Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pump Up the Volume: Finally the "nonpolitical" White House gets wise
The Weekly Standard ^ | 12/12/05 | Fred Barnes

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.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush43; fredbarnes; immigrationplan; issues; term2; victorystrategy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last
To: shield
You are 100 correct on this point. We do not need another Viet Nam for us to become a second class nation. To do that all we need is for the republicans to continue to let the dimorats and the MSM continue with their b.s. and their anti-anything American charade they continue to spew forth. Until Mr. Bush gets a backbone and some cajones to call them by name what they really are, and gets support from our supposed leaders in the Congress, the malaise we fear will continue to eat away at our social fabric, and Iraq will fail. Then what will we do with Iran?
41 posted on 12/03/2005 8:22:48 AM PST by geezerwheezer (get up boys, we're burnin' daylight!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
The old saying in DC is "if you want a friend get a dog".

W needs a stable of attack dogs that bark and bite. :-)
42 posted on 12/03/2005 8:25:47 AM PST by cgbg (MSM and Democratic treason--fifty years and counting...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: geezerwheezer

Im sorry if this is true the Republicans and Bush are all idiots and not worth support.After the Bias in the press has been so profoundly proven how can any sound thinking person think they can proceed in a position like President of the United States in a nonpolitical posture and survive .
These republicans have got to be brain dead.What planet are they on! You might as well just turn over the reins of govt to the enemy.The press will bury you


43 posted on 12/03/2005 8:33:33 AM PST by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
This is going to get interesting.

It is my opinion that the Dems are going to soon be forced into doing a 180 on Iraq. That the White House is now actively defending itself is not just encouraging but a sound strategic move as well. Things are about to chance in Iraq, and the Dems have positioned themselves on the wrong side of the issue.

Can they change? Will the MSM let them pull it off? Will Rove capitalize on the flip flop?

Stay tuned. Time will tell...

Cheers,

knews hound

Latest Article "Cutting them off at the knees"

44 posted on 12/03/2005 8:34:40 AM PST by knews_hound (i know my typing sucks, i do it one handed ! (caps are especially tough))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris1

"As soon as GWB relaunched his shamnesty plan in February of this year, he was done and lame duck. He has no one to blame but himself."

My sentiments exactly!


45 posted on 12/03/2005 8:41:21 AM PST by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SIDENET
What the Hell were they thinking?

Early in 2005, there was a lot of concern about the level of acrimony in politics. This was the WH attempt to be a "uniter, not a divider". What they did not consider is that the DemocRAT party has been completely hijacked by world socialists who hate America's power. These people are similar to terrorists in that you cannot appease them or negoitiate with them. I think the President's people are starting to realize that.
46 posted on 12/03/2005 8:41:32 AM PST by advance_copy (Stand for life, or nothing at all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: A.Hun

"You forget that GWB want's whats best for this country."

Sometimes it seems as though what GWB wants is what's best for Mexico.


47 posted on 12/03/2005 8:47:10 AM PST by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
The Left's cynical and hateful attacks and accusations (Bush 'lied') needed a response when they first started. Now that Bush is finally getting around to it it seems disingenuous. I'll wait and see where he takes it.
48 posted on 12/03/2005 8:52:42 AM PST by manwiththehands (Democrats and the MSM: lies and hypocrisy on steroids)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris1

Intern?


49 posted on 12/03/2005 8:56:33 AM PST by newfreep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: lexington minuteman 1775
The number one thing the President needs to learn from this and folks like Limbaugh have been saying for eons. If you make nicey nicey with Democrats, they never reciprocate, they attack. So move forward. Defend your position Mr. President and the American people will follow. It is that simple.

Another way to say it is "never abandon your allies in an attempt to placate your enemies".

50 posted on 12/03/2005 9:01:18 AM PST by Christian4Bush ("We've lost 2000+ of our best in three yrs. We lost 3000+ in THREE HOURS on 9-11." Matalin to Couric)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: manwiththehands

"Now that Bush is finally getting around to it it seems disingenuous."

Exactly! The lies have been projected so many times they've become fact. He'll have three times the work now to rewrite history.

