Seven myths about Bush

Orlando Sentinel ^ | May 12, 2002 | Paul West

[E=MC²]

The Democratic presidential hopefuls are already scrapping for a chance to take on George W. Bush in 2004.

They all are operating on the assumption that Bush, like his father, is destined to be a one-term president.

Yes, Bush's poll numbers are slowly drifting down from last fall's meteoric levels. But his vulnerability might be a mirage.

If so, it will join at least six other assumptions about him that proved to be myths. It turns out that the politician who burst into the American consciousness in the last presidential campaign is not the person many people made him out to be.

Myth One: Bush is dumb

Myth One, perhaps the most durable, is that Bush lacks smarts. In certain circles, he will always be regarded with condescension.

Bush obviously bears more than a little responsibility for the persistent questions about his intelligence.

His tendency to mangle his syntax when he speaks doesn't help. Nor have his efforts at self-deprecating humor, such as advertising himself as living proof that a C student could grow up to be president.

Those who have known him or engaged him for extended periods attest to his intelligence and praise his instinctive judgment. He's no genius, but not a dunce, either.

Besides, as historian Fred Greenstein has pointed out, a review of presidents during the past 75 years suggests the limits of intelligence.

A highly intelligent chief executive with character flaws or other failings is likely to end up with a diminished presidency, as did Richard M. Nixon, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Myth Two: Hail to the thief

Myth Two is Bush's accidental presidency.

Legal scholars will debate for years the Supreme Court's actions in resolving the 2000 election, and for good reason. But subsequent recounts of disputed Florida ballots by a consortium of news organizations have failed to provide conclusive proof that Al Gore won Florida.

To the contrary, Bush still would have won if the recount ordered by the Florida court had not been stopped by the Supreme Court, the consortium found.

Myth Three: He's bipartisan

Myth Three is that Bush came to Washington determined to do away with gridlock. In the campaign, Bush seized on the public's desire to end the raw partisanship of the Clinton era (much of which came from the Republican side).

Since taking office, however, he has done little to reach out. Any cooperation with Democrats has been largely symbolic, other than his mutually beneficial dealings with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., on education.

For a brief time after Sept. 11, true bipartisanship existed, as both parties helped pull the nation through a period of enormous shock. But those good feelings were the exception that proved the rule.

Except for the war on terrorism, bipartisanship won't be back.

One of the reasons it won't be back is because of yet another myth about the president.

Myth Four: Bush isn't political

Bush's aides have promoted the idea that he is focused like a laser on fighting terror. Like the other myths, this one has more than a grain of truth.

The campaign against terrorism has redefined Bush from a tax-cutter to a wartime chief executive. Who would have predicted that the man who didn't know the name of the president of Pakistan during the campaign would be transformed into a foreign-policy president?

But Bush is also a fierce partisan and is devoting considerable time and energy to politics. There is growing evidence that he is the most political president of recent times. He has never really stopped campaigning, except for a relatively brief stretch after Sept. 11.

Not incidentally, many of the states he is visiting to help other Republican candidates are also essential to his re-election. Any president elected by the skin of his teeth would be foolish to ignore the electoral map, and when it comes to politics, Bush is nobody's fool.

Myth Five: He's Reagan redux

Myth Five is that Bush is another Ronald Reagan. This idea, quietly but aggressively pushed by Bush's advisers to mollify the conservative base, largely revolves around superficial similarities between the two. Like Reagan, Bush seems to find solitude and strength at the ranch. There, aides say, he enjoys clearing brush, which just happened to be Reagan's favorite chore.

Like Reagan, Bush is hooked on Camp David as an escape from the pressures of Washington. As in the Reagan era, the presidential work week often ends early, at around 3:30 on Friday afternoons, when Bush's helicopter lifts off from the White House lawn bound for Maryland's Catoctin Mountains.

There are other, less flattering, similarities that Bush image-makers don't advertise. Like Reagan, Bush has a short attention span. Like Reagan, he often has little patience for policy-making. But the differences outweigh the similarities: Bush gave the speech of his life to Congress after the terrorist attacks. But he is not in Reagan's league as a communicator, one of the keys to presidential leadership. Reagan, a self-made man, spent a lifetime developing a set of core conservative beliefs that guided his actions. Bush, the heir to a political dynasty, is more of a pragmatist.

Myth Six: Hard-core conservative

The closely related Myth Six is that Bush heads the most conservative administration in modern times. In fact, despite his rhetoric about limiting government, the federal establishment is rapidly expanding. Washington is creating the largest new government agency since World War II -- the Transportation Security Administration. Under Bush, federal spending is headed for the biggest increase since the 1960s.

On the core ideological issue of free trade, Bush stunned conservatives recently when, for nakedly political reasons, he abandoned his conservative principles to prop up the U.S. steel industry. Unlike the Reagan White House, there are no staunch conservative ideologues around Bush. According to one conservative with close ties to the administration, the most conservative people in this White House are Vice President Dick Cheney and, possibly, Bush.

Myth Seven: Goodbye, Cheney

As for Cheney, Myth Seven is that he'll be dumped from the ticket in 2004. It is said that Bush has established himself as a man of substance and no longer needs to fall back on Cheney's experience. There are rumors that Bush might pick Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, as his running mate, or Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld or Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.

Any of those might be seriously considered if Cheney is unable, for health reasons, to serve. At the moment, though, he's looking healthier than ever. He also remains the administration's indispensable man. There are no major decisions or issues that he is not involved with, despite the understandable, and remarkably successful, White House effort to play down his role, to avoid overshadowing the president.

