GEORGE W. Bush is a one- term president now serving deep into his second term. Like his father, he shot his bolt during his first four years. Unlike his dad, he was able to persuade America to keep him around for another term. But he seems destined to spend the remainder of his tenure, à la Nixon, “twisting slowly in the wind.”
Bush has truly become the Republican equivalent of President Jimmy Carter, out of control, dropping in popularity, unable to resume command. He barely skated through 2004 using the issue of terrorism. But his very success in preventing further attacks has eroded the strength of the issue and has undermined its political importance. Tax cuts, the cause celebre of his 2000 campaign, have long since been passed and yielded their economic growth. But they’re long gone as a key issue.Yet Bush, like his father, fails to invent issues to give his presidency a new lease on life. Is he too tired or lazy to do so? Does he not believe in government doing very much in the first place? Or is he so preoccupied with Iraq – as Carter was with the hostage crisis – that he can’t divert his attention to new issues?
Discuss.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
Bush is governing against the will of the people on the immigration issue (pushing amnesty and open borders), failing to articulate any other domestic agenda, and failing to counter effectively criticisms (often insane) of his foreign policy. This is reflected in his negative poll numbers.
The best ally Bush has are the Democrats — who are so consumed with their hatred for the man that they have lost all semblence of reason, and are furthermore so bound to their far left radical base that they can not articulate reasonable policy alternatives.
I’d say something here myself, but my esteemed colleague, V the K, has nailed it so precisely, that any further comment on my part would be pointless.
Good work, V!
Eric in Awe
Bush hasn’t had much with regard to domestic policy, and he has been blocked by his own party on a lot of the things he wanted to do (fix/or at least debate how to fix social security).
I think his foreign policy, however, unlike Jimmy Carter’s will eventually prove out with a little time behind him. Right now the left is eating him alive with the help of the media, but I think history will prove Bush right-but history isn’t going to help him now.
But I will be honest I think the congress has done a piss poor job of moving forward the conservative agenda, and Bush doesn’t/hasn’t seemed capable of creating a policy they are willing to jump on board with-but I think much of Bush’s domestic policy woes are as much a GOP congress woe as the administrations. Congress has been to willing to spend like money grows on trees, and Bush has lost the veto pen.
Latest issue of The Atlantic has an article on “Desert One”, the failed attempt to rescue the American hostages in Iran through military means. It occurred to me that if that mission had succeeded, that there might be an entirely different image of Jimmy Carter’s Presidency today.
Reagan ran against Carter as “pro-military” yet it was Carter who was willing to use the military option while Reagan did take the path of bribery and appeasement on the Iran hostage crisis.
If Bush had competent civilian Pentagon leadership in the Iraq war, and the aftermath of the toppling of Saddam had been more successful than it has been, it would be an entirely different political climate today.
Instead, Mr. “Mission Accomplished” is still stuck on stupid, and could not until very recently even seem to recognize that there was a problem. And even so, is still blindly supporting a DOD leader who has repeatedly proven his incompetence. The President can say he admits that “mistakes were made”, but the American public are unlikely to believe that he truly understands that if he does not demand a change in his Pentagon leadership.
His current support of Rumsfield too often sounds like his blind support of Brown at FEMA. People still remember his “Well Michael, your doing a heck of fine job!” quips during Katrina and how clueless he turned out to be.
Not even the Democrats are going to be able to save Bush from his own arrogance and his stead-fast desire to live in the White House Bubble. I name him President Whobbit.
Patrick said…
“Not even the Democrats are going to be able to save Bush…”
I agree with you there, Gryph; the Democrats can’t even save themselves, let alone anyone else.
Moonbattery’s a real bitch, ain’t it?
I think that history will show Rumsfeld to be one of the nation’s finest Secretaries of Defense, albeit one who made a number of serious blunders.
I also think that this president has been seriously misunderestimated – to use a term he coined — but has made several serious blunders, as much of style of substance. he needs much better P.R. and did not communicate with Congress in a manner similar to Carter.
I think the appropriate comparison, however, is another Democrat — Harry S Truman who made a number of blunders, but on the whole was a good steward of the nation and who left office (in 1953) quite unpopular.
