FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
OUT!! DONATE TODAY
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Posted on 09/30/2002 5:41:31 AM PDT by dawn53
Bush's winning strategy: keep it simple, focused
Washington Bureau Chief By SARA FRITZ, Times Washington Bureau Chief © St. Petersburg Times published September 30, 2002
WASHINGTON -- Since the day he was born, it seems, George W. Bush has been compared -- often unfavorably -- with his father.
He was never as good a student as his dad. While his father was a World War II hero, he spent the Vietnam era serving in a Texas National Guard unit. And even though he followed in his father's footsteps by getting elected president, expectations for him were much lower.
It was not until recently, when the president set out to build support for a U.S. attack on Iraq, that some skeptics began to suggest that the younger Bush could eclipse his father as a national leader.
Stephen Hess, presidential scholar at the Brookings Institution, a liberal think tank, says Bush has demonstrated many of the characteristics of a strong leader in his approach to Iraq. He has set a risky goal for himself, fought tirelessly to achieve that goal and he is willing to alter his arguments to satisfy the objections of his opponents.
"These are the qualities of a great president," said Hess, who began his Washington career as a speechwriter for President Dwight D. Eisenhower. "I am not saying he is a great president, but he certainly has those qualities. All of our great presidents have been great risk-takers and great manipulators. . . . He has learned from his father's mistakes."
Of course, by comparing Bush's performance as president to that of his father, we may be setting a low standard. Many historians have judged his father's presidency to have been a failure, especially since the voters rejected his bid for a second term.
Nor does Bush's risk-taking guarantee him success or greatness. There is still a good chance his presidency could founder on such an unprovoked act of American aggression.
The reason many presidents avoid bold moves such as the one Bush is making against Iraq is that they can easily fail. An attack on Iraq could backfire on Bush if many American lives are lost or if Saddam Hussein decides to respond by directing his wrath against Israel.
The irony is that the current president has decided to show boldness in the same arena where his father showed caution. Bush's father has often been second-guessed by members of his own party for failing to attack Iraq before ending the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
"Unlike his father, Bush does have the 'vision thing,' adopting policy positions to pre-empt his opponents as well as because of their appeal," Fred I. Greenstein, a Princeton presidential scholar, wrote in a recent essay published in the Presidential Studies Quarterly. "Having seen his father fail to amass a record on which to win re-election, Bush's practice is to campaign and govern on the basis of a clear-cut set of goals."
So far, there have been three major issues on which the current president has achieved some success simply by bringing up the subject and refusing to be distracted: tax cuts, the war on terrorism and Iraq. To accomplish these goals, however, he has abandoned many other things that he promised during his campaign, such as prescription drug coverage for seniors.
"Other presidents have tackled a wide array of issues and dissipated their resources," Hess said. "President Bush focuses with bulldog intensity on one issue, and he just drives it home. It's not pretty to watch, but so far it's been effective."
It is surprising that scholars such as Hess and Greenstein have such a favorable view of Bush. As highly educated intellectuals, they might be expected to look down upon a former Texas governor who did not excel in school and who is often shockingly inarticulate.
But Hess insists that scholars and journalists tend to overemphasize the importance of cognitive skills as a qualification for the presidency. Any person who is smart enough to be elected president, he says, is also smart enough to govern the country.
Because Bush is not an intellectual, he has less trouble than some of his predecessors in seeing issues in black and white and portraying them with simplicity. While others in Washington are talking about the "asymmetrical threat" posed by terrorists and rogue nations such as Iraq, Bush is satisfied to call them simply "evil-doers."
Just last week, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle criticized Bush for oversimplifying their disagreement on homeland security. He said Bush had gone too far by saying Democrats "are not interested in the security of the American people."
But Hess thinks the simplicity of Bush's message has flummoxed Democrats. "President Bush must drive the Democrats up the wall," he said. "They think they are smarter, but he's the one who's winning."
-- Sara Fritz can be reached by e-mail at fritz@sptimes.com and by telephone at 202-463-0576.
What a journalistic snob!!! Forgot to add in my post that Sara Fritz is of course a liberal journalist from the St. Petersburg Pravda.
The author's an idiot.
Based on those criteria, these "highly educated" intellectuals (as opposed to the poorly educated variety!) should have been even more dissapproving of Gore, a divinty school dropout with no postgraduate degrees!
(?)
Re-read the original; it IS surprising that anyone speaking for "a liberal think tank" would admit that GWB is out in front of his opposition.
The usual liberal blather is all about his last slip of the tongue.
Either you're a teenager with a wife and three children or you have a very short memory! I'm guessing it's the later and you've simply forgotten that Ronald Reagan is the best president of your lifetime.
J
Yes, faceing the reality that 1984 is here now, is a bit much to take and would do some serious messing with someones lifestyle.
"The one thing everyman fears is the unknown. When presented this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of well being granted to them by World Government. " -- Henry Kissinger, Amiens, France, 1991
"We are not going to achieve a new world order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money," warned Arthur Schlesinger Jr, in the July/August 1995 issue of Foreign Affairs.
"Socialism has a bad name in America, and no amount of wishful thinking on the part of the left is going to change that.... The words Economic Democracy are an adequate and effective replacement." Derek Shearer cited in Reason 1982
Your moniker is appropriate. Sounds like you've been sucking on a "hosepipe."
It's time to adjust your tin-foil beanie. I think it's too tight.
Yeah, Iraq was just sitting around minding its own business when big bad Americans came in and destroyed all their chemical and biological weapons.
Add Sara Fritz to that list.
The Fed. Gov't Workers Union actually run the country anyway not the politicians. What their leaders are for happens what they are not for, don't happen, almost univerally.
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.