Mark Steyn: How Bush blew his chance

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | 09/16/2002 | Mark Steyn

[Pokey78]

The president's speech to the United Nations was perfectly straightforward. His remarks at Ellis Island were also fine: I especially liked the way, in contrast to certain predecessors who shall remain nameless, his salute to the American spirit wasn't all about him. But the anniversary has passed, Year Two has begun, and those of who are partial to George W. Bush have nevertheless had to get used yet again to the old familiar pattern. Anyone who followed the guy during the 2000 campaign will recognize it.

He stacked up more money and a bigger poll lead than anyone had ever seen in a competitive race--and then he didn't bother campaigning in New Hampshire. So he lost the primary.

But he clawed his way back and won the nomination--and then he pretty much disappeared from sight to spend the summer working on his new ranch house back in Texas. So by Labor Day, Al Gore was ahead in the polls.

But he roused himself and eked out a small lead in the run-up to November--and then, in the wake of a damaging last-minute leak about an old DWI conviction, he flew back home and took the final weekend of the campaign off.

But he just about squeaked through on Election Day, even though his disinclination to rebut the drunk story almost certainly cost him the popular vote and a couple of close states.

This is the way George W. Bush does things, and his rendezvous with history on Sept. 11--the day that ''changed the world''--did not, in the end, change the Bush modus operandi. A few weeks after the attacks, he had the highest approval ratings of any president in history. But he didn't do anything with them. And, in political terms, he might as well have spent this summer playing golf and watching the director's cut of Austin Powers.

On Election Day in November, without Saddam's scalp on his bedpost, Bush will be right back where he was on Sept. 10, 2001: the 50 percent president, his approval ratings in the 50s, his ''negatives'' high, the half of the country that didn't vote for him feeling no warmer toward him than if the day that ''changed the world'' had never happened. The 90 percent poll numbers were always going to come down. It was just a question of where they stabilized, and what Bush would manage to accomplish while they were up in the stratosphere. By that measure, he squandered his opportunity.

The first casualty was his domestic agenda. Even as the USAF was strafing Tora Bora, Vermont's wily Sen. Pat Leahy continued to stall the president's judicial nominations; Ted Kennedy gutted the Bush education bill, and their fellow Democrats obstructed plans for oil-drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. At that moment, with his poll numbers in the 80s, it would have been so easy for Bush to do to Leahy what Clinton did to Gingrich.

The president could have said that, with so many suspected terrorists and their accomplices in custody, we can't afford vacancies and backlogs in our courthouses and my good frien' Pat needs to stop playin' politics with the federal judiciary. He could have said that wartime is no time for Congress to put preserving the integrity of Alaska's most pristine mosquito habitat over the energy needs of America. Sept. 11 is not just an event, hermetically sealed from everything before and after, but a context: Everything that's wrong with the eco-zealots, with the teachers' unions, with the big-government bureaucracies can be seen in their responses to that day. Bush should have struck in their hour of weakness; instead, he gave them all a pass: The time-servers and turf-protectors in the FBI, CIA and the other hotshot acronyms that failed America on 9/11 are all still in their jobs.

Perhaps the president's greatest mistake was his failure to take on the enervating Oprahfied therapeutic culture that, in the weeks after Sept. 11, looked momentarily vulnerable. There were two kinds of responses to that awful day. You could go with ''C'mon, guys, let's roll!'' the words of Todd Beamer as he and the brave passengers of Flight 93 took on their Islamist hijackers. Or you could go with ''healing'' and ''closure'' and the rest of the awful inert language of emotional narcissism. Had Bush taken it upon himself to talk up the virtues of courage and self-reliance demonstrated on Flight 93, he would have done a service not just to his nation but to his party, for a touchy-feely culture inevitably trends Democratic.