The Truman comparison on several levels is an apt one, GPW. Truman, like Bush, did several things that were unpopular in the short-term, but turned out well in the long. In an era of soundbites, we sometimes forget that policy activities are like ships; they take a while to turn.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again . . . I support Bush, but if a pollster were to call me today and ask if I approve of his job right now I’d likely say no. The economy is doing well, but on almost every other front Bush can’t get himself out of the way of the negative PR. He needs a new message (and new people to deliver the message) or I’m afraid the GOP will lose big this fall and Hillary will be president on January 20, 2009.
I admit the WH does a lousy job in promoting the good things happening in Iraq; the US economy; Medicare Part D and money seniors are saving, etc. Talk about a shakeup with Bolten, how about an all out offensive to get the repubs back into supporting their president rather than only trying to get re-elected.
As for Dick Morris, anyone as tired of him as I am? I consider him B-O-R-I-N-G!
Be careful with “He needs a new message or to get his message out better” thinking… it’s what Democrats tell themselves, after their losses.
I agree with V in #1 – it’s about the content, not the package… Of the 3 most urgent issues facing the country – War on Terror, porous borders, and growth-of-government – Bush is largely on the wrong side in 2 of them.
Having said that: if his speechwriters and White House spokesman fought back more against the insane and evil-hearted criticisms from, say, Andrew Sullivan-on-leftwards… OK, that would be a good thing.
As for Dick Morris: He was right about Bush’s re-election in 2004, and he knows the Clintons better than you or I… I take him as one semi-interesting voice among many.
I totally agree that the WH has done a crappy job on the PR front.
I have never liked McClellan as press secretary, and think that the WH would rather avoid the media altogether, because they don’t understand how to use the media. Clinton may have had his problems, but he did understand the media and how to use it (or at least somebody in his administration). Even when he was getting bad press, he used the media to his advantage.
Bush and his admin just seem clueless as to how to use the media and to work the PR front. Their choice is often to say nothing at all, although I also think they subscribe a bit tot he “let them have all the rope they want, and then hang them with it” which has worked on some fronts, but isn’t the best method day in and day out. Reagan also knew how to use the media (he also knew when to shaft the media and then use them later). It is a shame Bush doesn’t have the same media Savvy Reagan did.
I thought this was funny: “The week the deranged president of Iran again calls for the annihilation of Israel and once again denies the Holocaust ever happpened James Carroll draws the only logical conclusion: Bush is a lunatic and this administration is run by ‘deeply frustrated, angry, and psychologically wounded people.'”
Good point, V the K.
Carroll seems to belong back in the Democratic and Clinton age, where the secret to disarming nuclear conflict was sticking our fingers in our ears and covering our eyes.
If you watch Ian and Raj long enough, they will categorically deny that Iran and North Korea ever had nuclear programs or were working on nuclear materials prior to 2001. Why? Because Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and the IAEA told them so.
Of course they, like Carroll, are now reacting to the fact that Bush was right in the only way they can — by blaming him.
If you watch Ian and Raj long enough…
No thanks, I’ve already seen Dumb and Dumber.
#12 – Again I would argue that what made Reagan great was the content of what he set out to do, not the “media savvy” packaging.
When the content is great, the packaging has a way of suddenly looking incredibly skillful.
No one would remember Reagan as media-savvy, if Reagan had been trying to sell the wrong philosophy / programs, because he would have failed.
Clinton was largely on the right side of the growth-of-government issue (at least, once HillaryCare collapsed, and Newt Gingrich and Dick Morris forced him to do welfare reform). Plus free trade. The economy benefitted. So Clinton, too, had SOME minimal content to sell. Without it, his media savvy would not have saved his ass in 1996 or 1998.
“Yet Bush, like his father, fails to invent issues to give his presidency a new lease on life. Is he too tired or lazy to do so?”…
Dubya is just too friggin stupid to even be president, let alone an effective one. He’s an embarrassment to our nation. I can’t even stand to hear/watch him speak. That’s a pretty pathetic leader for the most powerful nation on the planet to have. Thank God presidents can only serve two terms (one half of one was too many for h-dubya)
ndtovent
I just can’t bring myself to view “bad at PR” as a relevant criticism.
I’m of the opinion that Bush’s bad PR shows everyone *else* in a bad light since it shows them as more interested in the surface of things, in the nice-nice and mutual back patting than in the substance of the issues our country faces. And I’m supposed to get on board and blame Bush because he doesn’t have an effective enough public relations/congressional relations policy?
I’d rather have a president that out and out snubed people, for *real*, rather than all the hyped or even imaginary slights that pretty much are nothing but an attempt to shift blame. It’s like… it’s like if someone asked help for a third party but didn’t say “please” and the person who then didn’t help responds with “It’s not my fault, so-and-so was rude.”
PLUS I find it rather disturbing to suggest that Bush is supposed to “invent” new issues to breathe life into his adminisration. What? Lets find new things for government to do, new causes to justify our existance? Please. No.
At the risk of appearing to be contrarian, I don’t think Dick Morris is anymore relevant to a discussion about what’s right/wrong with Bush’s Admin (or Congress or the GOP or the Right or conservatives or anything else) than is David Gergen, George Stephanopoulos, Mike Deaver, Pat Caddell, Howie Baker, Mac McLarty, James Carville, John Sasso, Bob Strauss, Alistair Campbell, Bob Shrum or some other political svengali.
Morris is first and foremost a salesman and a self-promoter; he’ll say whatever he thinks will interest others in order to appear relevant. He’s trying to be the “common man’s voice”; he’s trying hard to stay in the punditry game. He’s argued that HE personally convinced Prez Clinton to do an “issue-a-day” while announcing new programs a day at a time during Clinton’s darker hours… the truth is, that’s hubris. In the end, Clinton left office disgraced and having to steal furniture and artwork from the WH for his wife’s home in NY.
Morris doesn’t have “the answer” to George Bush’s woes anymore than he had one for Prez Clinton or that he has one for Hillary-2-b-Prez. Nor do the other outsiders looking to score points while trying to kick the can down the road a bit… relevancy is earned in politics. It doesn’t come via self promotion.
To look at Bush’s approval ratings, the Congress, SCOTUS, higher ed, corporate America, the car companies, lawyers, cable TV, MSM or inner city mayors will net seemingly poor approval ratings from the general public. The only poll that matters is the one on election day and it involves voters who show up.
In Michigan, we have a Democrat Governor in deep, deep poo with a cookie cutter GOP candidate creaming her ass. We have a “dangerously incompetent” Democrat US Senator worried she won’t be able to hold her seat even by spending $6-8m MORE than her wanna-b GOP competitor. The state House and Senate will likely PICK UP GOP seats; our Congressional delegation won’t change from a majority GOP control. Wow. And that’s in a state that went Kerry in 2004.
Nawh, Morris isn’t relevant except to his agent, accountant, and the media looking for sound bites.
#18 – I found the “invent issues” phrasing strange also. There are plenty of existing issues that the Administration should be getting traction on, and aren’t.
– Secure borders; Mexican border fence.
– Making the tax cuts permanent.
– Cutting (not growing) government programs.
– Expanding private health and retirement savings accounts; if possible, privatizing Social Security.
I think they’re lacking moral confidence – confidence in the moral RIGHTNESS of those things and being able to just tell the Left to F*-off. As we’ve seen in this blog, the point of so many moonbat attacks, “the crazier the better”, is precisely to drain that confidence.
The Administration may also lack a willingness both to collaborate with Congress and discipline it. They should show Congress much more firmness in some ways – like Presidential vetoes, and telling Democrats to grow up and cut the baloney attacks – and greater collaboration on specific reforms, at the same time.
Bush’s great strength – and what has allowed him to cut through the media BS avalanche and connect with the American people – is that he is NOT the type of politician to manufacture issues or cultivate publicity.
He called the major issue of our time correctly, now he is seeing it through. He also called a major domestic issue correctly – education – and set in place reforms that have to play out over the long term.
This ability to play the long game, while ignoring the demands of attention-deficit media America (which includes bloggers!) is his great strength.
He is leaving a lot of other issues to the Congress – which this overseas American finds increasingly difficult to believe is actually under Republican control. I’m grateful that I no longer vote for Congress as I am overseas – I would not know what to do this time.
Would it be worth the effort to try and counter the negative propaganda of the media? This is a thankless, sisyphian endeavor – and people are already voting with their feet against the media indoctrination.
