Posted on 04/30/2003 11:03:04 AM PDT by areafiftyone
WASHINGTON - At a midweek news briefing, Sen. Ted Kennedy was doing what he does so well -- laying out the Democratic case on domestic policy, preparing the ground for the debates that will resume now that Congress is back from its Easter recess.
His staff had positioned a chart highlighting the economic problems that Kennedy says have piled up during President Bush's tenure: ''2.5 million fewer private sector jobs; long-term unemployment up by 184 percent; over 2 million more Americans without health insurance ... retirement savings eroded ... consumer confidence down ... a projected $5.6 trillion federal surplus turned into a $4 trillion deficit.''
It looked like a script for a TV ad in the 2004 campaign -- good, red-meat stuff, hitting Bush on the economy -- the same kind of attack that sank the president's father in 1992.
In the subsequent question-and-answer session, Kennedy -- who strenuously opposed the U.S. taking military action against Iraq -- was asked what he thought now that the Saddam Hussein regime had been routed. ''I commend the president on his leadership,'' h e said, ''and the men and women of the armed forces.''
In that moment, I thought I saw the problem the Democrats face in trying to defeat this President Bush. No one, not even the most partisan of politicians, thinks it prudent to challenge Bush on his strong suit -- leadership.
The reason is obvious. A mid-April poll by Public Opinion Strategies, a respected Republican firm, gave Bush a 68 percent approval score -- 9 points higher than he enjoyed last October, on the eve of the Republicans' midterm election victory. Particularly notable, pollster Bill McInturff told me, were the reasons people gave for their support.
Only 4 percent of those approving said it was because of Bush's economic policies. Only 13 percent said it was because he had prevented additional attacks. Even though the poll was taken days after the fall of Baghdad, only 23 percent said it was because of his direction of the war. Fully 52 percent said they approved because of ''his general personal strength and sense of leadership.''
McInturff told me that he was not surprised. For 18 months, ''when you ask people why they support him, they go right past specific policies and focus on those leadership qualities.''
It is not just partisan Republicans who make this point. An early April Gallup/CNN/ USA Today poll found 80 percent of those surveyed said they agreed with the statement that Bush ''is a strong and decisive leader'' -- an all-time high in that survey's measure of this trait.
It is evident that the event that defined Bush as a strong and decisive leader was his reaction to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. A month earlier, only 55 percent of Gallup respondents attributed those traits to him. A month after the assault o* the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it had jumped to 75 percent -- and it has basically stayed at that stratospheric level.
It appears that 9-11 did for Bush what the assassination attempt that Ronald Reagan survived and almost laughed off did for his reputation, barely two months into his presidency in 1981. That event formed an indelible impression of Reagan in the minds of millions of voters and gave him an almost mythic dimension that withstood recession, scandal and controversy.
Almost everything Bush has done since becoming president has been designed to create a similar sense of steadfastness. His pursuit of adversaries in Afghanistan and Iraq is of a piece with his persistence in pressing for passage of big tax cuts and confirmation of conservative judges here at home.
Implicitly, he also seems to be saying he is a different breed of cat than his father, who had to fight ''the wimp factor'' as a candidate in 1988 and was savaged by many in his own party in 1992 for allegedly caving in to the Democrats on taxes.
Today's Democrats are pounding on the second George Bush, as befits an opposition party. His economic policies provide plenty of ammunition for the assault Kennedy outlined on his chart.
But there is little the Democrats can do to shatter the reputation for strong leadership Bush has built, and not much their presidential candidates can do to win equal reputations for themselves. McInturff is probably right that the winner of the Democratic contest will -- simply by virtue of winning -- gain stature. But it seems to me unlikely anyone in the field will close the leadership gap simply by gaining more votes than others in New Hampshire or South Carolina or Arizona.
Democrats may challenge Bush on the issues, but it will be tough to topple him from his leadership pinnacle.
Broder can't force himself to simply write that Bush IS steadfast.
Bush '41 was a combat naval aviator in the south Pacific at the tender age of 19.
The 1988 wimp factor tag always bothered me. All three networks, CNN and the weekly magazines mercilessly jumped onboard. Bush '41 was and is a humble and honorable man.
Except that's not true. The 1982 midterms were awful. We lost 25 House seats and didn't make it to our 1980 level until the 1994 tsunami.
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.