Posted on 10/23/2002 6:57:31 PM PDT by Pokey78
The candidate from Montana trumpets his support for President Bush’s “historic tax cuts”. The candidate from Missouri wants everyone to know she voted for Mr Bush’s defence budget. The candidate from Texas reminds voters that the President once praised him as “a great Texan”. They all want a piece of Mr Bush. And these are the Democrats.
The yearning of Democrat office-seekers to reach for a speck of Mr Bush’s stardust is but one symbol of how he bestrides the upcoming mid-term elections, a colossus on the American political landscape. Americans — often embarrassed by their own tongue-tied leader — may drool over Tony Blair’s smooth eloquence in the field of foreign affairs. But Downing Street can only dream of dominating the domestic agenda as does Mr Bush.
Democratic TV adverts, in which candidates exaggerate their links to the President, are but one manifestation. Mr Bush, a campaigning phenomenon, is another. He has just embarked on a staggering run of 14 straight days on the road until polling. It is an unprecedented effort by an incumbent President.
What is more, he is welcome wherever he goes, unlike his predecessor. In 1994, after a hapless start to his presidency, many Democrat candidates wanted Bill Clinton nowhere near them. Likewise in 1998, when he was preparing for impeachment hearings. But all Republicans crave Mr Bush’s touch. And everywhere he goes, money cascades into Republican coffers.
In the 1994 mid-terms Bill and Hillary Clinton pulled in $45 million in funds. Mr Bush has already raised $140 million, appearing at 66 fundraising events this year, an average of one every four days, and breaking every record in the book. His charge around the country is not, however, without hypocrisy. Republicans used to complain bitterly that Mr Clinton politicised the Oval Office.
Further, his tactics can be shameless. The President is capable of calling for an end to political hostilities one moment, and castigating Democrats if they fail to agree with him the next.
But what is most remarkable is not that the President is having his cake and eating it — a skill he has developed into a political art form — but the absence of opposition. Mr Bush is running rings round the Democrats, who are as clueless as the beleaguered Police Chief Charles Moose of Montgomery County when it comes to cornering their prey. Democrats lost all sense of the political initiative on September 11. They sniffed an opening in August, when the Administration appeared to be at sea over Iraq. But when Mr Bush tossed Saddam Hussein into electoral politics, most Democrats, including those with presidential ambitions, shrank from debate.
Even more perplexing to Democrat grass roots has been the absence of leadership on issues that were supposed to be winners for them at the polls. Party elders have failed to find an answer to President Bush’s $1.3 trillion tax cuts. Apart from those who want to tell their electorates that they supported the cuts, most have ended up being neither for nor against them — which invites questions about what the Democrats are actually for.
Enron and its fallout was once billed as the Democrats’ winning ticket. But, owing largely to deft footwork from Mr Bush in hardening his rhetoric against corporate sleaze, it is hard to discern a single percentage point shift in the polls. The collective Democrat failure has meant that at a national level the campaign has been about whatever Mr Bush wants it to be about, which is largely his strong stand on national security, the merits of his tax cuts, and the unreliability of the Democrat-led Senate.
Despite the President’s dominance, the Democrats may, just, prosper despite themselves. After Mr Bush achieved near unanimity over Iraq, the focus may be tilting back to the economy, a Democrat issue. Republican impatience for polling day to arrive is an indication of their increasing jitters.
The latest polls show public confidence dipping. In April, Gallup found 61 per cent of Americans were satisfied with the country’s direction, against 37 per cent dissatisfied. Last month the figures had reversed, to 47 per cent satisfied and 51 per cent dissatisfied. In May 49 per cent believed the economy was getting better, against 34 per cent who thought it was getting worse. By the end of September 52 per cent thought it was declining, and only 33 per cent believed it was improving.
Some results may have little to do with Mr Bush himself. Democrats, after all, made good gains in 1998, despite the unravelling of Mr Clinton’s lies about Monica Lewinsky. Tight Senate races may be decided by public attitudes towards a divorced candidate in Arkansas, the inexperience of a novice politician in Missouri, the broken promises of an incumbent in Minnesota, and a drought in South Dakota.
