Will George W Bush really suffer his father's fate?

Brandi, the younger sister of Private Jessica Lynch, begins her own military training this summer. In Wirt County, West Virginia, where America's most famous ex-POW will soon return home, there are not many career alternatives.

In the Lynch family's home town of Palestine, the one surviving small business, the "Whatnot Shop", scrapes by on sales of ceramic roosters, third-hand sewing machines and a selection of stuffed animals. Like many other businesses in the United States, it isn't hiring. Unemployment in the area is well over double the national average, which is already high. The logging and construction industries are in steep decline. Wirt County, with a population of 6,000, is all but bankrupt. Never mind Baghdad, say the locals. What price the economic reconstruction of rural West Virginia?

Last week, similar sentiments were being heard across the United States, as senior Democrats cheerfully emerged from their bunkers after months of edgy silence over the war in Iraq. Robert Byrd, the senator for West Virginia, even travelled home to underline a point notoriously made at the expense of President George W Bush's father, before an election 12 years ago: "It's the economy, stupid."

In New Hampshire, where the first presidential primaries for 2004 will take place early next year, Richard Gephardt, the labour unions' candidate, let it be known he was "furious" at the shaky state of America's finances. The House of Representatives minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, said that now the war is over, Americans would "get back to round-the-dinner-table issues", such as jobs and affordable health care, during the coming campaign.

President Bush has splendid postwar approval ratings of 71 per cent, his highest for a year. Yet his opponents appear remarkably chipper. They believe they have acted out this election script before, and won handsomely. In the summer of 1991, President Bush's father emerged from a successful war against Saddam Hussein with ratings that the Iraqi dictator himself would have been proud to engineer.

During the subsequent 16 months, Bush senior dropped a record 57 points in the polls, bottomed out at 32 and was routed in the presidential race by Bill Clinton, a little-known politician from Arkansas. As the "liberator of Kuwait" lost by six million votes, the famous "It's the economy" slogan entered into political folklore.

As conventional wisdom has it, the first President Bush lost the peace because unemployment was rising, economic growth was sluggish and federal deficits were alarming. With his eyes on the desert horizon, the commander-in-chief had failed to attend to, or even notice, the most important battlefield in American politics: the domestic economy.

One week or so after the end of his own successful - and presumably definitive - encounter with Saddam, George W Bush also presides over an economy suffering from rising unemployment, sluggish growth and even more alarming deficits than 12 years ago. Gleeful opponents describe the similarities as "eerie". The temptation to draw parallels is forgivable, especially for an opposition yet to score a serious victory over the President since the attacks on the World Trade Center. But it would be a mistake to assume that history is about to repeat itself. For one thing, as Saddam discovered, the Bush family tends to learn from its mistakes.

An internal memo recently circulated to Republicans reads: "2003 is not 1991. Focus on jobs . . . shape the economic debate." Last week in the White House Rose Garden, President Bush gave the first of a series of speeches promoting a tax cut package worth a minimum of $550 billion. This measure, claims the White House, would create 1.4 million new jobs, if brought immediately into effect.

Later the President was in St Louis, giving the same message. Over the next two weeks, 26 Administration officials will deliver speeches on the economy across the United States. Republican Senators balking at the prospect of an even higher federal deficit have been told that the President will play "hardball" to achieve his tax-cut. This White House knows how to be relentless.

The measures will take time to work, if indeed they work at all. As Anne Applebaum pointed out in these pages last week, America's economy is undeniably in bad shape. The stock market is down by almost 30 per cent from when the President took office. A budget surplus has turned into a deficit of $400 billion.

Two million jobs have been lost. Economic growth between 2000 and 2002 was the lowest for a three-year period since - yes - the time of the first Gulf War. But no one will be able to accuse this President of blithely ignoring the problem.

President Bush can also rely on his political adviser, Karl Rove, who has earned a reputation for wrongfooting the President's opponents. Mr Rove is the senior adviser to the President in the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives. He is widely credited with masterminding the success of the Republican Party during last autumn's mid-term elections, when President Bush, on the verge of war with Iraq, rallied the patriotic vote in swing states across America.

In the coming months, Mr Rove's strategic mission is to drive home the message that, in the wake of September 11, and pace 1992, "it's not just the economy, stupid". As President Bush began his tax tour, Mr Rove told American newspaper editors: "When this war ends, we will still have a very dangerous enemy in the form of international terrorism. It's not going to be, like, 'Iraq is over. America can withdraw within itself again'."