For instance when the Wilson trip and the "sixteen words" issue came up instead of folding they should have issued the following statement:

"The Niger information came from solid British Intelligence and we have no reason not to believe it. We do not know Joseph Wilson, as he is not an employee of the US Government. We've asked the Attorney General to look into who sent him to Niger and who authorized the leaking of this material."


51 posted on 12/03/2005 9:11:08 AM PST by Wristpin ( Varitek says to A-Rod: "We don't throw at .260 hitters.....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

bttt


52 posted on 12/03/2005 9:16:25 AM PST by PogySailor (Semper Fi to the men of 3/1, 1st Marines in Al Anbar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Overall, while Bush is a conservative, he often didn't act like one.

That is the definition of a RINO.

53 posted on 12/03/2005 9:17:04 AM PST by randog (What the....?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newfreep

Wrong president! Cigar boy gets that one.


54 posted on 12/03/2005 3:52:27 PM PST by chris1 ("Make the other guy die for his country" - George S. Patton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

You are right. Politics is about getting things done. Problem is getting things done doesn't necessarily get you reelected.

There is only three ways to get things done in politics.

1. You have such an overwhelming majority that the other party cannot stop you.

2. You own the courts so if number one comes into play, you use number two to overturn it.

3. You have term limits so it takes raising money and special interests out of the equation of getting things done according to an agenda.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-259.html

Interesting article on term limits.


55 posted on 12/03/2005 7:11:16 PM PST by EQAndyBuzz (Liberal Talking Point - Bush = Hitler ... Republican Talking Point - Let the Liberals Talk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Politics have been dividing this country, and President Bush wanted to bring the country back together. He assumed the dems wanted the same thing. They do not.

He either fights them, or we all lose. It's time to get the truth about Iraq out. Time for Americans to see what we've been fighting for and what a difference it has made. It's time to start sharing some of the successes with the American people. Whoever was advising him should get another job.

56 posted on 12/03/2005 7:43:16 PM PST by McGavin999 (Reporters write the truth, Journalists write stories.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antisocial

I disagree. If he did, he would be fighting for open borders as many on the left do.

He has an immigration plan, it just does not satisfy the nationalist wing of the conservative movement. To go farther than GWB's position will take a sea change in the Congress and the next administration (If a "close the borders" candidate could be elected.)

The President's position on immigration has been well known. The fact that he is sticking to it is expected.


57 posted on 12/04/2005 4:19:57 AM PST by A.Hun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
I just love getting lectured by the completely clueless.

There is only three ways to get things done in politics.

Well, you are conveniently missing one more:

Have a compelling idea with overwhelming public support. I promise you, if Bush truly wanted to reform immigration, Congress would roll over in a heartbeat.

Interesting article on term limits.

Before you babble about term limits for too long, I suggest you heed the experience of a State that has had them, California. What we got was a batch of clueless idiots with no way to know where they truly stood beholden only to those with money.

Great idea. /s

58 posted on 12/04/2005 10:05:37 AM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
Oh, and I remind you that, contrary to your cowardly truisms, Reagan got a LOT done despite having both houses of Congress against him. If Bush had the guts or inclination to rein in his regulatory agencies, he could accomplish a lot more too.

He doesn't.

59 posted on 12/04/2005 10:14:26 AM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

"I just love getting lectured by the completely clueless."

First off it is you who is coming off as holier than thou. Your utopian goal of how politics should be is commendable yet unrealistic. Politics is about ideas. Unfortunately influence peddling and special interests drives politics and the ideas and will of the people is an afterthought. That is because politicans hide and won't pass laws that will remove them from power after two terms.

I am sorry you have clueless politicians who do not know who they are beholden to. They might try the people of the state that elected them in the first place. Which is what you are preaching to me.

In my state of New Jersey, we don't have term limits. We have criminals for politicians that clueless people continue to elect because the "D" is stapled to their arm.


60 posted on 12/05/2005 6:36:10 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz (Liberal Talking Point - Bush = Hitler ... Republican Talking Point - Let the Liberals Talk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson