Analysis: Saddam's capture boosts Bush

UPI ^ | Dec. 14, 2003 | Martin Sieff

[FairOpinion]

WASHINGTON, Dec. 14 (UPI) -- The dramatic capture of Saddam Hussein gives an enormous personal boost to President George W. Bush but, ironically, it may not change next year's presidential race at all.

That is in part because the president already enjoyed a commanding lead in the polls over his most likely Democratic challenger, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean. But also because the capture of Saddam, while dramatic and emotionally satisfying, does not change the basic dynamics of the president's political position.

Were the election to be held today, Bush would sweep home in a landslide. Recent polls have shown him leading Dean by up to 11 percentage points, as much as 52 percent to 41 percent. The two main areas where the president may be vulnerable are a dramatic economic crisis stemming from his administration's financial policies before next November or a sweeping increase in U.S. casualties, especially fatalities in Iraq.

Both those considerations look unlikely at the moment and if neither of them occurs, the president is probably home clean. However, if either of them hits hard, especially on the domestic economic front, then no capture, trial or even execution of Saddam is likely to make any difference whatsoever.

The one area where Saddam's capture may really boost the president domestically is if it leads to a dramatic falling off in guerrilla attacks inflicting casualties on U.S. troops in Iraq. If the Iraqi guerrilla resistance is indeed tightly centrally directed and run by Saddam loyalists, this will probably happen very fast.

However, if, on the contrary, the resistance is decentralized and reflects widespread genuine anti-American and anti-Western sentiments, and if al-Qaida type Islamic extremists are motivating a significant section of it, then that is far less likely. Either way, we are likely to see soon.

Already, Conventional Wisdom is stating that Saddam's capture is likely to validate and strengthen those Democrats who voted for the crucial war resolution in Congress: Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts, John Edwards of North Carolina and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, and Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri. But in practice, the opposite is likely to be the case.

For sentiment against the war and against Bush's policies are now so intensely and generally felt among the Democratic grassroots that a single event like the capture of Saddam, dramatic though it is, will not change it. Indeed, it is precisely the campaigns of these four leading congressional Democrats that have been foundering disastrously up to this point.

Therefore, even if the capture of Saddam revives sentiments among pro-war Democrats, they are far more likely to throw their support to former Gen. Wesley Clark, who, while losing ground to the surging Dean, has been presenting himself precisely as the one Dem candidate most capable of blasting Bush on national security and defense issues.

And Clark's central premise, which he hammers home repeatedly, has not been invalidated or discredited to the slightest degree by the capture of Saddam. That is his contention that in their Iraq obsession, the Bush team have disastrously neglected the primary goals of U.S. domestic homeland security and the war against al-Qaida and its associated groups.

Lieberman Sunday lost no time in jumping on the issue in a last-ditch effort to jump-start his collapsing campaign before it implodes in New Hampshire, where polls show him trailing badly in the Jan. 27 primary. "If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today, not in prison and the world would be a more dangerous place," he said.

But, ironically, in contrast to Clark, a very recent convert to the Democrats, such comments may make Lieberman come across as a disloyal figure in party terms, repeating a classic Bush and GOP line. In that case his attempt to capitalize on Saddam's capture may just rebound and dig him even deeper in his hole.

The key dynamic to watch in upcoming polls among potential Democratic primary voters is whether Saddam's capture reverses the recent pattern in the West and even the South for them to start defecting from Clark to Dean. If they do, the upcoming primary season could see a real race yet.

And if guerrilla resistance in Iraq should get seriously worse rather than better in the next few months, or if al-Qaida should manage to pull off another major terror attack against the domestic United States on a "9/11" scale or even worse, then the capture of Saddam could even have a backlash effect against the president for focusing so obsessively on him while the real threats were coming from elsewhere.

Indeed, from a political point of view, Saddam's capture, vastly welcome though it is, came 10 or 11 months too early for Bush. By the time the election comes around it may be ancient history compared with the crises he will be facing and the issues he will be debating. A week, as late British Prime Minister Harold Wilson liked to say, is a long time in politics.

Still, Saddam's capture has made this a dream week for the president. Master-tactician that he is, he will make the most of it.

[FairOpinion]

I can just feel the pain of this columnist -- it really pains him to see Bush' success.

Still, he did admit:

"Were the election to be held today, Bush would sweep home in a landslide."

[Thebaddog]

Whadda dope. Who else did it boost?

[My2Cents]

but, ironically, it may not change next year's presidential race at all.

No, when you're already ahead in about 45 states, it's difficult to improve on that.

[Arkinsaw]

NOTICE: Our analysis indicates the disturbing fact that water is wet. Repeat...water is wet. We are unsure at this time if we can alter this fact. We return you to your regularly scheduled drivel.

[CalvaryJohn]

Nope. No bias here.

[anniegetyourgun]

"....made this a dream week for the president. Master-tactician that he is, he will make the most of it."

Wait...I thought he was a stupid, frat-boy, cowboy? Oh...I'm so confused.....

[kabar]

More media crapola. Tip O'Neil said all politics is local. Unfortunately the liberal media see everything in terms of politics and not see what this really is, i.e., a positive development for this country and our national interests regardless of party affiliation. It should not be seen throught the prism of political advantage.

[pfflier]

They keep on talking about demoncratic grass roots like it is a meaningful number. I get the gut feel that we are talking about 20 to 30% of the population at large.

I also suspect the extreme right shares similar percentages.

What the pundits are ignoring is the moderate middle (including both parties) and I suspect therein lies huge opposition to Dean's politics and a landslide of support for President Bush.

[Desron13]

"YWait...I thought he was a stupid, frat-boy, cowboy? Oh...I'm so confused....."

Yes, thinking just makes their heads hurt.

[07055]

However, if, on the contrary, the resistance is decentralized and reflects widespread genuine anti-American and anti-Western sentiments, and if al-Qaida type Islamic extremists are motivating a significant section of it, then that is far less likely. Either way, we are likely to see soon.

...

And Clark's central premise, which he hammers home repeatedly, has not been invalidated or discredited to the slightest degree by the capture of Saddam. That is his contention that in their Iraq obsession, the Bush team have disastrously neglected the primary goals of U.S. domestic homeland security and the war against al-Qaida and its associated groups.

OK, which is it: That we will be tied up fighting al-Qaida in Iraq or that by fighting in Iraq, we are neglecting the fight against al-Qaida? Given the intent of the media to see that Bush is defeated, they will argue both positions at the same time.

Just like Bush is both "stupid" and an "evil genius" at the same time.

[Recovering_Democrat]

I'll put this in the noshitsherlock file.

[Cultural Jihad]

As if there is anything on President Bush's mind related to protecting his administration. Anything he does is for America and Americans first and foremost.

[Jet Jaguar]

I just saw this at DU. I can't fathom these guys wishing the worst for the U.S. at any cost.

CityDem (280 posts) Sun Dec-14-03 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. I am really depressed



It looks like the economy is truly turn around which will surely help Bush. And even in unemployment only falls to 5.5% or so, the media will report it as the economy is heading in the right direction. With the capture of Saddam, Iraq will more than likey become more stable and less violent over the next 9 months. It looks like we will be saddled with 4 more years of Bush/Cheney/Asscrack/Rumsfeld. Its too depressing to even consider the ramifications on our future

[xzins]

These people really hate President Bush. This article, though, calls the Pres a "master tactician."

The pres needs to go on tv and make a few inane comments and say nuc-u-lar once or twice this week.

We can't have them beginning to see the truth.

[DeFault User]

Wait...I thought he was a stupid, frat-boy, cowboy? Oh...I'm so confused.....

Maybe the Dems have finally realized that you can't continue to call your opponent an idiot, especially if he beats you at every turn. (But somehow I suspect the "master-tactician" phrase is sarcasm.) That's ok--so far the Dems seem to be about as politically astute as Saddam was militarily brilliant.

[MDspinboyredux]

"...a dramatic economic crisis stemming from his administration's financial policies before next November."

Ah yes, no bias here.

Apparently the bursting of the dot-com bubble, the destruction of a multi-trillion dollar financial institution in a terrorist attack and a stock market rife with accounting fraud did nothing to affect our economic picture.

[putupon]

Analysis: Saddam's capture boosts Bush

Yep, even caused those on the the Right to forget he's a
BIG GOVERNMENT SOCIALIST

At home Presidente Jorge Dubya Arbusto has,

1. Left the borders wide open, for both lawn care specialists and terrorists alike.
2. Proposed amnesty for illegal aliens.
3. Propelled us down the road to fully socialized HillaryCare medicine with his Marxist pill policies.
4. Trampled all over the Constitution and impuned the honor of the Founding Fathers by encouraging and signing McCain-Fiengold repeal of free speech.
5. Pandered and buddied up with Teddy Kennedy on the ridiculous education bill.
6. Federalized airport security deadbeats.
7. Constrained Israel from protecting itself from Palistinien terrorism.
8. Attempted to put 15 billion dollars of our hard earned money in the Swiss accounts of African dictators.
9. Squelched free trade with steel tariffs.
10. Expanded the Federal government by 16% so far, the greatest increase since LBJ.

Be thankful for Jorge's accomplishments overseas, without them, he would have done nothing Right.

[Sans-Culotte]

I've been wondering about the clash between the "Bush is stoopid cuz he can't say nuclear correctly" theory (put forth by the Molly Ivins types) and the "Bush is an evil liar of Maciavellian proportions" theory of Michael Mooore and the new book by some loser about Bush's "Lies".

I guess the Democrats see him as the consummate evil liar, who only pretends to be a dumb goober to distract people from his truly evil nature.

BTW, I seem to remember Jimmah Cawtah syaing "nyooc-you-lar" as well.

[Delta 21]

Who woulda thunk it!

OK! Lets see some approval ratings polls!

[Swordmaker]

Already, Conventional Wisdom is stating that Saddam's capture is likely to validate and strengthen those Democrats who voted for the crucial war resolution in Congress: Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts, John Edwards of North Carolina and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, and Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri. But in practice, the opposite is likely to be the case.

Since "Conventional Wisdom" is capitalized, it must be a proper noun. Just WHO is Conventional Wisdon? Is Mr. or Mrs. Wisdom one of those "un-named sources" quoted so often in anonymous opinions from "inside?" Perhaps it is the god of the Liberals and Pollsters?

Whoever Conventional is, he is WRONG.

Who, among the voting populace, is going to remember one vote among 535 other votes on a bill two years ago? Who is going to remember especially after the miles of audio and video tape of these 'Rats panning and decrying the War Against Terrorism. Any clip of one of those tapes will trump a listing on the "YES" column in the authorization vote for the war. Especially damning would be one of the clips of a candidate stating "If I had known that we would actually go to war, I would have voted differently!" that everyone of these (except with the sole exception of Lieberman) has uttered at the height of a fit of pique.

Yes, some of the ANSWER members, and the Red Diaper Doper Babies will remember the vote... but that just counts against these guys anyway. It is what they DID and SAID after that vote that really counts in this game... and they are down 100 to ZIP in the final quarter.