The first President Bush, even had he wanted to, could not have made the same argument. Two years before Saddam invaded Kuwait, the Berlin Wall had fallen, bringing the Cold War to an end. America had won. The philosopher Francis Fukuyama made his name by suggesting that political history had ended with a resounding victory for liberal democracies. Saddam was a playground bully to be contained. Hardly anyone had heard of Osama bin Laden.

No American thinks like that now. President Bush is, overwhelmingly, the leader they trust on matters of national security, which matters a great deal. With that crucial side of the electoral equation secure, the Bush Administration can devote itself to dealing with what Mr Rove likes to call the question of economic security.

The President has until 2004 to deal with a sliding scale of approval among American voters. According to the latest New York Times poll, just over 79 per cent of voters think he has handled the crisis with Iraq well. Just under three-quarters approve of his handling of the presidency overall. Only 46 per cent believe that he has so far made the right decisions about the nation's economy.

The figures, taken in the round, are very good. But if President Bush is to avoid the calamitous fate of his father, he could do worse than to find some jobs for the neighbours of Private Jessica Lynch.

I want some of what you guys are smoking. Yeah, yeah, Bush accomplished a lot...no question. But please, let's not insult Ronald Reagan and the rest of the REAL conservatives by calling GW Bush one.

The size of the government and the budget are at record highs, the trampling of liberty and privacy is epidemic, and -- I'm sorry to say this -- but no conservative would have signed McCain-Feingold, just as no conservative would sign the assault weapons ban renewal.

All of you neo-heads and Bushies always seem to counter with 'WELL...he's better than [insert your liberal idiot here]' or 'Would you rather have Clinton?'

That's the best argument you've got? Yeah, he's better than all of the liberal idiots you can mention, and no, I wouldn't rather have Clinton. GW Bush is OUR Clinton, only he's slicker, and has real morals. What I want is a real conservative. And YES, YES, YES, I will stay home in 2004. But I had already planned that just about when McCain-Feingold was being signed.

I'm a one issue voter too. My issue is the preservation of the Republic. There is no candidate that supports my issue this time around.

Which guns would you like to ban?

None, I know little about this issue. That is not what this thread is about, please note, but the attempt to hijack it by by the single voters is telling, and troubling, as far as the potential real world consequences come next year.

oh Wise One, it may be just a little bit of an overkill to hunt deer with tanks?

LOL, just saying ak47 vs deer isnt good enough now, bring on the tanks.

If I can distract you from your fantasy land for a moment, a semi-auto AK type gun is so much less powerful than a more typical semi-auto deer rifle like a browning. AK is effective to about 200meters. The browning more like 700+ meters. I wonder how many times this has been pointed out to you but you just cant seem to keep the idea in your tiny head.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States:

Brought to you courtesy of the "conservative" purists who refused to vote for GW Bush because he failed to meet their arbitrary test for conservative purity.

But, hey, at least the Republic is preserved.
Yeah, thanks for nothin' Bushophobes.

Where in my post did I say I wouldn't vote? Only sheep don't vote.

Lookey here toots, do I have to bring on the Irish charms, or do I need to put me hands on me hips and point a big ol' gun (OH MY GOD, I WISH MY COUNTRY WOULD ALLOW ME OWN A FIREARM TO MAKE PEOPLE SUBMIT *LOL*), to your head and tell you...you think you have it bad with President Bush? How about Hitlery in power? Then you got a single-minded liberal, 'it's all about me', I forgot to change my clothes, and my daughter-needs-guidance-that-I-never-gave-her dyke with an agenda on yer hands!!!

single voters = single issue voters

The 2nd Amendment is not a single issue btw.

Bush EO'd his own assault ban in 89. He lost in 92. If you dont want to talk about it then dont bring it up or ignore the posts that do.

Excuse me? ARBITRARY? Exactly what of my comments is arbitrary:

The size of the government and the budget are at record highs, the trampling of liberty and privacy is epidemic, and no conservative would have signed McCain-Feingold, just as no conservative would sign the assault weapons ban renewal.

You guys can pretend what's there isn't there as long as you want, but your canonization of Bush does much more damage than my disgust.

Skooz and his pals going about their lives.

TOP TEN REASONS WE WONT SEE A RE-BUSH ELECTION.

1. America had not been attacked by Hollywood and terrorists.

2. We could only get our news from the Leftist CNN NPR CBS NBC ABC.

3. Americans in general were upset with the "New World order" statements made by Bush SR. and no longer trusted him to protect our sovereignty.

4. Bill Clintonitis had not happened and it had been 12 years for America to forget the failings of Jimmy Carter and the economic and Defense problems he left President Reagan with.

5. The Democrats had not had been confronted with having to make lame excuses for a President that had lied, stolen and cheated the American public.

6. There was no cold war except on the economic front.

7. Very few people were engaged in the political scene. Most couldn't even name their own representatives.

8. Hilary hadn't happened yet.

9. We were 7 gates short of where we are now.

10. Remember old whats his name? "We must get under the hood and fix the nation" who has been MIA since before the last election, Perot? He was the real reason we lost the election.

The 2nd Amendment issue, whatever one thinks about it, is a loser issue! In the past 100 years you have been steady losing! Will you deny it? My sympathies, but I must note that the bitterness shows. You're not winning any new converts, and you're not holding your own. As of the day the Iraqis have more rights in this area. Best of luck anyway!

Wrong on all points.

It is the conservative "purists" who ushered in the Clinton presidency in 1992. If Bush loses in 2004, it will be the conservative "purists" who will likely usher in another Clinton presidency.

Wonder how your pet issues will fare under her reign. No, I don't.

But, that will be okay, huh? As long as it is a Democrat trashing the Constitution, that's okay.

to your head and tell you...you think you have it bad with President Bush? How about Hitlery in power?

Sorry HappyIrishGal.....but I don't vote for gun-grabbers, wether they be democrats or republicans. If Bush can't take his Presidential Oath of Office seriously....then he doesn't deserve to be president. Just like the Campaign Finance Reform bill, he knows the AWB is un-Constitutional but will sign it anyway. The Constitution of the United States of America is more important than any one man's ambition, including Bush.

The 2nd Amendment issue, whatever one thinks about it, is a loser issue! In the past 100 years you have been steady losing!

As it relates to this thread, it was a loser issue for Bush's daddy in 92. It was a loser issue for the democraps in 94 and Gore in 2000. Bush may suffer his daddy's fate if he comes out on that historically bad side of the issue.

Actually, Ed Feulner, President of the Heritage Foundation, convinced G.H.W. Bush that banning "Assault Weapons" would help him politically. You're correct that Clinton's the one who finally signed it into law.

In '92 Bush lost because he demonstrated, even to those of us who'd held our noses and voted for him in '88, that he was truly Reagan's biggest mistake. '92 was the first election in which I cast a Presidential vote for anyone other than the Republican candidate - I voted Libertarian. Bush's two biggest mistakes were his support for tax increases and his support for the Assault Weapons Ban. Clinton's signing the Assault Weapons Ban played a huge role in the '94 Republican takeover of the House of Representatives. No need to take my word for it, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) has said anti-gun issues weren't something the Democrats should continue to push as it was the major reason they lost the House and their ability to push the rest of their agenda. In 2000, Bush won because of the NRA's endorsement and the fact Gore was recognized as hostile to the 2nd Amendment.

Bush appointments have made it difficult to arm airline pilots and it now appears he's counting on Congress to make sure he doesn't have to sign the extension of the Assault Weapons Ban. His lack of leadership on this issue will definitely cost him the support of some gun owners - a group that, IMHO, is getting tired of being taken for granted.

Still waiting for your reasoned debate to my valid points. There won't be one, because you don't have FACTS (you know, the TRUTH) to back them up. All you and your ilk can do, over and over again, is mumble that we would do worse under Clinton.

This always makes me laugh, for two reasons: if this were happening under a Democrat president, you and your pals would be screaming your heads off (you would have somehow been able to get them out of the sand, or somewhere else). The other thing that makes me laugh is that Hillary WON'T get elected, no matter how many of us stay home. She's just not that electable.

And y'know, there actually is some truth to your statement: As long as it is a Democrat trashing the Constitution, that's okay [to me]. What you really mean to say is that As long as it is GW Bush, your hero, trashing the Constitution, that's okay [to you].

Let me save you some trouble. This is how these debates always turn out:

Cato: I don't really care all that much, because I have enough money where I can get out of the country when the time comes.

Skooz and pals: Don't let the door hit you in the @ss on the way out.

Cato: Yeah, but you'll miss my tax money that supports the bloated government of which you approve.

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.