But he ducked the rhetorical challenge. And so, to mark the anniversary of Sept. 11, the teachers union encouraged us to stand around in a ''healing circle,'' so that America's children can master the consolations of victimhood rather than the righteous anger of the unjustly attacked. Same for the grown-ups: On TV, Diane Sawyer, Connie Chung and the rest of the all-star sob sisters were out in force with full supporting saccharine piano accompaniment. The elites decided America's anger needed to be managed. It was a very Sept. 10 commemoration of Sept. 11. As the law professor Eugene Volokh put it to his own students, ''Wake up and smell the burning bodies.'' Despite the flags and the more robust country songs, Bush has allowed the culture to lapse back into its default mode of psychobabbling self-absorption.

In the end, even Bush's magnificent moral clarity faded away into a Colin Powellite blur. Long after it became clear that 3,000 Americans were killed by Saudi citizens with Saudi money direct from members of the Saudi royal family, Bush was still inviting Saudi princes to the Crawford ranch and insisting that the kingdom was a ''staunch friend'' in the war against terror. This is not just ridiculous but offensive. Even if it's merely ''rope-a-dope'' and behind the scenes all kinds of plans are being made, the public evasions diminish the president's authority. Symbolism matters. The White House is for business, the privilege of kicking loose at the ranch ought to be reserved for real friends. Yet Australia's John Howard, whose boys fought alongside the United States in Afghanistan, didn't get an invite to Crawford, and the fellows who bankrolled al-Qaida did.

In January, naming Iraq as part of the ''axis of evil,'' Bush declared that ''time is running out." Eight months later, time had run back in again. ''I'm a patient man,'' the president says every couple of days now. By May, the American people were back to ticking ''education'' as the most pressing issue facing the nation. Four months ago, I wrote that if war with Iraq isn't under way by the first anniversary of Sept. 11, George W. Bush might as well nickname himself President Juan Term. Since then, the evaporation of the Bush presidency has only accelerated. George W. Bush's modesty is endearing. But even a modest man needs to use the bully pulpit once in a while.

[91B]

Bump to everything that you just said about Ronald Magnus. I remember the mood of the nation in the late 70s and early 80s; defeated and doubting. Bush faces a different problem in that the mood the toon left us is one of detatchment and self-justification. Supposedly Bush reveres Reagan-here's hoping he can take a page from the old man's playbook.

[Miss Marple]

LOL! The Bully Pulpit is the use of the Presidential command of the stage to highlight an issue and pressure opponents. Reagan was very good at doing this.

However, the media caught on toward the tail end of his administration, and have been working to undermine the use of the pulpit with Republican presidents (both Bush43 and Bush 41).

When I point out that the President does speak, almost every day, and when I point out the NUMEROUS press conferences he has, I am told "Not good enough!" He needs a national speech on prime time!

Apparently people think the president can access the networks whenever he likes. Au contraire. They might be suckered once into carrying an address, but after that there would be no coverage of any national speeches.

The networks are ignoring anything he says. The provide a "synopsis" and consider that coverage.

Of course, when Clinton was in office we saw him 24/7.

I am continually amazed at this accusation that Bush hasn't fought for these judges or expended political capital on them.

First of all, the senators who are blocking these judges on the judiciary committee are IMMUNE to Republician pressure. They are in safe seats and don't care what most Americans think. They are not going to send those nominees to the floor of the Senate if you massed 100,000 people outside Congress carrying pitchforks and torches. And not only are they immune to political pressure, but the expenditure of political pressure on this issue would be not only ineffective but counter-productive, because it would show the President as being ineffectual in getting something accomplished.

Secondly, the President is trying to get a Republician majority in November and has spoken about the judges at almost every appearance. (Those who don't watch these appearances are unable to criticize on this issue, in my opinion...and that includes Mark Steyn.)

Third, in my opinion everything became subordinate to the war after September 11, 2001. Priorities must be set, and domestic issues come a distant second.

My only fault about the President is that I do wish he would put us on more of a war footing, but that is a judgement best made by him, and I know he has to consider the economy, possibility of panic among clueless citizens, and perhaps the fact that a relaxed attitude enables us to catch terrorists within our country by making them think no one is paying attention.