During the past seven months, Bush's firm, almost visceral commitment to combating terrorism has become the signal purpose of his presidency. Ultimately, he'll be judged by his ability to meet that challenge.

But he has not abandoned his determination to win politically.

That has been a Bush imperative since he began laying the foundation for his presidential run while still in his first term as governor of Texas.

Preventing a return to chaos in Afghanistan, capturing more al-Qaeda leaders, stemming the Mideast bloodletting, repairing the damage to U.S. prestige in the Arab world and keeping the pressure on Iraq are all on his daunting "to do" list for the next six months.

Whether Bush can maintain popular support and dim the hopes of his Democratic pursuers, depends on his navigating those churning currents overseas, while keeping America economically secure and free from terrorism.

If he can do all that, he'll enter the second half of his term in a very powerful position to prove the Democratic mythologists wrong.

Paul West is chief of the Washington bureau of the Baltimore Sun, a Tribune Publishing company.

[RobFromGa]

bump.

[Sonny M]

As a criminal genius, he is second to none. To the best of knowledge he actually was a very good student, both in college and in law school. The fact that he is not in prison, is still liked by alot of people, and never seems to get blamed for idiotic things he did (the man actually blasted U.S. foreign policy, a policy he shaped and made, and spun it, so he looked honest). He has to be a genius, much the way Al Capone was. note some of the sarcasm here

[Southack]

"Simple ---"and pledges to work with congressional negotiators on a compromise that would be less costly and better for producers."

Please explain how Bush supposedly "lied" about that. Did he not work with Congress? Were Senators forbidden White House access? What do you alledge?

[Southack]

"The increased spending is being done by a liberal Republican president..."

Perhaps you simply don't know what a "liberal" looks like.

Liberals don't sign pro-firearms legislation that prevents bureaucrats from interfering with pilots carrying guns in the cockpits of their commercial aircraft, but Bush did.

Liberals don't enforce the Supreme Court's "Beck" decision (which permits union members to obtain full refunds of any part of their dues that are used for political purposes with which they disagree), but our current President did.

Liberals don't call our enemies "evil" and NAME the three most extreme enemies facing us, but President Bush did.

Liberals don't ignore cries from pacifists to not "bomb Afghanistan during Ramadan," but GWB did.

Liberals don't want to withdraw the U.S from the Soviet era ABM Treaty, but President Bush did it.

Liberals like the Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming, but Bush killed it.

Liberals like CO2 regulations for power plants, but GWB killed them.

Liberals like OSHA home-office ergonomic regulations, but Bush killed them, too.

Liberals don't get TWO tax cuts passed, either.

I do feel sorry for you. You apparently can't discern the difference between liberal and Conservative actions.

Sad.

[itsahoot]

We never saw any of his school records.

And of course we all saw Al Gore's transcripts...Oh, I forgot
he flunked out of seminary after he bugged out of Vietnam.

[Southack]

Why on Earth would you re-post one of your long-since-discredited messages attacking me, rather than admitting that you don't know the difference between get-the-U.S.-out-of-the-Kyoto-Treaty-Conservatism from that of liberalism?

[Texasforever]

Why on Earth would you re-post one of your long-since-discredited messages attacking me, rather than admitting that you don't know the difference between get-the-U.S.-out-of-the-Kyoto-Treaty-Conservatism from that of liberalism

Because, that is the sum total of his talking points. He will be faxed the next set soon.

[Texasforever]

But he IS the SENTRY OVER AMERCA so we had better listen.

[Pagey]

Bump

[going hot]

What I do not understand is your continued attempts to persuade with reason.

I would rather be seen talking to a box of rocks.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...interesting, coming from the demonrat Sentinel...it is almost complimentary...

Yeah.

So what does that tell you?

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...he is President because so many of us hated Scumbag, and that many thought since he was a Republican he would be a conservative....

Irrefutable. Thank you.

Now, it's time to admit we were either mistaken, or misled. And invite everyone who tried to tell us the truth during the election campaign- the Brigadiers, the Libertarians- and were driven off this website by the mob, (including myself) to get back on to the Free Republic. We are going to need their help to get this president spurred into advancing the conservative agenda, and FR's the best place to start the snowball rolling.

[Southack]

Please see Post #16. Conservatives have seen amazing progress recently.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..conservatives have seen amazing progress recently...

There's some good stuff there Southack but it's not enough. Not enough, by a long shot.

Let me ask you something, as a fellow conservative; after eight years of Clinton, don't you hunger for this new president to advance the values we hold dear? Don't you want to see some real accomplishment on issues like guns, abortion, foreign aid, immigration, the UN, the growth of the State? And for that matter in bringing the Clintons and their cronies to justice? We have got to be ruthlessly honest with ourselves, stop the wishin' and hopin' and admit that President Bush is not about advancing the conservative agenda in any meaningful way. That's why these lib papers are going soft on him. When you are on our side of politics you should be making the right enemies. The Dem-controlled media should be screaming from the rooftops as Bush confronts their pet issues in word, and practise; not giving him gentle pats on the back, and acknowledging his poll figures. Hell, if he's got a 75% rating, why not trade some of that for the cause?

If he believes in the Cause.

[Texasforever]

If he believes in the Cause.

God what tripe.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

"Tex, get off that computer! Mrs Bush told you to clean out the stables, two hours ago!"

[Texasforever]

Yawn.

[1rudeboy]

Interesting that someone like Le Pen can get 17% of the vote in France of all places, but "truth-telling" Brigadiers and Libertarians cut and run after being criticized on a single website.