|
« Sir David Hare's artistic vision
Main |
February 08, 2004
Bush frets
President Bush is clearly rattled. He has just given what is being described as a 'rare extended television interview' all about the fact that he is a war leader. This is undoubtedly because, as he drops below a 50 per cent approval rating, it looks increasingly likely that his Democratic opponent will be John Kerry. And as Julian Coman points out in the Sunday Telegraph, the one thing Kerry has got which Bush does not have and on which he is intensely vulnerable is a war record. Indeed, there are questions about his failure to be drafted in Vietnam which may now be raked up and do him terminal damage, faced as he may be by a Vietnam war hero. As Coman reports: 'According to one senior Democratic adviser, the sudden revival of interest in Mr Bush's military record is simply explained: "It's the Kerry factor. Or you could call it the tale of two lieutenants. In one corner, you have the man who is now the likely Democrat candidate for the White House, former Lt John Kerry. He has three purple hearts, a bronze star and a silver star from Vietnam. In the other corner, you have former Lt George W Bush. In the same period of history, President Bush flew planes at weekends in Texas and then went missing in Alabama. Who do you trust with America's future in difficult times?" ' This is an irony indeed. As Charles Krauthammer has noted, what was thought to be Bush's biggest advantage -- the issue of war-- and which indeed would have seen off Howard Dean had he survived the primaries, now threatens to lose him the presidency because he cannot compete with a hero from history. Posted by melanie at February 8, 2004
Comments
Don't worry about it. Elections are not won and lost on war records. Otherwise Clinton would never have won. People generally feel that the GOP candidate is inherently "sound" on defence anyway, even if he has a miserable military record. If defence is an issue, a Democrat candidate needs a rock solid military record just to be able to compete on a level playing field with his Republican rival. If Bush loses the election is will be on policy issues - partly disillusionment over Iraq but more likely that fact that while a lot of people admire his record on the War on Terror, a lot of people also feel that his domestic record stinks something ghastly. Posted by: Anthony C at February 8, 2004 06:24 PMWow you jump to conclusions ! Maybe Americans are interested in not commuting to China or Mexico or India to go to work......maybe they wonder what happens to their 401k when Greenspan lifts interest rates......or perhaps they find corporate cuts in retirees health benefits a bit tough............or do you think the US is now just borrowing from China to throw men at Middle East problems ? Just think Melanie, both Bush and Blair could be gone by December. Posted by: Jason at February 8, 2004 07:50 PMBush's numbers dropping is hardly a shock, the media spotlight has been on the dem contenders, all of whom are getting tons of free and paid air time to take pot shots at him, for months now. The Bush team has yet to start fighting back, it would be pointless to do so until there's a clear Dem nominee, the numbers won't really count for much until both sides are openly campaigning. Kerry's military record is not likely to buy him much, nor are the charges that Bush was AWOL apt to go anywhere even if they were true (they're obviously not) - most people simply don't care, as evidenced by draft-dodger Clinton winning two elections against bona fide war heroes. Kerry's post-Vietnam record where the military is concerned is a whole 'nother issue, though, and is going to be very damaging to him. As they say, Kerry is Dukakis without the charm (more like Weld without the charm or sense, but why quibble?). In this post-9/11 environment an ultra-liberal senator from Massachusetts has about as much chance of making it to the White House as I do of winning the next Miss America. Bush has little to worry about, and he knows it, declaring him in trouble when he hasn't yet begun to fight is, frankly, a little silly. Myria Posted by: Myria at February 8, 2004 08:20 PMKerry deserves credit for brave service in Vietnam. On the other hand, Hitler was decorated for bravery in World War I, whereas Franklin Roosevelt never served on active duty. Who was the better wartime leader in the 1940s? Battlefield valor is basically irellevant to national leadership. Otherwise, Zachary Taylor, Franklin Pierce, and Ulysses Grant would have been great presidents. In any case, post-Vietnam Kerryiana like the bogus medal toss, his votes on defense budgets, intelligence operations, and his flexible standards for accepting contributions may be liabilities that will loom at least as large as his commendable combat record. Once the debate is joined Kerry will no longer have the free ride he has had in the Democrat primary. He will have to deal with the incoherance of his position on the war in Iraq as well as his taking of both sides on most issues of importance. He is a man, like Clinton, whose only core belief is making sure he continues to have political viability. He has the swagger and bluster of a drugstore cowboy at this point, but the real world will horn in on his fantasy candidacy. If he was as arrogant and blustery in Vietnam as he is on the stump, it is surprising he was not fragged. Posted by: Merv Benson at February 9, 2004 12:22 AMNah, what will decide it is the economy, just like it was when Dubya's daddy, a certified war hero, ran against a man who had evaded war service in Vietnam, possibly for reasons of conscience, but more likely because he didn't have the cojones for a fight. And when Clinton ran against an even greater war hero, Bob Dole, he cleaned his clock too. Granted, Vietnam wasn't a popular war, but I'm far from convinced that anyone in the U.S. (and by anyone, I mean people with a real voice) really cares about Iraq and the loss of American lives. While the great majority of individuals who are dying are either from minorities, or, alternatively, are poor whites, Iraq won't stir the emotions of a World War II or a Vietnam. What concerns Americans is what concerns people in most places in the West: a steady paycheck, mortgage payments, their kids education, toys and vacation trips. And, in the absence of a really major reversal on the terror front, if the economy is at least appearing to roll along nicely and those needs and desires are being satisfied, Bush will cream Kerry. Now, if this insane credit bubble that the world is currently experiencing bursts anytime soon, then Kerry will be a shoo-in. Hey, if that happens, and Mickey Mouse were running, he too would be a shoo-in. Posted by: Charles at February 9, 2004 01:31 AMI'm not sure of Kerry's policies and how he can seek to counteract competitive cost pressures from East Asia without limiting imports and undermining US competitiveness. What's worrying for me is that Kerry has French relatives. From what I gather he's tried to downplay the significance of this but I wouldn't like to see America shift from its core allies towards those less dedicated to the Western cause. An America more sympathetic to the views of the axis of weasels would be highly undesirable. I'd like Bush to win. His foreign policy is tried and trusted and lets the arabs know who's boss: the West. Posted by: Pedro at February 9, 2004 11:20 AMPace Myria, Kerry isn't ultra-liberal. He isn't ultra-anything except bland. That's why the big campaign money is skewing towards him. The Democans' constituency is more socially varied than the Republicrats', requiring a more emollient front man. Posted by: WJ Phillips at February 9, 2004 05:14 PMAmericans care about the economy more than anything else. I personally am sick of Bush. Iraq's, Mexicans, etc., anybody who wants help Bush will help them. The only ones he doesn't seem to care about is ordinary Americans. He lets us die in Iraq, lose jobs, and generally take the brunt of his stupid economic policies without a second thought. I used to be a big Bush supporter, but I will vote for anyone but him this fall. Mickey Mouse sounds good to me. Posted by: Hi at February 9, 2004 10:57 PMBush beat McCain and McCain had a war record more significant than Kerry Posted by: Jason at February 10, 2004 12:48 PMGeorge Bush has actually won a war, and in doublequick time. John Kerry was a hero in what became a disastrous campaign (and which he ended up excoriating). I don't think the public is that stupid that it can't see the difference. Posted by: Dave F at February 11, 2004 12:41 PMother doomed marriages we airfare have read about. It even makes credit card it |
