Posted on 04/16/2003 10:01:09 AM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
Quagmire: (n): a difficult, precarious, or entrapping position
Oh so many Quagmires to choose from and so little time. The Left, together with their media henchpersons around the world, are so troubled now that peace seems to be breaking out in Iraq, that they are discarding their former Q reports like so many unwanted burkhas. Yes, like the 3rd Infantry Division racing up the Tigris River, they've put a lot of distance twixt themselves and their predictions.
But as liberty and peace obtained through strength assert themselves across Iraq, they hold fast to the two Qs that seem to cheer them most as they mournfully relive the images of adoring Iraqis kissing pictures of President Bush and waving homemade American flags in what they must view as a disturbing display of 'right-wing' patriotism.
Number one on the latest Q Hit Parade: The "nightmarish chaos" ("Baghdad Residents Begin a Long Climb to an Ordered City" - John F. Burns NY Times 4/13/03) brought on by Iraqi looters that will cover the countryside like a moorish mist and linger with no end in sight as all the best quagmires do.
I will not dwell on the utter foolishness of this premise except to point out a simple principle of logic. Looting is a finite act. That is, once a city is looted it cannot be re-looted ad infinitum. It would seem to me then, once the local residents have sated their vengeful appetites by bankrupting the Ba'athists, the looting will end. Very low rating on the Q-Meter.
On the other hand, the second Q prospect is one that is much dearer to their hearts and certain to last some nineteen months-a Quagmire of Lilliputian dimensions in the minds of all but the Left-the doomed quest for a second term by George W. Bush.
Since even they are bright enough to know that two of the three motives for the war they ascribed to the Administration-oil and conquest-have or will soon be swept into the dust bin of history, they pugnaciously cling to their one, clear reason for this war; the furtherance of the Bush Dynasty.
And the prospects for Bush's defeat seem as clear as a birthmark on a Saddam double's face. As some have brilliantly deduced; the 41st and 43rd U.S. presidents both went to war with Iraq, both gained extreme popularity as a result of victory-and heck-they even have the same first and last name! Ergo, the fate of the father shall inevitably and righteously befall the son and this reign of Bushly terror will last only one term. It's one of the Qs they cannot lose.
Except that in the Left's rush to war on Bush Terrorism II, they are missing a few stark differences between the election of 1992 and the current state of events. Namely:
9/11
The Iraq War is seen by most Americans as an extension of the War on Terror that the president resolutely predicted would last many years. In 1992, the Gulf War had the support of the public who were fascinated by the dazzling display of American might in repelling the invasion of one remote desert country by another. They tuned into CNN, displayed their Saddam dartboards and tied their yellow ribbons round the old oak tree. They cheered Bush, Colin Powell and Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf, but as soon as the troops marched triumphantly home, they quickly busied themselves with the more interesting troika of Woody, Mia and Soon-Yi.
This time the public seems to sense that the lunatic ravings of some far-away dictator aligned with like-minded thugs might very well endanger their lives and those of their loved ones. No, the American people will not desert President Bush when the Iraq War is over-they are in this for the long run, and they trust the man who has sworn to protect them.
The Ross Perot Factor
Unlike 1992, there most likely will be no serious challenge to President Bush by a third party candidate to siphon conservative votes away from him. Few seem to remember Perot garnered nearly 20% of all votes in '92 and although he did not win a single state, those votes were spread out across the country enough to turn the tide for Bill Clinton in some of them. In contrast, Ralph Nader's 3% of the votes in 2000 were mostly clustered in liberal 'blue' states that voted overwhelmingly for Gore anyway.
Ironically this time, it is the Democrats who face the daunting specter of numerous, base-splitting candidacies that will drain votes from their nominee. Thoughts of the way in which Al Sharpton will be bought off by the Dems, dance in the heads of conservatives from sea to shining sea.
It's The Economy Stupid
While this was a clever campaign slogan for the Clintonistas in '92, it won't play half as well to a more Wall Street-wise public who, in the ensuing 12 years have learned that while the Market and the economy influence each other, every drop in the Dow Jones doesn't spell impending doom. From the dot.com bust to the corporate scandals of last year, people are realizing that a president is not directly responsible for the economy one way or the other.
However, if President Bush does aggressively push his plan for immediate and significant tax-cuts and its passage stimulates the economy and spurs job-growth as he (and I) believe it will, then this major issue will be off the table as the WMD of choice for the Left.
The Clinton Factor
Just as one often gains a clearer view of something as they back away from it, so the American people are finally understanding Bill Clinton's presidency, especially in light of its last days. Questionable pardons, reports of pilfered furniture and immature vandalizing at the White House plus his noxious attempt to steal the spotlight from President Bush on Inauguration Day only served to illuminate for some what many of us already knew about his character.
High moral character and leadership are concepts that can no longer be sloganeered or sold to the public by slick spin-meisters. This president has no need of Teflon nor any other substance to insulate him from scandal or the American people. The majority trusts and believes him even when they disagree with his policies.
In short, my fellow Bush-backers, we're in for a long and pleasant Quagmire, courtesy of the Democrat Party. Enjoy it.
Related ArticleWishing The Nation Ill - The Democrats' Dilemma
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: April 16, 2003; Author: Paul E. Scates
While the economic policies of any Administration can and do affect the market and economy, most policies don't show results immediately. For instance, the tax-cuts and 'trickle-down' economics of the Reagan administration didn't bear fruit until four years after the Gipper left office - it can be argued that the boom of the 1990's was a direct result of the fiscal and economic policies of the 1980's.
BTW - Welcome to FR. :)
There's another, little discussed, ace in the hole here. Iraq is sitting atop 10% of the world's oil. Due to sanctions and the aged extraction technology, Iraq has been pumping about 30% of what it could be pumping. In a matter of weeks extraction will begin to increase exponentially, and increased export will begin.
The return of Iraqi crude to the world market will affect crude prices immediately and drastically, such that under a dollar per gallon gas is possible by the fall. A decrease of the magnitude I think we will experience will fuel inject world economies and literally turbo-charge the engine of the world's largest user of petroleum. For OPEC, already weakened by the Russians' refusal to play ball, Iraqi oil represents the final death blow to the cartel, further pressuring prices downward over the longer term.
These could be huge developments for the US economy going forward, possibly greater in impact than the tax cut, and we don't need Senate approval for this one.
There is, however, a problem with the Democrats' plan.
If the electorate sees the President as trying to do something about the economy -- which he is -- and sees the Democrats as obstructing his efforts -- which they are -- history says they will reward the one making the effort and punish the one doing the obstructing.
Richly and severely, respectively.
For further detail, see FDR and the GOP, c. 1936.
These could be huge developments for the US economy going forward, possibly greater in impact than the tax cut, and we don't need Senate approval for this one.
You're absolutely correct. The economy always does well when the price of fuel goes down, and it does act as a tax cut of its own. This real effect of a gas price cut, added to the confidence-raising effect of having the war over (and the side benefit of a lower threat of terrorism), will help the economy a bunch. BTW, gas is already on its way down in price. I fill up at Sam's Club here in TX, and the member's price is down to $1.379 from a peak of $1.489 only a couple of weeks ago.
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.