial and if McCain had won it would've been over for W. Those GOP soldiers deserve much better from the man they worked so long and hard to elect.
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.