The WaPo – and the President – Impress Again
George W. Bush said it, and the Washington Post salutes him for it:
President Bush should hold more news conferences. In his hour-long exchange with reporters at the White House yesterday, he was considerably more effective in explaining and defending his commitment to the war in Iraq than in the three carefully worded speeches he has delivered in the past week. In his sometimes blunt, sometimes joking and sometimes unpolished way, he sounded authentic — no more so than when he was asked what had become of the “political capital” he claimed after the 2004 election. “I’d say I’m spending that capital on the war,” Mr. Bush replied.
And so he is. The president’s approval ratings are low and sinking, and Iraq is the main cause: Polls show most Americans no longer believe the war is worth the cost or expect the “victory” Mr. Bush’s speechwriters keep promising. Republicans in Congress have joined Democrats in pressing for a major withdrawal of U.S. troops this year. Even senior military commanders appear more interested in justifying that drawdown than in defeating Iraqi insurgents.
Mr. Bush, however, hasn’t lost sight of the stakes. “The enemy has said that it’s just a matter of time before the United States loses its nerve and withdraws from Iraq. That is what they have said,” he told reporters. “And their objective for driving us out of Iraq is to have a place from which to launch their campaign to overthrow moderate governments in the Middle East, as well as to continue attacking places like the United States. Now, maybe some discount those words as kind of meaningless propaganda. I don’t. I take them really seriously.”
…[T]he president clearly has not lost sight of the enormous importance of the Iraqi mission, to U.S. security as well as to his presidency. Pressed repeatedly to say when American forces would leave the country entirely, he finally answered: “That will be decided by future presidents and future governments of Iraq.” Not the most politic response, perhaps, but one that shows Mr. Bush remains committed in the theater where U.S. commitment, and leadership, are still desperately needed.
Again, astonishing praise coming from a liberal outlet – but then the Post is no New York Times (and I mean that as the ultimate compliment).
With those words, Bush shows again why, despite the spending, despite the poor performance of his political handlers, and despite the occasional blunders, he will ultimately be remembered by both critics and supporters as one of the most decisive presidents of modern times. If one thing is clear by now, it is that George W. Bush has no intention of leaving Iraq because of political pressure.
With those same words, Bush has thrown down the gauntlet. For better or worse, 2006 and 2008 will not be about Abramoff, or the NSA, or even the broader War on Terror. Those elections will be about Iraq – more so 2008, of course, but even 2006. The public is unhappy with the war – that is clear. If the Democrats regain control of Congress, it will be a not-so-subtle message from the electorate regarding the war. President Bush must continue to sell the war, and his cabinet must do the same; not a week should go by without some major speech from someone in the Administration regarding Iraq between now and November. We can’t hide from this war – we’ve got to win it – on the battlefield and at home. The candidates who will get my support in 2006 and 2008 will be those who recognize the need to stand firm.
“The candidates who will get my support in 2006 and 2008 will be those who recognize the need to stand firm.”
All the candidates in 2008, and most of the Congressional candidates in 2006 will do their best to sound firm. The question is who will actually BE firm on the War on Terror. That’s my criteria. Biggest hawk gets my vote, in every office and every race, the biggest hawk gets my vote.
Colin speaks truth, everyone will become Hammerhand for purposes of the election. Who will follow through? The one that will is my candidate.
Who seriously doubts that, as far as 2008 is concerned, John McCain is by far the most committed to Iraq of any of the candidates? And what about Hillary? Seems to me that the 2008 election could be between the two of the three sharpest hawks in the country (Lieberman being the other, of course).
I might be tempted to vote for Joe just to offer the fig leaf but he will never clear the Dem primaries. Just as well, let the Dems suffer another decade or two. Toughen ‘em up. On just the war, I don’t think Hillary would be too bad frankly. Now, hold the tomatoes. Does anyone doubt that the woman who assaulted Bill with brickabrac would faint at the thought of flying lead? Like Kerry I mean.
Not only is the WAPO a superior editorial read, but their business is adapting much more effectively in the new media environment than the Grey Lady:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060317/new_york_times_moody_s.html
Not only does the NYT have huge debt obligations at this time, but their 1st quarter net is down 71% from year – earlier figures. Granted, they’ve made some of that deficit up from their internet operations, but…wow.
it is that George W. Bush has no intention of leaving Iraq because of political pressure.
