Posted on 09/19/2002 9:05:04 AM PDT by MadIvan
Mark Steyn says the Democrats are making a hash of the election campaign, but Bush is squandering his opportunities
Aside from the anniversary and the big UN speech, last week also saw Primary Day up here and in 11 other states, which means the parties’ candidates have now been selected and we’re into the election campaign proper. How’s it going to go? To be honest, I haven’t a clue. So I consulted the experts.
From the New York Times of 1 September: ‘Domestic Concerns Take Center Stage In Congress Races, by Adam Nagourney’. But, then again, from the New York Times of 6 September: ‘With Focus Shifting To Iraq, Domestic Issues Fade, by Adam Nagourney’.
On the one hand, as Adam Nagourney (1 September model) argues, ‘The fight for control of Congress is revolving this Labor Day more around domestic than foreign concerns, with candidates battling over corporate abuses, prescription drug costs and Social Security rather than the threat of terrorism or the prospect of a war against Iraq. The emphasis on these domestic issues at what is traditionally the start of the general election season would seem to give an advantage to the Democratic party....’
On the other, as Adam Nagourney (6 September model) counters, ‘Events abroad, rather than the domestic issues pushed by Democrats this summer, could dominate the nation’s political discussion for easily half of the general election campaign this fall. Several Republicans said today that the focus on Iraq would serve the political needs of their party going into the close Congressional elections....’
What happened between 1 and 6 September is that the Democratic party woke up and realised it had been suckered. Ever since the Afghan campaign wound down the best part of a year ago, President Bush has been talking about ‘regime change’ in Iraq. Or, to be more accurate, he’s talked about how he has ‘no plans’ for regime change in Iraq ‘on my desk’. This may well be true. They could be on the sideboard, or in the filing cabinet, or stashed behind the coffee percolator. My own hunch is that they’re rolled up in the umbrella-stand. At first, in the absence of anything exciting on the war front, all those poll-tested, focus-grouped Democratic issues — prescription-drug plans for seniors, mandatory federal bicycling-helmet regulations, whatever — seemed likely to fill the gap, as the first Mr Nagourney so persuasively argued.
But, instead, as Bush carried on insisting that his desk remained free of war plans, Democrats were unable to resist piling on and started huffing that he’d jolly well better not think about invading Iraq without getting congressional approval and going to the UN and answering a number of ‘troubling questions’ party bigwigs claimed to have about the whole business. By this time, the President had gone off to play golf, leaving Democratic senators to hog the airwaves week in week out with their various ‘concerns’ about the administration’s policy on Iraq. With Mr Bush temperamentally disinclined to use the bully pulpit, the Dems seized the pulpit and started bullying him.
And then, round about Labor Day, they wised up: they’d spent so much time yakking about Saddam that all their issues had dropped off the front page.
Now, as readers may recall, I wanted Bush to invade Iraq by 11 September. Or even on 11 September. Instead of all that soft-focus moping, it would have been a lot better to see Don Rumsfeld and General Franks in a Pentagon ops room moving flags around the sandbox. I know the Iraq war’s under way unofficially — the ‘no-fly zone’ seems to have been extended to any facility the USAF and RAF have a yen to bomb — but, like a Broadway show in previews, it’s the official opening that counts, at least in political terms. So ten months after the liberation of Kabul we’re still sitting around discussing what to do for an encore. Mark Helprin, the novelist and sometime Republican speechwriter, wrote in Monday’s Wall Street Journal that ‘the President has failed the test of September 11’. His analysis touched on some themes familiar to these pages (Bush’s inability to be honest about the enemy, his continued coddling of the Saudis) and came to pretty much the same conclusion as your correspondent — that the President has squandered his opportunity and lost the momentum.
It’s fair to say that, among those of us on the Right, this is still a minority view. Take Andrew Sullivan, for example. ‘It seems clear to me in retrospect,’ he wrote the other day, ‘that Bush’s summer strategy has been really, really smart.’ Bush’s summer strategy was to take the summer off. If I follow the argument correctly, it’s that, by doing so, he allowed the Dems to overplay their hand, as the wily old fox knew they would. It is not necessary to agree with this theory to appreciate nevertheless that, up against the current Democratic leadership, even Bush’s lethargy is a potentially lethal weapon.