At any rate, the "Bully Pulpit" is not as available to President Bush as it was to Reagan...and that is why he makes so many appearances outside the Beltway. Smaller cities like Davenport, Iowa are going to give him coverage, while it will probably not even merit a still photo on NBC.

[maica]

Ditto What You Said! President Bush knows that he has to reach every American one by one; I get so frustrated at the critics who say he is not communicating with the country.
Apparently his UN speech was carried live on the broadcast as well as the cable networks. I bet some people saw him speak live for the first time.

[VaBthang4]

Wow...

As a BushBot I would have to disagree with the normally salient Steyn.

His points are understood well enough and I think pushing harder on the judicary should've and still should be done...

-But-

The President doesnt give ques to the American people. Liberals do that.

The President is a member of the American people. He does what he does and life goes on...he doesnt micromanage, he doesnt lose alot of sleep pondering if the sky will fall if he missed something...

He is a relaxed, more faithful Man...as things shake out after the November elections...all of the administrative things will be worked out in short order...too waste energy fighting the Libs when he can wait a year and let the Republican majority handle the business would've been a bad move.

It would've given the Liberals a voice...

No...the President is waiting for the November sweep...then all of the things [save cultural] will get handled.

As far as taking on the cultural issues....no, that isnt the Presidents job. We will work those things out ourselves...I dont need the President going out of his way to point out the stupidity of Liberal/effeminate thought.

As time moves on...those things will play themselves out.

To do what Steyn says is to do what Liberals would've done...

Liberals would've done it because they lack the confidence in knowing that those things will take care of themselves.

GW obviously has that confidence.

Relax Mark. You cant turn an aircraft carrier on a dime...and if you try to...you will only make things worse...you wanna roll?

Then roll with it.

[Jim Noble]

Bush has failed to mobilize the nation for war. On September 12, he could have had a declaration of war, a draft, and expansion of the Army and Marine Corps sufficient to conquer and occupy Arabia.

Now he can have none of these things. It doesn't matter if he "can" mount his Iraq expedition without permission from Congress-what matters is whether an expeditionary force of the size and potency that we can deliver can conquer and occupy Arabia, while deflecting hostile action on its flanks and while preserving deterrence in the Far East.

Bush constantly speaks of "war", but the nation is not at war, is not preparing to be at war, and is without the means to fight its many enemies to the death if they choose to offer battle.

That last point is important-we have created a situation in which we need the good will of our enemies to prevail. When Operation Oust Saddam steps off, what the F*** will we do if China decides to occupy Taiwan, or allows North Korea to surge? What will we do if both of these things happen?

What will we do if Iran decides to interdict American shipping in the "Persian" Gulf? What will we do if they have Chinese help?

What will we do if Iraq, as Lt. General Van Riper had his red team do in the recent war game, successfully attacks and sinks a carrier? That is what I would do if I were Saddam-take the war to the enemy, and not wait to be killed.

Our forces are insufficient to deal with any one of these contingencies, as Mark Helprin writes in today's WSJ. I think Bush has failed to use the energy and rage of the nation to prepare for war, and that his failure may cost us dearly. Let's hope not.

[maica]

President Bush is speaking forcefully today in Iowa. I will be expectantly waiting to see the TV coverage on the Alphabet new shows tonight!

[jjm2111]

The incredible momentum the president had after 9-11 is gone.

All the reserves should have been recalled, and the economy should have been put on a war footing. Congress should have declared war (saying "We're serious") this time.

It's been a year already. We should have many more troops in Afghanistan to root out remaining Al Qaeda and Taliban. They're just hiding in the mountains while we have 250 specops guys in Kabul.

Unbelievable.

[Pokey78]

Frankly, I don't think Bush could do anything more to get his judges through.

