Posted on 12/03/2005 6:17:25 AM PST by Pokey78
WE NOW KNOW WHAT WAS behind President Bush's mysterious refusal for so many months to respond to Democratic attacks on his Iraq policy--a refusal that came at great political cost to himself and to the American effort in Iraq. It wasn't that Bush was too focused on Social Security reform to bother. Nor did he believe Iraq was a drag on his presidency and should be downplayed. Rather, Bush had made a conscious decision after his reelection to be "nonpolitical" on the subject of Iraq. It is a decision he now regrets. And has reversed.
Here's how a senior White House aide explains the decision not to answer criticism of the administration's course in Iraq: "The strategic decision was to be forward-looking. The public was more interested in the future and not the past, since it was just hashed over during the election." The president didn't ignore the subject of Iraq entirely. He delivered a half-dozen speeches on Iraq and the war on terror, including an evening, prime-time address, in the first 10 months of 2005. He just didn't rebut partisan attacks.
Harm was done. "Obviously the bombardment of misleading ads and the earned media by MoveOn et al. had an impact," the Bush aide says, "and culminated during the Libby indictment and the [Democratic] stunt of the closed session of the Senate" on prewar intelligence. "That's when we pivoted."
By then--and we're talking about early November--Bush's job approval had plummeted. So had public support for the Iraq war. And there's a direct correlation
between the two. The president stood at 51 percent job approval in the Gallup poll when he was inaugurated to a second term last January and 52 percent in the Fox News survey. Now he's at 37 percent in Gallup, 42 percent in Fox.
Support for his Iraq policy did not fall as precipitously, but it was in gradual decline, and that accelerated. Gallup asks interviewees if the Iraq intervention was worth it. Forty-six percent said yes last January, 38 percent in November. When only a little more than one third of the country believes the most important national security policy of the era is worth pursuing, the president has a huge political problem. Even Republican members of Congress were getting queasy. Bush, with less sway in Washington today than 10 months ago, has been hard-put to reassure them.
Though the White House hasn't said so, there was more to the president's no-response decision than aides have let on. In Bush's defense, he's never routinely responded to attacks. And the successful election in Iraq on January 30 was followed by several months of euphoria about Iraq. There was hope the insurgency would collapse. It didn't.
I think the president, after a contentious first term, wanted to soften the partisan edge of his image and be more statesmanlike. His speeches on Iraq, tough-minded as they were, reflected that. And so did his willingness to reject cues from his conservative base of supporters and to offer, in public concessions, to compromise with his opponents.
In short, it was a purple detour, a blend of Republican red and Democratic blue. A White House official insists there was no specific decision to be less hard-nosed on domestic issues in the president's second term and drift to the center. But that happened, just as his approach to Democrats on Iraq was easing up. A mere coincidence? No way.
Next to Iraq, the most controversial item on Bush's agenda, especially among Democrats, is tax cuts. At the outset of 2005, he decided to put off a drive in Congress to make his deep tax cuts permanent, a move that upset conservatives. Later, the Bush administration steered the presidential tax commission away from radical tax reform. He also put aside the proposed amendment banning gay marriage, another red flag to Democrats and liberals but a favorite issue of conservatives.
On Social Security reform, he broke with his own strategy for winning congressional approval. The plan was to agree, but only as a last resort, to raise the ceiling on the amount of personal income subject to payroll taxes. Instead, Bush announced early on that he'd agree to lift the ceiling. He also backed progressive benefits reduction--the well-off would be hit the hardest--which is opposed by conservatives.
In filling vacancies on the Supreme Court, the president chose conservative nominees who wouldn't ignite instant opposition by Democrats. He took responsibility for the slow response to Hurricane Katrina, though the mayor of New Orleans and governor of Louisiana were more to blame. And so on. Overall, while Bush is a conservative, he often didn't act like one.
The nonpolitical strategy was a failure. Democrats picked up on none of his overtures. Once they began a campaign of accusing Bush of lying to the country about prewar intelligence to justify invading Iraq--an impeachable offense--Bush abandoned the strategy. The pivotal moment came after nine months of unanswered charges by Democrats
concerning prewar intelligence. The president was a slow learner.
On Veteran's Day, November 11, Bush fired back. And he and Vice President Cheney have continued to do so quite effectively. His poll numbers, measured by Fox News after the president's speech last week laying out his "plan for victory" in Iraq, showed strong improvement. Sure, it's only one poll, but his approval rating jumped six points in the Fox News survey, from 36 percent to 42 percent.
Is this the start of a Bush comeback? Could be. And there's even stronger evidence of a turnaround. Until Democrats began rallying to the call for the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq, the debate was between Bush and the facts on the ground. Now it's between the president, who wants to withdraw troops when conditions in Iraq allow, and Democrats, who want to set a fast timetable for pullout and stick to it, no matter what. This debate Bush should win.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
"If Carl Rove was such a genius, this would have happened a LONG time ago."
Not really. In politics it is timing that counts. As we get closer to the 2006 election cycle, the rhetoric from both sides will ramp up.
In a way this is why the Republicans didn't cry about the Alito nomination going into 2006. Rove is not a moron. He knows what he is doing and that explains alot of things.
This proves one thing: The Democrats have the same mindset as the terrorist. Any non response is perceived as a weakness.
You forget that GWB want's whats best for this country.
After he was elected with a majority and the Iraq position was endorsed, why not devote six months on trying to quell the partisan fever in Washington?
His own supporters are the ones that screwed up. No one else can speak up in support of the war? Do we have to have GWB lead us by our little hands? If more pundits, politicians, and just plain people would stand up and call the Dim's on their lies on a daily basis, GWB wouldn't have to.
I don't agree with reaching out to the Dims. I knew the Dems wouldn't respond and I wouldn't have done it. I wouldn't give those SOBs air if they were in a jug.
I am not the President of the United States either.
However, this has allowed Democrats to show themselves for who they truly are. That is the worst thing that could happen to them. It just took some blood in the water for them to expose it.
The timing of this helps conservatives.
Not my comparison. I picked that up in the Presidents speech. Honoring Cpl. Starr was not only appropriate, but a well deserved stick in the eye for the NYT.
Bye the way, you cannot read the test of the speech, or the truth about Cpl. Starr in the NYT, AP, or Reuters. Both are rejected.
LOL.
Good morning!
How many times must Republicans learn the lesson that their enemies despise them? That we must remain always on the offensive?
Morning, A. That remark hit my funny bone :)
In case you hadn't noticed, politics isn't just about getting re-elected, it's about getting things done. We don't have tort refrom, we don't have social security reform, we don't have substantive regulatory reform, and much of that is because of weak standing on the part of the President. If we don't get it done now, what makes you so confident that we'll have a Republican successor?
Politics have consequences: we can either manufacture more dependents or we can give people the chance to learn the blessings of liberty first hand. If we don't change the law, we won't get that opportunity and will deserve what we get.
My mom is a card, and that is one of her favorites...
Glad it tickled you.
His supporters HAVE been speaking up. Conservative activists have been combating the likes of "Mother" Sheehan and others. Conservative talk show hosts have been fighting the good fight as well.
Now, GOP leaders who SHOULD be speaking up (like Frist), are wusses. However, the simple truth is, that they won't fight at all without strong leadership at the top. It sucks, but it is true. If they don't see their President waging war against his critics, they won't risk their necks to help. Politicians are survivial-oriented creatures and will run like hell from a President who lets himself look like a lame-duck under seige.
Fact is the lackluster response to Katrina and the Miers nomination to the Supreme Court were blunders by Bush. These missteps alienated his base and set people to wondering if Bush is that damn dumb about Katrina and Miers maybe there's something to the 'Rat criticism of his handling of Iraq. The administrations new tactic of taking on their critics and responding quickly and in strong terms is a winner.
Sure, as long as it suited their agenda. The trashing of Bush during the Meir nomination was a good example where most "conservative" pundits stood.
For the politicians, because they are wimps, gives them no excuse. Most of the House and a few of the Senators owe their seats to GWB's coat tails.
If it wasn't for Rush Limbaugh, there would be no leadership at all on the Republican side except for the President.
Yea, I'll believe it when I see it.
The Republicans will always be in this situation as long as they continue to treat the Democrats as merely their "opponents". The modern Democrat party is our enemy and the enemy of American. We had better start treating them that way.
If we allow the left to dictate Iraq...we'll have another NAM...we won every battle there, but the early pull out is the why of NAM.
This is unbelievable. To even consider that he could lead a "nonpolitical war" with an opposition full of rabid snarling dogs snapping their jaws at his neck?
Much as I love and respect George Bush, he has some peculiar gaps in his thinking process--much as his father did for that matter. They both seem to have blind spots when it comes to perceiving the viciousness of their enemies. This might be euphemized as wanting to believe in and see the best in people, but it is not a virtue. It is a defect in judgment.
Agree. The other issue is with 160,000 troops on the deck in Iraq and he has allowed the Dems to undermine them for a couple of years now. That situation has made conditions more dangerous for them. I don't see why he doesn't have a Clintonesque War room to get out ahead of these issues.
He's been backpedling since the election in 2000. Karl Roove should have been sent packing a long time ago.
Agree. The other issue is with 160,000 troops on the deck in Iraq and he has allowed the Dems to undermine them for a couple of years now. That situation has made conditions more dangerous for them. I don't see why he doesn't have a Clintonesque War room to get out ahead of these issues.
He's been backpedaling since the election in 2000. Karl Roove should have been sent packing a long time ago.
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.