Seven myths about George W. Bush

THE Democratic presidential hopefuls are already scrapping for a chance to take on George W. Bush in 2004. They all are operating on the assumption that Bush, like his father, is destined to be a one-term president.

Yes, Bush's poll numbers are slowly drifting down from last fall's meteoric levels. But his vulnerability might be a mirage.

If so, it will join at least six other assumptions about him that proved to be myths. It turns out that the politician who burst into the American consciousness in the last presidential campaign is not the person many people made him out to be.

Myth One, perhaps the most durable, is that Bush lacks smarts. In certain circles, he will always be regarded with condescension. Bush obviously bears more than a little responsibility for the persistent questions about his intelligence. His tendency to mangle his syntax when he speaks doesn't help. Nor have his efforts at self-deprecating humor, such as advertising himself as living proof that a C stud- ent could grow up to be president.

Those who have known him or engaged him for extended periods attest to his intelligence and praise his instinctive judgment. He's no genius, but not a dunce, either.

Besides, as historian Fred Greenstein has pointed out, a review of presidents during the past 75 years suggests the limits of intelligence. A highly intelligent chief executive with character flaws or other failings is likely to end up with a diminished presidency, as did Richard M. Nixon, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Myth Two is Bush's accidental presidency. Legal scholars will debate for years the Supreme Court's actions in resolving the 2000 election, and for good reason. But subsequent recounts of disputed Florida ballots by a consortium of news organizations have failed to provide conclusive proof that Al Gore won Florida. To the contrary, Bush still would have won if the recount ordered by the Florida court had not been stopped by the Supreme Court, the consortium found.

Myth Three is that Bush came to Washington determined to do away with gridlock. In the campaign, Bush seized on the public's desire to end the raw partisanship of the Clinton era (much of which came from the Republican side). Since taking office, however, he has done little to reach out. Any cooperation with Democrats has been largely symbolic, other than his mutually beneficial dealings with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy on education.

For a brief time after Sept. 11, true bipartisanship existed, as both parties helped pull the nation through a period of enormous shock. But those good feelings were the exception that proved the rule. Except for the war on terrorism, bipartisanship won't be back.

Myth Four is one reason why. Bush's aides have promoted the idea that he is focused like a laser on fighting terror. Like the other myths, this one has more than a grain of truth. The campaign against terrorism has redefined Bush from a tax-cutter to a wartime chief executive. Who would have predicted that the man who didn't know the name of the president of Pakistan during the campaign would be transformed into a foreign-policy president?

But Bush is also a fierce partisan and is devoting considerable time and energy to politics. There is growing evidence that he is the most political president of recent times. He has never really stopped campaigning, except for a relatively brief stretch after Sept. 11. And, according to one recent calculation, he is surpassing Clinton as a political fund-raiser and in the number of political events he has attended at this stage in his presidency. Not incidentally, many of the states he is visiting to help other Republican candidates are also essential to his re-election. Any president elected by the skin of his teeth would be foolish to ignore the electoral map, and when it comes to politics, George W. is nobody's fool.

Compared with Reagan

Myth Five is that Bush is another Ronald Reagan. This idea, quietly but aggressively pushed by Bush's advisers to mollify the conservative base, largely revolves around superficial similarities between the two. Like Reagan, Bush seems to find solitude and strength at the ranch. There, aides say, he enjoys clearing brush, which just happened to be Reagan's favorite chore.

Like Reagan, Bush is hooked on Camp David as an escape from the pressures of Washington. As in the Reagan era, the presidential work week often ends early, at around 3:30 on Friday afternoons, when Bush's helicopter lifts off from the White House lawn bound for Maryland's Catoctin Mountains.

There are other, less flattering, similarities that Bush image-makers don't advertise. Like Reagan, Bush has a short attention span. Like Reagan, he often has little patience for policy making. But the differences outweigh the similarities: Bush gave the speech of his life to Congress after the terrorist attacks. But he is not in Reagan's league as a communicator, one of the keys to presidential leadership. Reagan, a self-made man, spent a lifetime developing a set of core conservative beliefs that guided his actions. Bush, the heir to a political dynasty, is more of a pragmatist.

The closely related Myth Six is that Bush heads the most conservative administration in modern times. In fact, despite his rhetoric about limiting government, the federal establishment is rapidly expanding. Washington is creating the largest new government agency since World War II - the Transportation Security Administration. Under Bush, federal spending is headed for the biggest increase since the 1960s.

Nakedly political

On the core ideological issue of free trade, Bush stunned conservatives recently when, for nakedly political reasons, he abandoned his conservative principles to prop up the U.S. steel industry. Unlike the Reagan White House, there are no staunch conservative ideologues around Bush. According to one conservative with close ties to the administration, the most conservative people in this White House are Vice President Dick Cheney and, possibly, Bush.

As for Cheney, Myth Seven is that he'll be dumped from the ticket in 2004. It is said that Bush has established himself as a man of substance and no longer needs to fall back on Cheney's experience. There are rumors that Bush might pick Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, as his running mate, or Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld or Secretary of State Colin L. Powell.

Any of those might be seriously considered if Cheney is unable, for health reasons, to serve. At the moment, though, he's looking healthier than ever. He also remains the administration's indispensable man. There are no major decisions or issues that he is not involved with, despite the understandable, and remarkably successful, White House effort to play down his role, to avoid overshadowing the president.

Cheney, the most consequential vice president ever, has turned traditional questions about his office on their head.