True and the rest of the world know this, especially the terrorists. Why do you think he is hated so much?
This is one reason I continue to support our President. He is not afraid to take what he considers the best course of action even if it does have negative political consequences. Clinton was the opposite. If the public were against or for a specific issue he would adjust his views to that opinion. Signing the welfare reform act is a good example.
You may say that Clinton was just doing what the American public wanted him to since they elected him. True but real leaders know when to stand their ground no matter how intense the criticism. Bush is a leader that stands up for his beliefs. Clinton was no more than a follower.
When it comes to leadership, character, and decisiveness, the gulf between Bush and Clinton could not be any wider.
Thank God we have President Bush rather than Gore or Kerry . . .
1) “If the public were against or for a specific issue (Clinton) would adjust his views to that opinion.” The public does not favor free trade, yet Clinton got the NAFTA agreement done. The Democratic base was against welfare reform, but Clinton achieved that as well. Most people (and virtually all interest groups) clamor for more federal spending, yet Clinton was the first President to produce a budget surplus in decades.
2) Bush “is not afraid to take what he considers the best course of action even if it does have negative political consequences.” Depends how you define negative consequences. Bush will ignore the majority opinion, but he will never ignore the wishes of his base. I challenge anyone to name a single initiative Bush fought for which was opposed by the Republican base. (Harriet Miers and the ports deal don’t count: these were mistakes he had to back away from after the base vociferously objected – had he anticipated the reaction, he would not have proposed either).
peter, the strategy of triangulation was Clinton’s game; I’ll give him NAFTA, but welfare reform was a Republican initiative all the way that Clinton adopted out of necessity. He should get no more credit for that than Bush gets for bowing to the inevitable with Harriet Miers.
You have absolutely no way of reading Bush’s mind, which is the only way your number two could be justified. I’ll admit, that’s a neat trick, proposing a challenge , then defining away the answers, but I’ll assume that you’re a regular mortal like the rest of us and don’t have ESP…
The easiest way to quiet your ‘argument’ is thus: can anyone imagine Bill Clinton sticking with a war that was politically unpopular? Hell, one bad day in Somalia ran us out…
I would challenge the assertion that welfare reform was really a Republican initiative and Clinton had nothing to do with it — he got enough Democratic votes (and of course did not veto it) for the measure to pass — without his leadership, there would be no welfare reform, with or without the GOP.
It is correct that I do not have ESP (although my wife seems to think that I am a mind reader). However, I know what the Republican base favors, and I know what Bush has done, and I can’t find anything which is in the second group which is not also in the first group.
As to the last question: a) I don’t recall any public clamor to send troops to Bosnia, and b) it’s a moot point whether Clinton would have stayed the course in Iraq, as he would not have launched a pre-emptive war in any case.
However, I know what the Republican base favors
Please do tell us what the Republican base favors so I will know too.
If I remember correctly, immigration is a big issue for most Republicans and most would like to see much much more security at the border. Bush seems to be on another planet on this issue. Maybe that is why he is not worried about it because it will not affect him?
Most Republicans I know want to see a balanced budget. You know where revenues equal expenditures without borrowing money. Bush has done very little in most Republican’s minds to even come close to a balanced budget. Yes, he has cut taxes, but what spending bill has he vetoed? Better yet, has he vetoed any bills at all? Maybe one.
If you think gay marriage is a Republican issue, I suggest you look at the voting patterns on this issue. Many many Democrats voted for amendments to State Constitutions to ban gay marriage.
Gun issues and the death penalty are not exclusively Republican issues either. Many Democrats support concealed carry as they do the death penalty. There are only 4 states now that do not have concealed carry. Kansas will be the next. The legislature will override the Governor’s veto. Three more to go.
You need to read more right wing blog sites. They tear Bush up on a continual basis for his RINO actions.
Bush has put about as much effort into immigration reform as the plans for space exploration he outlined in the 2005 SOTU (remember that?). Hispanics are a growing minority and they are highly sought after by both parties — Bush said the things which would attract Hispanics, but he didn’t do the things which would actually get a law enacted.
Issues favored by the Republican base? Lower taxes, pro-business policies (e.g., having representatives from oil companies help devise energy policy), reducing environmental regulation, ignoring global warming, conservative judicial nominations, reduced government support for social welfare programs, “sanctity of life” issues (e.g., prohibiting euthanasia, impeding stem cell research, etc.), reducing access to abortions, high military spending, reducing government regulation so the “free market” can decide outcome, a flatter tax system (i.e., proportionarly more benefits accrue to those who have more money), a diminution of the boundaries between church and state, and a rejection of affirmative action programs. Am I missing anything?
As for the budget deficit: it is a direct result of cutting marginal tax rates and reducing capital gains taxes and increasing military spending, both of which are favored by his base.
Other issues favored by the Republican base: expansive powers for the executive branch, relaxed attitude towards the first and fourth amendment (or whatever you would call the opposite side to the ACLU), school voucher programs, aggressive foreign policy, expanded definition of American power (e.g., the right to detain anyone, anywhere and stick them in Gitmo without charges against them), and the use of torture and other means of coercion with suspected enemies.
Ah, you’ve nailed it, peter – a right bunch of fascists we are…the truth is, the Republican base is made up of evil people who want to screw America…and now you’ve gone and exposed us…
Well, at least you’re not unfairly casting aspersions…
Not at all — I never said or implied that conservatives were fascistic, evil, or want to screw America — but which of these issues is not part of current conservative ideology?
Instead of answering your oh-so-innocent question, let me describe the Democratic base with the same degree of bias in which you described us:
What do Democrats stand for?
Higher taxes, anti-business policies, stifling regulations, judges who use the bench to experiment with social policies, a death culture that glorifies abortion as the most sacred human right, a neutered defensive capability, a tax system that penalizes achievement and rewards sloth, an innate hostility towards religion, and racial discrimination in the form of qoutas.
Also, a powerless president, an elevation of privacy over national security, a failed educational system at the mercy of the teachers’ union, multilateralism of the do-nothing EU and UN sort, and false moral equivalencies between the world’s biggest advocate of freedom and terrorists.
Now what part of the Democratic agenda am I missing?
You mean right wing ideology? I now know how I am supposed to think. Thank you.
However,
I feel it is quite liberal to let “free markets” decide. What a novel idea.
And protecting life, I would think that is a pretty liberal idea also.
Same for lower taxes and reducing government regulations.
A rejection of Affirmative Action programs. Wouldn’t you think trying to treat everyone the same is a liberal philosophy? It was in the ’60′s.
I am glad you do not think Repubs are such nasty evil people. By making that comment, I am assuming that you are one of us or do you believe the opposite of all that you just listed?
Some of the things you mention are absolutely correct:
Higher taxes: yes. With the amount the government spends, it should collect more taxes, especially by rolling back the Bush tax cuts. I think that is a consensus opinion.
Affirmative actionL yes. I disagree with the Democrats’ position here, but it can legitimately be described as “racial discrimination in the form of qoutas.”
“A failed educational system at the mercy of the teachers’ union:” well, yes and no. This is really a local matter, and national elections aren’t fought on this issue. However, nobody is advocating a failed education system. And the teacher’s union is a Democratic consitutuency. (But so what? Big oil, big pharma, and Wall Street are Republican constituencies.)
However, most of the other things are far from Democratic positions.
“anti-business policies:” let’s look at the auto industry. Given the fact that we import too much oil, a Democratic position would be to regulate the industry with fuel standards. The current administration basically gives Detroit a free ride (e.g, there are no fuel standards for SUV’s above 7500 pounds). Is the Democratic position anti-business? In this case, yes. Telling people they can’t drive their Ford Explorers with impunity is not a popular thing to do. But I believe that this is the right solution. Are CAFE standards “stifling regulations?” You decide.
Incidentally, the passing of child labor laws was once viewed as being a stifling regulation and anti-business.
“A death culture that glorifies abortion as the most sacred human right:” oh please.
“a neutered defensive capability:” a policy which does not endorse pre-emptive war is not neutered.
“a tax system that penalizes achievement and rewards sloth:” so the person who works at Wal-Mart or is a schoolteacher is slothful? And the guy who lives off his trust fund is industrious?
“an innate hostility towards religion:” the religion thing comes up in issues like school prayer and the display of religious objects in public places. Opposing school prayer has nothing to do with being hostile to religion, and everything to do with the first amendment.
“a powerless president:” Clinton and Carter weren’t powerless — they merely used the powers granted to them in the Constitution and didn’t try to appropriate powers from the other branches of government.
“false moral equivalencies between the world’s biggest advocate of freedom and terrorists:” huh? says who?
peter, you miss the point completely – come now, you’re smarter than that – my statement was that I was describing the Democratic position with the same degree of bias that you described the Republican position with – I didn’t say I believed all, or even any, of those things…
You set up a straw man, and I did the same…I even paralleled your own points.
Not so — I think I described the Republican positions neutrally (“reducing access to abortions”) and you responded with hyperbole (“a death culture that glorifies abortion as the most sacred human right.”
The fact is that the Republicans do want to reduce access to abortion — just refer to the party platform.
The GOP does want to reduce taxes, and they are pro-business. When business is balanced against consumers, for example, the Republicans will typically tilt towards business and the Democrats towards consumers. Tort reform is one aspect of that (and also something I agree with the Republicans about).
And so forth and so on. I don’t think there is any description of GOP policy I named which does not describe it neutrally.
…the right to detain anyone, anywhere and stick them in Gitmo without charges against them…and the use of torture and other means of coercion with suspected enemies.
That’s neutral?
As for the first: this is what the administration is doing — do you see the Republicans objecting to it?
As for the second: when Dick Cheney lobbied on the Senate floor to explicitly permit the use of torture and coercion, did you see the Republicans objecting to that?
So – you think Bush is just plucking anyone, anywhere off the streets for no reason, and sticking them in Gitmo?
You should be taking to the streets if that’s your belief…
George Bush has claimed that he can detain foreign nationals and, by labelling them enemy combatants, he can detain them indefinitely without charge. Bush has never recognized any limitation on his right to seize people if in the government’s sole discretion the detainee could be a terrorist. Administration lawyers have fought in court to deny prisoners the right of habeas corpus. Do you dispute that?
I didn’t say “for no reason,” but as we now know, many of those who were captured were innocents who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. So yes, there is a history of plucking people with no valid reason.
Well, as is often the case, we’ll have to agree to disagree – you share the Glenn Greenwald view of a lawless president, and I see a man determined to take the fight to the terrorists. One man’s treasure is another man’s junk.
In any event, I intend to blog more on what I see as the winning Republican agenda for 2006 in the days and weeks ahead…but it will, of course, only be my opinion. I can no more speak for the base than I can for the man in the moon – and many of the hardcore Republican activists would find me hopelessly compromised.
Nevertheless, I’ve been doing some thinking (always dangerous, I know), and I hope to get to the posts very soon.
I think that it’s a misapprehension that the base can agree on many of the items you listed – so I’m going to try to keep it big picture and basic…
I’m not familiar with Glenn Greenwald — and I’m not sure that I would use the term lawless — however I think there is a clear violation of the FISA law by the NSA. I think the enemy combatant designation is a fig leaf to avoid the Geneva Conventions, which we are a signatory to, so in that sense the administration has broken the law.
Whether detaining foreign prisoners at Gitmo without due process is a violation of US law is not something I know the answer to. I think it is morally repugnant and directly contrary to what our country stands for, but I am not sure whether or not it is illegal.
So “lawless:” I don’t know. These are the facts, choose your adjective.
Also, just noticed the numbering of each post — very nice –
Yeah, just figured it out this morning…I might add some formatting flourishes at a later time…
On the war in Iraq, perhaps Bush should watch Lawrence of Arabia again. The problems over there are tribal and religious and have been going on for centuries. They should divide the country up into sections, one for each [religious and tribal] faction, where they are located now, then let them create a central leglslative entity where they may argue and compromise or whatever they want to do to their hearts content. You just can’t force a political regime on people who aren’t ready to accept it, who know nothing about it and have never experienced it before. Such a change must come slowly and from within. We have been at it for over 200 years and we still haven’t got it right, so why try to force it on them in a year or two.
Not to gloat but as I predicted last night, Kansas is now a concealed carry state. Both the House and the Senate with a bunch of help from Democrats have over rode the Governor’s veto. See post 11. The Star is crying in their beer tonight. Both Missouri and Kansas are now concealed carry.