So now, instead of fighting Saddam, Bush and the Democrats are fighting over the calendar. It’s not so much that the Democrats are opposed to the war but that they’re opposed to talking about the war, at least before election day in November. ‘People are going to vote on the kitchen-table issues we’ve talked about for 18 months,’ maintains Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe. War, terrorism, national security, nukes are all very well but it’s simply too late to pencil ’em in for this season: the programme’s already been drawn up and we’re frightfully sorry but there’s no room for Iraq. ‘We can’t let it replace the domestic agenda,’ says Ted Kennedy, whose political priority right now is ‘subsidising outpatient drug coverage for Medicare beneficiaries’.
Out on the hustings, Democratic candidates glide past the war question like the Queen passing one of those mooning Maoris: keep smiling and pretend nothing’s happening. In this, they have the considerable assistance of the press. The American Prospect gave Minnesota leftie Senator Paul Wellstone the full Monica the other day in a drooling campaign profile broken up by sub-headings such as ‘The Draw of Conscience’. ‘“I believe in Paul’s conscience,” says Karen Jeffords, a mental-health worker.’ The senator, in return, ‘pledges’ his ‘commitment’ to federal funds for light-rail transportation. Paul’s conscience on the controversial light-rail issue seems to be in cracking form, but where does it stand on the war? Whoops, gotta run.
My guess is he’s opposed to it, but his party would rather he didn’t say. If Senator Conscience comes out against it, he’s likely to lose to the Republicans. If he comes out in favour, enough of his ‘progressive’ base will defect to the Green party to throw the election to the Republicans anyway.
Back when Bush had his feet up back at the ranch watching Austin Powers, the Democrats were telling anyone who’d listen that the President needed congressional approval in order to go to war with Iraq. This is, as it happens, nonsense. But it never occurred to them that, after a couple of weeks of their whining, Bush would go, ‘Yeah, sure, why not? I’ll swing by Congress in the next couple of days and see whether you’re ready to approve or not.’ Most Democratic senators voted against the last Gulf war. A majority would like to vote against this one, but preferably not just before they have to face the electorate. So now the party’s frantically backpedalling: good heavens, we know we said you need congressional approval, but what’s the hurry? How about if we leave it till December or the New Year? The new line is that, by bringing it to the legislature as they demanded, Bush is now ‘politicising’ the war.
‘The concerns we have about the politicisation of this whole issue are ones that still exist,’ frets Tom Daschle, the Senate majority leader and putative Democratic presidential candidate. His colleague Joe Biden is equally concerned. ‘Some issues are so serious, so important to the United States, that they should be taken as far out of the realm of politics as possible,’ he intones portentously. ‘This is one of those issues.’
You’d have to have a heart of stone not to be howling with laughter at this. Usually, when they call for something to be ‘taken out of politics’, they’re demanding that the Democrat line on, say, abortion or racial quotas be accepted as one of life’s eternal verities and the very subject retired from political contention. But in this instance what Biden means is that the Democrats should not be forced to take a line at all: the President should protect them from the political consequences of having to reveal their views. ‘Some issues are so serious, so important to the United States that they can’t be discussed in the national legislature, mainly because they might reveal the yawning chasm between me and the American people. The eve of an election campaign is no time to start forcing politicians to make our views on major issues known to voters. An election ought to be about light-rail subsidies and which Senate candidate has the more stylish toupee.’
Hang on, say the Dems, Bush only wants a war because it’s an election year. As Dick Cheney pointed out, ‘Every other year is an election year and you can’t take half the calendar and put it off-limits.’ But I’m sure even now the New York Times is commissioning Arthur Schlesinger Jr or some other venerable Ivy League Democrat flack to pen a learned essay arguing that the precedents of America’s entries into the first and second world wars suggest that it would be grossly unconstitutional to go into battle in an even-numbered year.
But, if that doesn’t stick, some congressional Democrats are saying they won’t be able to make a decision about Iraq until they hear what the United Nations thinks. The President had fun with that one: ‘It seems to me that if you’re representing the United States, you ought to be making a decision on what’s best for the United States,’ he said last Friday. ‘If I were running for office, I’m not sure how I’d explain to the American people saying, “Vote for me, and, oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I think I’m going to wait for somebody else to act.”’
