Posted on 05/22/2004 8:31:54 AM PDT by Lando Lincoln
It's been a rough stretch for President Bush. The story in Iraq turned sour in key cities like Fallujah and Najaf. Then the Abu Ghraib prison scandal hit. The economy has turned up, but nobody seems to notice.
In a few public events -- such as the Tim Russert interview on "Meet the Press" -- the president has sometimes appeared halting and defensive. But not so at the White House this past Thursday.
At a press briefing I attended in the Roosevelt Room, George W. Bush showed a side of himself we haven't seen in a while. He was tough, decisive and strong. He communicated commanding visions on both Iraq and the economy, and he had a strong grasp of detail.
Bush's confident side doesn't always come through. But on this day, smack between a Capitol Hill appearance to bolster Republican morale and an Oval Office meeting with his generals, the commander in chief was in charge.
Bush stated at the outset that he was very optimistic about the war on terror -- that he believed the United States has "a good strategy to achieve the objective of a free Iraq." He noted that there have been tough moments, and tough images on television. But he made it clear that he's unyielding in the pursuit of his wartime goals.
On the economy, he said there would be no tax increases. Nor would there be economic isolationism on trade. He repeated his support for personal-retirement accounts to reform Social Security and emphasized a commitment to stopping frivolous lawsuits.
"I inherited a bad economy," he said, noting that former GE CEO Jack Welsh advised him in late 2000 that recession was imminent. "So we acted immediately after taking office to make the U.S. the best place to do business in the world."
I asked the president why the polls don't give him more credit on the economy. You'd think they would, given that the Bush tax cuts ignited an economic boom, along with record corporate dividend payments and recent breakout job-creation. Bush said there's more work to do in getting the message out, but he quickly added that "difficult TV imagery" has created negative thoughts, putting risk capital on hold. Clearly, Bush sees the link between Iraq and the economy.
I also asked the president if he would veto the pork-barrel highway bill before Congress. He left this door open, but it wasn't clear he understood the symbolic importance of this vote. Sixty-five percent of likely voters, according to a recent Rasmussen poll, say lower federal spending is today's top fiscal priority. To control government spending, more Americans put their trust in Kerry (41 percent) than Bush (40 percent).
The president was more decisive on oil. "If Congress would pass my energy bill, we'd have 1.5 million more barrels a day," he asserted.
Bush believes the root cause of $40 oil is rising demand from a strong global economy, and he refuses to sell oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. He believes that's a political gimmick. He noted that in 2000, President Clinton sold oil from SPRO at $35 a barrel. The price briefly fell to $28, but climbed back to $35 only a few weeks later.
According to SPRO, the reserve will remove about 8 million barrels from the market for its inventory in the next three months. That's about 100,000 barrels a day. Saudi Arabia, meanwhile, is pushing for an OPEC production increase of 2.5 million more barrels a day. Clearly the president is relying on his Saudi influence.
But the former oil man suggested an interesting scenario. Should the future price of oil drop below the spot price (they are nearly equal now), it would make sense to hold back purchases and lower the oil cost by using futures. He called this an oil hedge. Traders call this backwardization. It's a rare president who understands this level of detail.
Will events turn around in Iraq? More U.S. troops are headed into the war zone, and the president is outlining a detailed strategy on the June 30 transition to Iraqi sovereignty. How about the economy at home? The low-tax Bush boom certainly has legs. Economists who expect a second-half slowdown will be very surprised when the recovery speeds up.
The president does have more to do, however. He should make a strong effort to hold down government spending and keep renewing his pledge to hold low tax rates where they are. He should work hard to connect with the politically powerful investor class, emphasizing his goal of expanded personal savings accounts.
There will be numerous polls between now and November, but the democratized stock market will ultimately tell the story. Just as a declining market foreshadowed Al Gore's defeat four years ago, a rising market in the next five months will accurately predict a big Bush victory.
A "Thanks for a great post!" bump
Let's hope Monday night's address will be another "At-A-Boy". Me thinks it's time for another Ace. Well timed as always.
Here's hoping it's not too little too late.
Overall, this article is pretty good, but the last two paragraphs and this sentence in particular leave a bad taste. Maybe a guy who writes political commentary for a living thinks that everything revolves around the stock market, but for most working Americans, the stock market is not the factor that controls our quality of life. The stock market can be great, but most of us will be suffering if we lose our jobs. A rising stock market doesn't guarantee a good job market. A bad stock market doesn't necessarily mean a bad job market. Republicans who count on this type of strategy to win in November may end up very disappointed.
Al Gore lost in 2000 because people were finally sick of everything that they saw from the Clinton administration. At some level, they realized that we weren't stronger or healthier than we had been eight years before. They were tired of the lies. They were tired of the double-talk. Al Gore wasn't as smooth as Bill Clinton was, and he just couldn't pull off the lie. A declining economy hurt him, but the economy by itself would not have kept Al Gore from winning.
President Bush will win in November if people realize that we can only have security through strentgh. We can only have security by beating our enemy, the Muslim jihadist thugs. We may not make significant progress towards that goal between now and November, but the president's re-election will be an endorsement of his direction on this issue. On other issues, the election will be the same big government versus bigger government argument that we've had for years. Those who want only big government will support the president. Those who want even bigger government will support Kerry. Those who really want small government will support the president because they know he's better than Kerry. The stock market will not be the most important factor.
It's booming all over the place. Where do you live?
I love Larry Kudlow and I hope his last paragraph is accurate.
Move to Vegas, boom town
Yeah, that's about right. Everyone move to Vegas before it's too late.
Poll says that the most liberal in the Senate will be a bigger cutter of spending than the so-called conservative that the pubbies elected. See what you get for leaders when you limit yourselves to thinking that you must vote in the "Two-Party Cartel". Would you stand for an ice cream store that only sold two flavors or only 2 automobiles that were high priced & used much gas. I think not but you will allow your whole dealings in goverment to be controlled by these two corrupt parties. Amazing.
It's booming in Arizona.
Good for you, maybe it will catch on here, eventually.
Booming in Central PA..
More 'Help Wanted' signs out there than I can ever remember.
My company where I work got several big contracts this year that they missed out on the last two years, and they started hiring at the earliest point of the year than they ever have! They typically begin hiring heavy in June-July in preparation for a heaving August-Sept-Oct, but they started back in Early March and still can't get enough people to fill the $10/hr jobs that don't require anything but a high school diploma.
The Pennsylvania Careerlink website is flooded with job listings, the most that I've ever seen since they brought it on a few years ago.
First, liberal Democrats can always claim that they want to cut spending when they aren't in power. When they are in power, they will spend more than Republicans do. You can't compare what Republicans actually do with what Democrats claim that they'll do. Accurate comparisons depend on comparing words with words and actions with actions.
Your ice cream store and automobile analogies are flawed. If all the ice cream stores sold only two flavors or if there were only two companies selling ice cream and each had only one flavor, I just wouldn't buy ice cream unless I liked that flavor. With ice cream stores, I have a choice whether or not to buy ice cream. If enough people are dissatisfied, the ice cream companies will just go out of business. With the government, I don't have a choice whether or not to live under the government. Whether I like it or not, the government will continue to exist and will continue to exercise power over me. If I'm stuck with two "flavors" of bad politicians, I don't have the choice of just walking out of the store and not buying either. I'd be amazed if you really didn't understand that fact.
The same is true of cars. I have less choice about whether to own a car, but if none of the current choices in new cars is good, I can continue repairing the old ones and wait for something better. I can walk out of a dealership that doesn't offer me the choices that I want. I can't walk out of the country because neither party is fielding a true, small-government presidential candidate this year. The government will continue operating and continue growing regardless of my desire to see it shrink. The problem is not with the political parties. The problem is with the people who want more and more from government. Maybe you and your circle of friends aren't like that. I congratulate you on having good friends, but until you persuade more citizens to your way of thinking, your way of thinking won't sway policy.
If you don't want to vote for George Bush, that's your choice, and I'm not trying to attack you for that choice. You're welcome to vote for whoever is running in Howard Philips's party, to vote the Libertarian candidate, or to vote for whomever you please. I hope you won't just stay home because every vote for someone other than Kerry is important. Furthermore, I hope you can find at least one conservative candidate somewhere who you can support and who has a chance of winning. We need victories at every level.
I don't know who your are BUT, I like what you say!!!!
Keep it up SIR!
Thanks, it's always nice to hear words of encouragement.
Here in Alabama, buildings and businesses and malls and car factories are being built EVERYWHERE. The traffic in this formerly SLOW part of the country is getting ridiculous.
bttt
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.