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

The Sunday Telegraph ^ | April 20, 2003 | Julian Coman

[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.

[ModernDayCato]

Yes, you're right. You Bushbots are ALWAYS right. I'm not BLAMING anyone for what happened with the bubble, except maybe myself and Morgan Stanley (my broker). Here, maybe even YOU can understand this:

GEORGE W. BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS NEED TO SHRINK THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT AND THE BURDEN ON TAXPAYERS.

Bushbots are all the same...you have the FACT: Refinancing houses can only prop up the economy for so long, and all you offer is accusations of blame. Who cares who is to blame? It's done. GW Bush and the Republicans need to LEAD the country and the government and FIX IT. When they don't I will blame them, because they DESERVE the blame.

It is most certainly Bush's fault that there was no tax cut, just as it is his fault that we have CFR and we're about to get a renewed assault weapons ban. You guys don't understand that LEADERSHIP sometimes means taking crap for what you believe and sticking to it. If the Pubs and Bush would just believe in something instead of talking out of both sides of their faces and being afraid of the Dems and the issues that separate the parties (few as they are), we might see some real leadership.

The cut off your nose comment is the typical red herring hackneyed cliche that passes for debate with people like you. I'll ignore it.

A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough. - Ronald Reagan

[Dane]

It is most certainly Bush's fault that there was no tax cut, just as it is his fault that we have CFR and we're about to get a renewed assault weapons ban.

Really? The House passed it but you have some RINO aholes, Voinivich and Snowe, who stand in the way. Should Bush have them executed or something? Would that make you happy?

Oh about CFR, it has been a disaster for the demo's. Their soft money tap has been cut off and the most vile parts of CFR(the ad bans) will be thrown out before the 2004 election, IMO.

You guys don't understand that LEADERSHIP

I understand LEADERSHIP, I also can pick out hopeless knee jerking malcontenism, and it's name is ModernDayCato.

[ModernDayCato]

You've obviously never led anyone or anything in your life. Yes, I'm a hopeless malcontent. Idiot.

[Afronaut]

Two words...ROSS PEROT.

Amazing that the article never mentions the one thing which delivered our country into Clinton's filthy hands. Despite what the media kept insisting, Perot's support was stolen from Bush. Without the little egomaniac running, Bush would have won easily.

Two words: Ralph Nader.

[ModernDayCato]

I OFFICIALLY GIVE UP. I can't waste anymore time on you morons. Yes, it's perfectly okay that our liberties are going down the crapper, our 'conservative' President has no balls, and it's okay to pass an unconsitutional and/or illegal law because it hurts the Democrats.

I'm going to Easter dinner now.

[Dane]

You've obviously never led anyone or anything in your life. Yes, I'm a hopeless malcontent. Idiot

JMO, it reads like that you've led the Clinton's divide and conquer campaign. Great accomplishment back in 92, nothing to be proud of(especially if you care about America), but an accomplishment none the less.

Too bad in 2003 the internet, is getting in the way of your strategy.

[marajade]

You know what's wrong with your theory... If Bush loses that means Dems win and with that comes even greater gun control; no tax cuts; and more spending...

[Badray]

" I have no patience with the purists who would rather usher in the imperial reign of Her Royal Hillaryness than hold their nose and vote for a Republican less "pure" than they."

As you slide down that slippery slope, at what point to you stop supporting the 'less pure' candidates that are doing the very things that you fight against? You know, things like tax increases, expansion of the Federal Education Dept, Federal spending, and gun bans.

Where do you draw the line?

[giotto]

Two words: Ralph Nader.

It's true that Gore would have won if Nader had not siphoned off 5% of his support, but that has no bearing on the 2004 election. There are people who now support Bush who never would have voted for him three years ago. Without another Perot, Bush can win easily, unless there's some kind of economic or military disaster in the next eighteen months.

[ModernDayCato]

Yeah, I keep hearing that one too. But the lesser of two evils theory is supposed to mean that I GET something in return for sucking it up, and I fail to see what I'm getting. The Bushbots and RINOs are in control right now, and I fear that the only way that's going to stop is -- God forbid -- AFTER another round of Democrats.

Now, I'm not hoping that will happen, but if it does I wouldn't be surprised, and I would hope that the RINOs shake out. I think that the Bushbot theory of giving the Republicans MORE control (we need bigger margins in the hous and Senate) is an end run around the problem, which is quite simple: Olympia Snowe, George Voinovich, Collins, that @sshole from Rhode Island and the rest of the RINO contingent are Democrats, and they should get the hell out of my party. Getting wider margins doesn't change that.

[Skooz]

I may vote for Buchannan.

Terry McAuliff fervently hopes you do just that.

[nopardons]

You didn't lose money in the market due to President Bush being in the White House, nor to any of his policies. The economy is better than it was; I didn't say that it was good. And you should stay out of the market, because you don't appear to understand much about it; or your adviser/s don't.

And , dear, I made generalised statements, but since the shoes seem to fit you ... :-)

By net law, since YOU brought up Nazi ( implication is the same as an outright statement ), then you lose.But you lost anyway, due to your political naifdom. :-)

[ModernDayCato]

You are so incoherent I can barely understand what you're trying to say, but I do have this to say in response:

I don't know who the f--k you think you are, but you don't know anything about me. You obviously don't get out much, because my 'advisors' are Morgan Stanley, one of the top brokerage firms in the country. And you might want to review the thread, because I never specifically said that I lost money in the market because of President Bush being in the White House (although I will later in this posting).

I have absolutely no idea what this phrase means:By net law, since YOU brought up Nazi ( implication is the same as an outright statement ), then you lose.But you lost anyway, due to your political naifdom. :-) , but may I suggest you up your dosage.