Okay, if delegating your responsibilities to Kofi Annan won’t fly, it’s time to fall back on a sure-fire favourite. ‘There was nothing new in President Bush’s speech today to the United Nations General Assembly,’ wrote William Saletan in Slate. ‘There was no compelling new evidence,’ wrote Maureen Dowd in the New York Times. Where have I heard that before? Oh, right: 1998/1999, the standard Clintonite’s defence of the impeachment era. ‘There’s nothing new here. We’ve heard it all before’ works well enough when it’s interns, cigars and semen, but it doesn’t play quite so well with chemical weapons facilities and nuclear capability. It’s true that much of what Bush says could have been said four years ago. In fact, President Clinton did say it four years ago. The difference is he didn’t want to do anything about it.
Meanwhile, every ten minutes or so, the funereal Senator Daschle pops up on TV and announces gloomily that he still has ‘a number of questions’ about Iraq that the President needs to answer. It must be quite a number, because, no matter how many answers the President gives, for Daschle there are always ‘a number of questions that still remain’. Actually, the only remaining question is how much longer the Democrats’ most visible spokesman can afford to go on making himself look like a total idiot. What question does he still need answered? ‘What’s the capital of Iraq?’? Daschle fancies himself presidential material. If so, he’s supposed to have answers, not just endless unspecified questions.
The Democrat line on Iraq boils down to ‘We urgently need a debate but not for the next few months’. The longer you stick to that, the more obvious it is what you really believe. And, even taken at face value, it’s preposterous: if Democrats really have no views on the defence of the Republic, why exactly are they running for national office anyway?
But Dems don’t need to be smart, just lucky. If Bush is planning to be at war by 5 November, the GOP could do surprisingly well. But, if we have another two months of unending drumbeat but no actual fighting, who’s to say a bored public won’t drift back to Kennedy and Wellstone’s issues? November 2002 still seems most likely to preserve the 50/50 split in the American electorate.
That’s why the laughable cowardice of the Democrat position makes Bush’s inertia, faintheartedness or (as Helprin sees it) ‘irresoluteness’ all the more frustrating. The party is vulnerable in this new world. If Bush were to use the bully pulpit, he could change the dynamics of American politics. Instead, over these last six months, he’s allowed the culture to slip back into its default mode — which is to say fuzzily Democratic. The Dems may not benefit from that this November, but, if Bush doesn’t get serious about this war, time is on their side.
However, I would expect Steyn to get it. He is letting his emotional impatience for war override his observational skills.
If this was true, candidates like Thune and Cornyn would be miles ahead at this point. They're not. Nobody is connecting these races with who supports Bush or who controls the Senate. The fault lies with Bush. It's some kind of genetic inability to say anything explicitly political that Bushes have. They seems to have this need to appear "Presidential", which they equate with being non-political. Let's see how "Presidential" he seems the next two years with Democratic control of one or both houses of Congress as they dictate their entire agenda to Bush II just like they did to Bush I. I guess his Presidentiality then will consist of some lame request on his Saturday radio addresses to pwease pwease pass this bill as Daschle and Co. laugh their asses off.
Unusual? Two clunkers in a row is unheard of for Steyn. Oh well. I wanted to amplify your remarks by pointing out that conservatives also tend to make the perfect the enemy of the good. After reading Steyn's last column, I wondered about this issue of the house of Saud. Steyn is extremely interested in seeing them dealt with harshly, and that is not even on the horizon. I wonder if that is his frustration. What he wants goes well beyond just Saddam.
I know that mkaes if few and far between, but hey I vote and choices are as valid as any kool aid drinkers.
BTW did your thief not vote for his pay increase this year, did he vote to place himself under social security, did he vote to give us the same medical dental benifits as he has given veterans and military retirees.
I sure hope not.
Done. My thanks. ;)
Regards, Ivan
| It's some kind of genetic inability to say anything explicitly political that Bushes have. They seems to have this need to appear "Presidential", which they equate with being non-political.
My reading of Dubya is that he will see to it that they get squeezed, but he will not be seen doing it himself. The Democrats will be found on the floor, unconscious... but there will be no suspects or witnesses. |
Amazing how Daschle all of a sudden came around, isn't it?
Linda Chavez was on O'Reilly about 10 days ago with guest host John Kasich. Chavez said that Powell was calling the shots, blah, blah, usual anti-Powell division stuff.
Kasich interrupted her and said, "Wait a minute. I ran against this guy in the primaries and he is VERY tough. No one is driving policy except George Bush."
I thought this comment interesting because it indicated to me that Kasich gets whats going on and has a far better read on the President than many.
President Bush is very determined and tough, and does lots of arm twisting, but he doesn't do it in public. The object of his administration is to accomplish certain goals, but he isn't required to follow the preferred pundit play bookto do so. This is hard for a lot of Washington watchers because they are not used to it.
As I said the other day when Steyn's last column annoyed me, anyone who has Fox News knows that the President has been busy all summer. He has had constant meetings and public appearances. He also has been letting the democrats step into the lovely trap they made for themselves.
I recall right before he left for vacation in August of 2001, there was a lot of political talk about how everything was stalled in the Congress. Then presto! about 5 bills passed in 4 days and were ready for signature.
I suppose Steyn just thought that was a lucky coincidence as well. LOL!
I like your analogy very much, and it is a good way to look at events. Sort of a "Who was that masked man, anyway?" approach.
Excerpt:
Hang on, say the Dems, Bush only wants a war because it’s an election year. As Dick Cheney pointed out, ‘Every other year is an election year and you can’t take half the calendar and put it off-limits.’ But I’m sure even now the New York Times is commissioning Arthur Schlesinger Jr or some other venerable Ivy League Democrat flack to pen a learned essay arguing that the precedents of America’s entries into the first and second world wars suggest that it would be grossly unconstitutional to go into battle in an even-numbered year.
But, if that doesn’t stick, some congressional Democrats are saying they won’t be able to make a decision about Iraq until they hear what the United Nations thinks. The President had fun with that one: ‘It seems to me that if you’re representing the United States, you ought to be making a decision on what’s best for the United States,’ he said last Friday. ‘If I were running for office, I’m not sure how I’d explain to the American people saying, “Vote for me, and, oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I think I’m going to wait for somebody else to act.”’
Okay, if delegating your responsibilities to Kofi Annan won’t fly, it’s time to fall back on a sure-fire favourite. ‘There was nothing new in President Bush’s speech today to the United Nations General Assembly,’ wrote William Saletan in Slate. ‘There was no compelling new evidence,’ wrote Maureen Dowd in the New York Times. Where have I heard that before? Oh, right: 1998/1999, the standard Clintonite’s defence of the impeachment era. ‘There’s nothing new here. We’ve heard it all before’ works well enough when it’s interns, cigars and semen, but it doesn’t play quite so well with chemical weapons facilities and nuclear capability. It’s true that much of what Bush says could have been said four years ago. In fact, President Clinton did say it four years ago. The difference is he didn’t want to do anything about it.
Meanwhile, every ten minutes or so, the funereal Senator Daschle pops up on TV and announces gloomily that he still has ‘a number of questions’ about Iraq that the President needs to answer. It must be quite a number, because, no matter how many answers the President gives, for Daschle there are always ‘a number of questions that still remain’. Actually, the only remaining question is how much longer the Democrats’ most visible spokesman can afford to go on making himself look like a total idiot. What question does he still need answered? ‘What’s the capital of Iraq?’? Daschle fancies himself presidential material. If so, he’s supposed to have answers, not just endless unspecified questions.
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy. 
I think you can count John Cornyn (R) in to replace Phil Gramm here in Texas! 
Hang in there. When our operation against Iraq begins, Steyn will be in his usual good form, imho....
Why is it that regime change in Iraq is such a desideratum? Supposedly, it's because Saddam sponsors terrorism and has WMD. I say has WMD, not will have: this is about Iraqi disarmament according to the White House, correct? And the WMD we are talking about are not nukes, right?
Why would he sponsor terrorism? To attack the United States and its allies behind a veil of deniability, correct?
What good would WMD do him -- inasmuch as he is not suicidal? Well, he could use them to blackmail the US from responding to such clandestine attacks.
So, what would a clandestine Iraqi-sponsored terrorist strike backed up with a threat to use WMD look like, exactly?
Figured it out yet?
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.
I think this is what Steyn and Halperin were trying to get at. I don't think they are criticising Bush so much as trying to goad him into taking full advantage of the position he's got them in. "C'mon, you've got them by the throats! Squeeze! Squeeze hard! Squeeze until they stop breathing!"