Failing to win back the Senate would not be a disaster for Mr Bush. Only twice since 1934 has the party in the White House made mid-term gains. Winning the triple crown — controlling the Senate, the House of Representatives and the White House — would allow Mr Bush to manage the agenda in the run-up to his re-election in 2004. But he has shown himself to be adept at such management anyway, even with a Democrat Senate.
The purpose of his campaigning is not just to see Republicans elected, but to give himself a platform for re-election. Most of his campaigning stops are in swing states which he narrowly won in 2000, such as Florida, or lost, such as Michigan. Everywhere he goes he is deepening the loyalty of Republican activists, broadening his appeal, oiling his electoral wheels. And given his campaigning record to date, even if Republicans fail to make gains on November 5, Mr Bush has already won.
Contribute to Debate via comment@thetimes.co.uk
Hey Roland,
SOME Americans might be "embarrassed" by President Bush, but those are far fewer and far between, than the vast majority of Americans, who see this President as a man with strong beliefs and convictions, as opposed to a former President, who's beliefs shifted with the winds and audiences, and had no convictions, although he should have been convicted!
No, the people you're speaking of are the media elite, and the hollywood efete.
Mark
Republicans used to complain bitterly that Mr Clinton politicised the Oval Office.
No we didn't. We complained bitterly that he literally SOLD the Oval Office (never mind the other things he did in it!)
often embarrassed by their own tongue-tied leader
Not a chance! This is the line usually given by Euro's. And all that it does really is to show just how shallow they are. In their (Not so humble) opinion prefect speech = prefect person = perfect policies. What we've heard out of OUR President is HONESTY! So what if he makes the occasional mistake? SO DO WE! We're not all SPIT and polished politicians. We had enough of that with the ChiCom-in-Chief thanks.
In 1994, after a hapless start to his presidency, many Democrat candidates wanted Bill Clinton nowhere near them.
BELIEVE ME! It was like that in 2000 as well!
Republicans used to complain bitterly that Mr Clinton politicised the Oval Office.
To return to this for a moment, what we were irritated about was the fact that he had time and time and time to spend campaigning and particularly fundraising, but he had no time at all to hold cabinet meetings!
The President is capable of calling for an end to political hostilities one moment, and castigating Democrats if they fail to agree with him the next.
Oh yeah, Clinton was so much better!
which invites questions about what the Democrats are actually for.
Oh. This is an EASY one! Democrats are for racism, sexism, homosexuality, tax increases, bribing of their electorate, hate crimes, unions, a devastated environment, a tanking economy, illegal immigration, a collapsed US military, criminals, the murder of babies, cheating the electorate, corrupting American (or any) law, Anti-Americanism, Anti-Semitism (F***ing Jew Bast****), Saddam and other islamic madmen, government gridlock, sexual harrasment (unless its by a fellow Democrat), bigger government and more taxes to support that government. They benefit from EVERY one of these things and want to see as much of them as they can! But mostly -- They're FOR the perpetuation of their own power, REGARDLESS OF THE COST!!!!
Godspeed
Yup, shameless, but since the Democrats aren't going to stop doing it, it's good to see someone fighting back for a change.
Q Ari, if I can change the topic. We're heading into the two-week stretch prior to election day, and the President has a pretty grueling schedule. Can you talk a little bit about why he's chosen to go to these various states? And do you share the same optimism that was expressed by some of his political advisors about Republican gains in certain newspapers?MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the history, of course, of midterm elections in the first year of a President is that there are massive setbacks for the party in power. That's a historical trend that has seldom been violated. It's a historical trend that is almost always honored. I think there have been only three occasions in modern times where an incumbent President's party has actually gained seats in the first midterm election. So history suggests that the incumbent party would have major losses.
These decisions will get made by the voters. We'll see ultimately what the voters do. The President does look forward to traveling on behalf of people who are running for office who would help the President get through his agenda of, for example, getting prescription drugs to senior citizens, providing fiscal restraint, improving education. We'll see ultimately what the outcome is. But the President will be traveling to a variety of districts where he may be able to make a difference.
I hope Ari is simply being prudent and planning ahead in case the elections go badly and that this is not an indication of how the President and his team actually think the elections are going to go.
Hmm. Not an especially cheerful analogy this morning...
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.