Now...I and everyone else lost money in the market due to President Bush being in the White House. I (and a lot of other people) will hold him responsible for the state of the economy and resulting fleeing of capital, as we should, because he has a responsibility to SHOW SOME LEADERSHIP and SHRINK THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT AND THE TAX BURDEN. No more bulls--t about how the Democrats are out to get him. It didn't stop Ronald Reagan, and it shouldn't stop old W, except that he's got no balls.

While you and the rest of your pals are building statues to your lord and master, he as increased the size of government, larded on the largest budget in history, and practices a kind of statism that frankly frightens me.

So, Bushbots, who is guilty of political naifdom?

[nopardons]

Neither I nor my writing is " incoherent. You; however, have several acute problems, that should be seen to.

Oh, dear, I DO not only " get out ", but I know Wall Street well; far better than you do. It is beyond ridiculous to claim that President Bush had ANYTHING , whatsoever, to do with the down turn of any market/your losses, when he had nothing to do with the BUBBLE, the start of the BEAR MARKET ( hint, hint ... that began in the third week of March 2000, when Clinton was president ! ), the continuation of it, nor the hanky panky that goes back to not only gore's getting Justice after Microsoft, but the strings that Rubin was pulling.

It doesn't matter WHICH firm your account is at. You have a lousy advisor. You don't understand the market and shouldn't be in it. No president has absolute control over the market, economics of this nation, nor whatever it is, that you seem to imagine he does.

There is a net rule, often invoked here on FR, that whosoever yells " NAZI ", even by implication, first, as a refutation, immediately loses the argument. I didn't invent it and you should know about it as it has been and is used all the time here, when someone pulls this garbage. :-)

Gee, I'm not building statues to Jesus the Christ; but, HE is my " LORD and master ".

Not only do you know or understand finacial markets, you neither know much about or understamd politics and what a president can and can NOT do. Your abject stupidity and incivility is only outshown by your inability to write a cogent, coherent post. ;^)

[Consort]

Republican politicians and policies — some good, some bad, some times.
Democrat politicians and policies — all bad, all the time.
Third Parties — irrelevant.

[ModernDayCato]

You know Wall Street? Is that so? Well, my friend, I WORKED on Wall Street, and I was part of the team that took a company public, so why don't you post your bona fides, and we'll compare.

Now, one more time, so that your addled brain might understand...what I said (this would be the third time now), is that President Bush HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO SHRINK THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT AND REDUCE THE BURDEN ON THE TAXPAYER, which hopefully will bring capital back into the markets. All of your BS about Clinton and Rubin covers HOW IT HAPPENED. I'm trying to cover HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET PAST IT. I hope you would agree that GW Bush has accepted the role of the leader of this country. He was handed a crappy economy...you might notice I didn't disagree with that. I'm still waiting for what he's going to do to fix it. Before you go crowing about the tax cut and blah blah blah, THE BUDGET IS THE BIGGEST EVER. IT'S TOO BIG, AND GOVERNMENT IS TOO INTRUSIVE IN OUR LIVES AND OUR BUSINESSES.

Your comments about the stock market are insulting. What if $750,000 is 10% of my portfolio? Is it okay then? Tell you what, though. I think I've done okay up until now without your sage advice, so I think I'll just keep going the way I am. ONE MORE TIME (this would be number 4): BUSH SHOULD BE LEADING ON THE ECONOMY. That's what I hired him for.

And I'm still real confused about the whole NAZI thing. I never called you a Nazi, nor did I imply it. But whatever. Honestly I'd rather debate someone who sticks to the facts rather than innuendo and name calling, which is what passes for debate with Bushbots.

And I certainly have no idea what you're talking about with your Jesus Christ comment. Maybe you should direct your worship to the Lord instead of GW Bush. Man, you are nuts.

Please, go debate someone else. Try someone a little closer to your level, like the family pet.

PS = My abject stupidity and lack of understanding of the financial markets allowed me to retire three years ago when I was 36. Which garbage truck do you work off the back of (or let me guess, you're a public employee)?

[nopardons]

My bona fides, re Wall Street are solid, but not for public discussion and far, far better than your puny ( if true ) ones.

You claimed that I was making statues of my " Lord and Master " , referring to President Bush; hence my reply.

Your reading comprehsion and debate skills are worse than those of a kindergartener's.

Nope, I don't work, I'm not and never have been on the government's payroll, and for a 36 year old, you sound like a tiny child, playing at " my daddy can beat up your daddy ". LOL

Since you have artfully managed to prove just how incompitant and ill educated you are, pet, there's nothing more to say ... except to than you for the many laughs, snickers, and giggles I have had at your expense. Oh, and if you are hurting for cash, my second under gardener could alsways use some help. :-)

[ModernDayCato]

I'm pretty much done with you...you're a typical blowhard. I asked you to put up or shut up, and you tried to bluster your way out of it.

Talk about giggles and laughs...when someone is calling me ill-educated, it lacks real punch when they misspell 'incompetent.' Loser.

You're just another wannabe talker. Please, don't waste anymore of my time. Don't you need to get back to bagging groceries at the Safeway anyway? BTW, what exactly is a second under gardner, Mr. Smarter-and-more-educated-financial-genius?

PS = I have no doubt my Dad could beat up yours.

[ModernDayCato]

PS = Tell you what. Since your Wall St. bona fides are so much better than mine, let's put up $1000 each, and compare. Since you, for some reason, can't share your accomplishments with the public, we'll do it privately.

I made it $1000 so you won't have to bus that many tables to pay it off.