When Bush's father served as Reagan's vice president, the issue was whether he had any influence. Finally, as Bush Senior's presidential campaign approached, his staff leaked examples of decisions he had influenced. For Cheney, the reverse is the case. He is so intricately involved in everything that goes on, the question isn't whether he has influence; it's whether Bush has been willing to overrule Cheney on matters of national importance. When '04 rolls around, look for the Bush team to reveal a few times that the president rejected Cheney's advice and was proved right - if such cases exist.

Determined to win

During the past seven months, Bush's firm, almost visceral commitment to combating terrorism has become the signal purpose of his presidency. Ultimately, he'll be judged by his ability to meet that challenge.

But he has not abandoned his determination to win politically. That has been a Bush imperative since he began laying the foundation for his presidential run while still in his first term as governor of Texas.

Preventing a return to chaos in Afghanistan, capturing more al-Qaida leaders, stemming the Mideast bloodletting, repairing the damage to U.S. prestige in the Arab world and keeping the pressure on Iraq are all on his daunting "to do" list for the next six months.

Whether Bush can maintain popular support and dim the hopes of his Democratic pursuers, depends on his navigating those churning currents overseas, while keeping America economically secure and free from terrorism. If he can do all that, he'll enter the second half of his term in a very powerful position to prove the Democratic mythologists wrong.

Paul West is chief of the Washington bureau of The Sun.

Certainly many good points. But I wonder about this:

He has never really stopped campaigning, except for a relatively brief stretch after Sept. 11. And, according to one recent calculation, he is surpassing Clinton as a political fund-raiser and in the number of political events he has attended at this stage in his presidency.

I simply can't imagine that this is true. Clinton went to three or four fund raisers a week for eight years. Bush may possibly have raised more money, but not be selling the Lincoln Bedroom or going on the rubber chicken circuit.

Maybe I've missed something, but it seems to me that Bush has gone for weeks and months at a time without campaigning--very much unlike clinton.

This simply seems untrue, unless you count as political events Bush's holding little-league ball games or visiting schools and national parks. But that's not the same thing as celebrity dinners.

One of Bush's greatest advantages is that he is following Clinton. After 8 years of Clintonian Hell, George and Laura are such a pleasure to watch. When Bill-Hill were president, I wore out the mute switch on 4 TV controllers. I could not stand to see or hear either of them. Laura acts and looks like a First Lady is suppose to. While there are things I do not agree with, I do think George is what Presidents are suppose to be.

For Cheney, the reverse is the case. He is so intricately involved in everything that goes on, the question isn't whether he has influence; it's whether Bush has been willing to overrule Cheney on matters of national importance. When '04 rolls around, look for the Bush team to reveal a few times that the president rejected Cheney's advice and was proved right - if such cases exist.

I want to ask 'Why?'. I mean, this (even if it were true) would be stupid. If something sounds false. And it's negative sounds false. It's usually made up.
This sounds like he just made it up.

I think this is the key - "And, according to one recent calculation, he is surpassing Clinton as a political fund-raiser and in the number of political events he has attended at this stage in his presidency."

Clintbilly may not have attended as many early on in his presidency, but obviously made up for lost time later on!

There is NO WAY that is true. This author is making myths up as he goes along. Klinton had a total of two, yes the number 2, cabinet meetings the year he in the Monica story. The first meeting he told his cabinet that none of the stories were true and the second meeting he told them he lied to them at the first meeting. The rest of the time he spent at fundraisers and out of the country.

Regarding Myth Two: Did anybody notice that this consortium finished work some eight months after the inauguration? It is not practical to count and recount into the new president’s term. SCOTUS made the point that timeliness does matter.

Exactly. Clinton was the first president in American history who never stopped campaigning. One reason the Republicans lost the 1996 election was that by the time they woke up clinton had already spent a hundred million dollars demonizing Newt Gingrich and the Republican Revolution. Dole never had a chance. The campaign was over before the Republicans realized it had started.

Dole never had a chance. The campaign was over before the Republicans realized it had started.

Yes, but it was not only that Clinton campaigned. A sitting president has so much media at his fingertips and no economy issues at the time. And don't forget that sometimes Dole was his own worst enemy.

Who would have predicted that the man who didn't know the name of the president of Pakistan during the campaign would be transformed into a foreign-policy president?

Dubya also got it wrong in one of the presidential debates...

"'All three of the men responsible for the [James] Byrd murder will pay the ultimate price, they will pay with their lives,' Texas governor George W. Bush told the audience during the second debate... . As the credits began to roll on the second debate, Bush operatives had rushed out to the press room. They needed to amend the candidate's statement, they said; only two of the killers had been sentenced to death, not all three [the other got life]." SOURCE: A Death in Texas by Dina Temple-Raston, Henry Holt, 2002, page 261-2.

foreverfree

This simply seems untrue, unless you count as political events Bush's holding little-league ball games or visiting schools and national parks. But that's not the same thing as celebrity dinners.

Their fund-raising and campaign styles are vastly different. clintoon would summon the "pockets" to the WH, golf games, etc. Or have celebrity heavy events. Bush goes out to schools, work places, etc. then attends dinners for local candidates, with ordinary Americans in attendance.
clintoon raised a lot of "soft" money through bagmen, esp. the Asians. But no one can match Bush for the "hard" money collections from individual Americans. Those $500-$1,000/plate dinners sell out everywhere.

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.

Seven myths about George W. Bush

The president has managed to refute many of the assumptions made about him before and after he entered the Oval Office.