Posted on 12/15/2003 8:17:11 AM PST by southernnorthcarolina
As Fred Barnes noted in his excellent column yesterday (see thread here), it is a little crass to talk about the political implications even as events are unfolding. But we're a political board. Almost by definition, we're crass. All but the youngest here remember the surge in popularity that George Herbert Walker Bush experienced after the Gulf War of 1990-91. And we remember he lost in 1992 -- a loss which seems surreal and inexplicable in retrospect. The more cautious among us, and I would include myself, have for the past few months warned about overconfidence with regard to the re-election prospects of the current President Bush, citing the experience of his father. With the capture of Saddam, it might be appropriate to take a look at the differences between the situation as of 1991 and as of now. While I still caution against overconfidence, I believe there's reason to be optimistic that the outcome in 2004 will be very different from the outcome in 1992, for these reasons, among others: "WE GOT HIM!" was the headline in countless newspapers this morning. It was very different in 1991, however. It wasn't long after Iraq's acceptance of the cease-fire that second-guessing began. Did we quit too soon back then? And anyway, what had we won? Wasn't it really a victory on behalf of Kuwait rather than for "us"? Many raised such questions in the months after the cease-fire (not me, I'd like to add). This time, we have something far more important than just "a win." We have a body. That "body" will be all over TV and all over the papers between now and election day -- in his prison suit and on the witness stand. Don't expect Saddam to provide any help on weapons locations or terrorist ties, of course -- but his presence in the public eye, and the statements of his enemies, and even the actions of his remaining supporters, will remind us again and again of the awful scope of his atrocities. Voters will receive graphic validation that the aggressive pursuit of Saddam has made the world safer. The 1991 cease-fire came 20 months before the 1992 election -- an eternity in politics. Memories of the triumph had faded for many. Saddam's capture, on the other hand, comes less than 11 months before election day. "It's the economy, stupid." Carville's memorable and effective phrase from 1992 is unlikely to resonate in 2004. That remains to be seen, of course, but the betting here is that the recovery we're seeing evidence of now will be accelerating by summer and fall of 2004. I'm not especially qualified to judge the attractiveness of the Democrats' field of candidates, but it wasn't this bad in '92... was it? I don't recall the immense anger back then like we see among the current crop of candidates, for one thing. And I don't think anger, especially misplaced anger, is an effective campaign tool. People are turned off, rather than fired up, about it. I may be wrong. But I don't think so. GWB is a better politician than GHWB. The very word "politician" has come to be regarded by some as an insult, but I don't mean it like that. You can be a great statesman, but first you have to be elected (or re-elected).There was no one great "defining moment" in the 1990-91 war. Iraq's acceptance of the cease-fire was, of course, a wonderful triumph. But it didn't form a memorable "sound bite" or "video bite," so important in contemporary politics. The capture of Saddam, of course, was infinitely more tangible. The images of him undergoing a doctor's exam were powerful.
Are there similarities between the situations of 1991 and 2003? Of course, many. But I felt that some of the differences were worth mentioning, too.
On the contrary, we have tons of leverage on Saddam. For example, while we will probably not promise him life imprisonment instead of death (although we will not rule out that it could happen), we can promise a quick and relatively painless and dignified death instead of being beaten to death with his naked body being dragged throught he streets being spat upon and mutilated.
We can also help guarantee that his remaining offspring and grandchildren will live in relative freedom and not be hunted like animals.
GHW Bush lost his base and moderate support by raising taxes.
BTW, can anyone clue me in as to the origin of these mindless Bush hatred by the left? I know there have been any number of threads on it in recent times, but nothing makes sense (not that it ever does with Rats). Certainly George H. W. Bush was no hardline conservative, but the press absolutely loathed him. G. W. Bush is more conservative than his father, but has lately been pushing some big-government initiatives, and spending has really gotten out of hand. Those aren't strictly conservative initiatives. Still, the press and the Rats hate the guy with a kind of mindless hatred generally seen only in psychopathic cases.
Here, let me explicate it for you:
"Watch my lips - no new taxes."
Need more explicatation?
How about his campaign promise not to impose any new anti-gun laws?
Lots of folks just couldn't get excited enough about that lying sack to make it out the door on election day.
I nominate this for Understatement of the Day, December 15, '04!
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.