Posted on 04/19/2003 4:20:39 PM PDT by MadIvan
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.
Oh no, the fact that Gore was anti-coal and an enviro-whacko never entered the minds of WV voters or that Gore was a known entity in TN, and that the scandals around him, like the Buddhist temple never entered their minds.
You single issue malcontnents lose your credibity and gain derision, with your over the top dramatics.
Also, every winter 30 to 50 percent of deer, elk and antilope starve to death. That's the way of nature and has nothing to do with hunting. It's better they end up in hunters freezers where they feed families.
Passing a clearly unconstitutional law that restricts my freedom of speech and assembly in violation of his oath of office makes GW Bush a political genius, because even though it is illegal and unconstitutional, it hurts the Democrats, so it's a great move. I'm just too stupid to see it. Got it. Brilliant.
I lost $750,000 in the stock market in the past three years, so please...peddle your bulls--t about the economy being better somewhere else, okay? If you actually BELIEVE the economy is in good shape right now, you're a worse thinker than you are a speller. Taxes are too high, government is too big, and investor confidence is low. Refinancing houses can only prop up the economy for so long, and something's gonna give. Watch and learn.
Again, you have absolutely no right to call me stupid or question my conservative principles because I cannot in good conscience vote for any of the candidates. I will still vote in my local elections (if I can), but I will cast no vote for President.
As far as your red herring BS argument about my claiming to be more conservative than GW Bush (or you), I AM. That was an easy one. And yes, I must be politically naive because I didn't drink the kool aid and I watch the actions of politicans (on either side) rather than what spews from their mouths and my own projections, hopes and dreams.
Wake up sonny. You're doing more damage to my party with your goosestepping than my heresy over Bush the fake conservative.
Whatever.
No offense, but I'm really sick of people dragging up the Reagan quote. Comparing Bush to Reagan makes me ill.
Bush is NEVER, EVER going to come up with 75 to 80% of what Conservatives want. You want some Reagan quotes? Here you go:
The size of the federal budget is not an appropriate barometer of social conscience or charitable concern.
We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.
Government growing beyond our consent had become a lumbering giant, slamming shut the gates of opportunity, threatening to crush the very roots of our freedom. What brought America back? The American people brought us back -- with quiet courage and common sense; with undying faith that in this nation under God the future will be ours, for the future belongs to the free.
[G]overnment's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
So please, let's not call Bush the new Reagan. He lacks so many things like a conservative ideology.
1. Yes, I'm an idiot.
2. Yes, the facts are not important.
3. Yes, you are much smarter than me because you can see the big picture and I'm fixated on choosing someone who shares my beliefs and doesn't provide support to ideas and people with which I do not agree.
4. You are far shrewder politically than I am.
5. You are a better conservative than I am.
Did I cover them all, genius?
So lets examine the trade offs. There are 85 million guns owners in the U.S. Most are middle class and male. Only 6 million of these belong to the NRA and are politically tuned in. That leaves another 79 million that are not so politically tuned in. Of that 79 million over half are swing and democrat voters. They will not remember that Feinswine and Schumer Scum reintroduced the assault weapons bill. They will remember that Dubya stabbed them in the back. They will perceive that there is little or no difference between canidates and many of them being Union or Reagan democrats will vote their other interests.
Dubya and his adminstration has to make deals. If he does not the democraps will filibuster tax cuts, national security, and other important issues. The 79 million mostly does not care or know how Washington works. They will swing left.
The NRA is a given quantity and is over 80% Republican. The 79 million is up for grabs. The end result is that weak Republicans will fall in Midwest,Southern, and some Western States even if Dubya is reelected. It will weaken his hand and reduce the presidents effectiveness even if he is elected to a second term.
One thing Republicans have never been very skillful at is playing politics, and being the majority party is a new experience. The assualt weapons bill brought down Bill Clinton and swept the Republicans into office for the first time in 60 years.
One would hope that the RNC and Duyba adminstration is not as short sighted as to forget what bought them to Washington in the first place.
They said the heir apparent is none other than Tom Ridge, which makes a lot of sense. He's worse than GW, unfortunately. Got room on your fishing boat?
CNN was credible back then. No more. They were as looney Left as they are now, but now the people know it.
Wow, I had forgotten about the role of CNN. Without Larry King's help, Perot would not have had a podium for his appealing populist views. I predicted, after he dropped out of the race in July, that he would jump back in just before the election. The fact that Perot was leading and then withdrew convinced me that the whole thing was a set up to help defeat Perot's old nemesis, Bush.
Boo freaking hoo. You got caught up in Clinton's buuble and now you are blaming Bush.
Oh BTW, if it wasn't for some RINO's in the Senate there would be a tax cut. So don't blame Bush, blame Voinivich and Snowe.
I know, I know, your answer will be well Bush is President and it is all his fault. Wrong it is the Senate, where there are 45 reliable conservative votes and people on our side should be trying to get that number well above 50. But noOOOoooo you just want to chuck it all away for Hillary or demo Presidency.
"Yea that will teach them", ModernDayCato says as he cuts off his nose to spite his face.
911 and its aftermath have changed everything and continue to affect both geo and national politics. It was and continues to be a seminal and possibly cataclysmic event in the history of the world. GW has responded magnificently, IMHO, to those events.
One of the many effects is that it has and is continuing to effect the attitudes of many of the "single issue" conservative crowds way of thinking. But old habits die hard.
While I find many of GW's stands on domestic social and political issues unpalatable, at the end of the day there is one thunderous conclusion I come to:
It would be un-safe to see another DemocRAT as our Commander in Chief!!!
Many bedrock conservatives, self included, will come to that conclusion and re-affirm that fact in November 2004 by voting for a less than ideal candidate Bush. And many, self included will do so happily, with the realization that placing a DemocRAT in charge will quite literally be playing Russian Islamic Roulette.
I am sure I and others will find ourselves taking issue with GW on his decisions that fly in the face of our desire to preserve and protect the Constitution as written, but knowing that, at least for the present, the threat to our Republic is far greater from outside forces than it is and has, in the recent past, been from internal forces.
We could go on and on expounding on the reasons to both support or not support GW. You are correct, given the circumstances, it is just short of amazing what he has accomplished since his election and 911. Not only do most Americans deeply want to trust the man, I for one do believe that he is sincerely honest in his desire to serve the greater needs of the Republic in these very trying times.
The bottom line is that, like him or not, he will be our "best" possible choice in the next election cycle given the alternatives.
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.