There is a DemocRat majority on the Judiciary committee, wound so tightly together, that they will not let his Appeals court nominees get a full vote. No amount of chastising or complaining or threatening will break them up. Schumer is actually being honest when he says they are doing this for purely ideological reasons.

That's why this upcoming election is so important. The Republicans must get 51 Senators, because Lincoln Chafee will cross over to the dark side at the drop of a hat.

[Sabertooth]

First of all, the senators who are blocking these judges on the judiciary committee are IMMUNE to Republician pressure. They are in safe seats and don't care what most Americans think. They are not going to send those nominees to the floor of the Senate if you massed 100,000 people outside Congress carrying pitchforks and torches.

There are other ways to move an object than brute strength. Leverage is one.

One needn't move all of the Dems on Judiciary to get a nomination to the Senate fkoor, any single Senator from the Committee would be sufficient. Each of those Senators has goals the President can thwart. Each of those Senators has allies on the floor with goals the President can thwart, or isn't sitting in a safe seat. Each of those safe Senators has compatriots in the House who aren't. The Democrats in Judiciary may be a bit more resistant, but they are far from immune to political pressure. They are politicans.

And not only are they immune to political pressure, but the expenditure of political pressure on this issue would be not only ineffective but counter-productive, because it would show the President as being ineffectual in getting something accomplished.

That's a bit defeatist.

The spectacle of a popular war-time President being hamstrung be extremists on the Democrat Left in a split Senate could as easily be used in the Fall campaign against that party's candidates.

Where advantages and opportunit exist, they should be pressed. Republican timidity to do so isn't the excuse, it's the problem.

[jjm2111]

I want to ammend my comments to include this:

I support the prez 100% and I think W has the Mark Beamer attitude. I think though, he is surrounded by too many clinton holdovers like Tenet and Underperformin' Norman. Get rid of these clowns Mr. President.

[jjm2111]

Good point.

[jjm2111]

Ramadan in people's house?

What's this?

[Miss Marple]

The judges are the number one priority of the Rats. Name me ANYTHING that would move ANY ONE of those senators. You can't, because the ONLY thing that might make them move on this issue is giving them an even greater issue, like repealing the tax cut.

Leahy doesn't care one bit about anything except keeping those judges from being voted on.

The best thing to do is to hold the nominations open (which Bush has done with both Pickering and Owen) and then get them confirmed after November.

I am not a defeatist. I am simply pointing out that President Bush chooses his battles wisely, and this is one that cannot be won. He has elected to go with taking back the Senate as the preferred course of action.

And if you saw his speech which just concluded in Davenport, you would be convinced of his desire to do just that.

[jjm2111]

But the Saudis are still are enemy. Militant Islam still emenates from the "kingdom". We shouldn't be using them as military allies.

[jjm2111]

Does the daughter have to wear a veil at Baylor?

[jpl]

"just wait until after the election."

AKA, the post-Reagan Republican Party motto.

[jjm2111]

I went to church on 9-11 and they prayed for "Tolerance" and the "Victims of the War on Terror". I prayed "God, help us."

[Libertina]

LOL

[Sabertooth]

Name me ANYTHING that would move ANY ONE of those senators. You can't, because the ONLY thing that might make them move on this issue is giving them an even greater issue, like repealing the tax cut.

Losing the Senate. What would Leahy profit from that? Or Daschle.

President Bush has been quite shrewd, but has missed a number of opportunities. He's human.

I am simply pointing out that President Bush chooses his battles wisely, and this is one that cannot be won. He has elected to go with taking back the Senate as the preferred course of action.

There are such things as won-win propositions, where even a temporary defeat can be turned to advantage.

Making the case that gridlocking judicial nominations sabotages the war effort also makes the case for a GOP Senate.

And if you saw his speech which just concluded in Davenport, you would be convinced of his desire to do just that.

I'm not unconvinced of the President's desire, I'm unconvinced that his strategies are unquestionable in all cases.

[justshe]

I'm betting she dresses in Western garb. But I don't know.