Dick Morris lost me when he insanely suggested Bush embrace global warming/climate change hysteria.
There is NO WAY you can even dare compare Bush and Carter….Carter is a REAL Compassionate man, a caring man….BUSH is NOTHING, NOTHING but a LIAR, Corruptor, Selfish bastard….if you were to compare the 2 using Environmental words: Carter would be FRESH AIR, Bush would be TOXIC POLLUTION!
the analogy of bush-vs-carter can be applied, as they were both completely ineffective at leading the country. time has been an asset for carter and his efforts post-WH have totally changed his image. whether bush can reinvent his image remains to be seen. unless he can somehow change it, his legacy will be as the WORST-ever administration.
how you people can continue supporting this charlatan is amazing. he’s completely abandoned the conservative philosophy; spending more money than any president since LBJ. each and every decision this man has made is being debated and his effectiveness (if there ever was effectiveness) is gone, gone, gone.
history, imo, will be so very harsh on gwb…as it should be.
History will be what it is.
What I think is interesting in this “Bush is the worst president EVER” is that people who say it seem to be most focused on some imagined unquestioning support of Dubya by the other side. But what’s in this comment thread but several people saying that he’s gotten two out of three issues wrong? Does it *really* have to be all or nothing?
I, personally, have a absolute negative reaction to the suggestion that Bush ought to “reinvent” his image. Reinvention is what Madonna does every little bit. That’s all fine for an entertainer but it’s a disturbing suggestion for a politician… unless someone thinks the two are the same. Bush isn’t going to win reelection in ’08. Why should he “reinvent” his image or care that “every decision is being debated?” Like he can use his awesome dark powers to control what other people choose to do. But clearly a whole lot of people who appear to be adults can’t pull themseves above petty partisanism or put the country ahead of their wounded egos or demonstrate leadership appart from the polls… including the Republicans in Congress, not just the Democrats.
There egos shouldn’t have to be stroked before they are held accountable for doing their jobs.
By any *Historical* measure, OEF and OIF are going swimmingly well. Our *economy* is doing fabulously… not something that is going to be mentioned unless by someone arguing for open borders as they point out that illegals are *not* taking jobs from *anyone*. Any other mention of the very low unemployment numbers and job creation, etc., is met with a distainful “tell that to the people who can’t find work.”
No Historical or any other sort of “context” is required, it seems.
Nothing is stopping anyone from questioning whatever they like, therefore the fact of the questioning is beyond irrelevant. Particularly as what we see is clearly reflexively finding a way to oppose *everything* that the President does, which is why we have the curious spectacle of our water ports needing to be “secure” and our borders needing to be wide open. Because NONE OF IT is about security… it’s all about opposing Bush.
And when people *fail* to take this “worst president EVER” thing and get on board with this reflexive opposition and instead say, hey, maybe we should try to get some stuff done? Maybe we should stop squabbling over how the war is being fought and make Congress fix social security or do something united to cut the pork spending and lower taxes… it can’t happen and it’s not the Presidents fault that this is true. Ignore the man if you don’t think he’s concentrating on what is important and get the important stuff done!
But no. Instead we get stuff like #23.
Life today during a time of defensive war is nothing compared to what it was like during the slum decade of the seventies. The malaise wrought by Carter’s defeatist leadership suffocated America’s heart, mind and soul with putrid collectivist ‘feel-good’ crap.
Long live the Reagan Revolution!
and
Thank God Bush is not a defeatist.
Since this blog (if not some of its commenters) seems to be suddenly doing an about-face and coming around to my way of thinking on Bush — evidence being this post and the one above it — then I’m assuming I’m no longer banned and will now happily rejoin the conversation.
I just spat a mouthful of water all over my computer.
Oops, wrong quote! This:
made me spit water all over my screen …
If I thought for one single nanosecond that I was “coming around” to QP’s “way of thinking,” I’d do my family a favor and move to France.
Sheesh, just how much more arrogant can this guy possibly get????
Eric in Hollywood
Yeah “Sick of America Under Bush,” Carter’s compassionate alright. He never met a murderous dictator whom he didn’t express his fondness for after the two of them talked about “Peace.” That Castro sure is a real charmer. Just ask Armando Valladares.