|
THE PRESIDENT'S BIGGEST MISTAKE
By Edward L. Daley
April 15, 2004
I've spent a good deal of time thinking about the things George W. Bush has done during his three plus years in office that really bug me, and what the single most detrimental thing is. As a conservative, it's difficult for me to sit back and watch as an assumedly right-wing president champions the cause of increasing by hundreds of billions of dollars the already overwhelming monetary burden upon our society by giving free prescription drugs to millions of Americans who can afford to buy those drugs themselves. I am angered when I hear our Republican leader tell me that the best way to deal with the staggering illegal alien problem in this country is to reward millions of illegals with limited legal status. It also really yanks my chain when the president promises to bring accountability to our disgraceful public education system only to then allow a leftist political hack like Ted Kennedy to author the most expensive and, if history is any guide, counterproductive education bill ever written.
Whether he is increasing funding to the National Endowment for the Arts so that glorified pornographers can insult the vast majority of Americans with even more of their own money, or ear-marking $15 billion for AIDS prevention in Africa, even though doing so will probably not save more than a handful of lives due to the unwillingness of the African people to change their self-destructive behavior, Bush has exhibited a clear predisposition to shuffle over to the left-hand side of the political aisle when the mood strikes him.
I suppose such things are to be expected in this age of political correctness and "compassionate" feel-good rhetoric, but I am convinced that the primary reason behind the president espousing these and other markedly left-wing policies is that he is under the impression that advancing them will somehow endear him to liberals and so-called moderates, thereby increasing the size of his voter base. He also seems to think that being accommodating and bending to the will of the minority party from time to time is going to result in partisan legislators like Tom Daschle supporting him and his administration in Congress when he needs them to.
Of course, this strategy has been a glaring miscalculation on the part of President Bush, as the short history of his relationship with Congressional leftists proves beyond any doubt. After all, what has being cooperative with Democrats done to improve relations between the White House and our nation's liberal leaders? Have we seen greater harmony between the two parties at any time since the 2000 elections? Has the rhetoric of the Democratic leadership become in any way milder or more respectful? Of course not, in fact it's been more vitriolic and divisive than at any time in recent history, and the mere idea of bipartisanship evaporated on the day that Senate Democrats decided to undertake the unprecedented filibustering of Bush's judicial nominees.
Of all the combative remarks made by U.S. Senators regarding the president, none have been more mean-spirited than those spewed forth by Ted Kennedy, yet no other liberal in that august body has been treated with more respect and consideration than he by George W. Bush. Kennedy was not only allowed to write the education reform bill, but was also a key player in getting the prescription drug benefit plan passed into law. Yet in spite of having these and other bones thrown to him by the president, the senior Senator from Massachusetts has done nothing but assail Bush in the most disrespectful of ways.
For instance, Kennedy once referred to Bush's judicial nominees, some of the most well respected and highly qualified legal minds in America, as subhumans, saying "What has not ended is the resolution and the determination of the members of the United States Senate to continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president." It's one thing to not approve of the individuals that the president has chosen for federal judgeships, but calling them Neanderthals is just plain despicable. It insults not only the people who've been nominated, but necessarily demeans the president himself. There's nothing productive about this sort of childish defamation, but responsible discourse is obviously not something to which the Senator feels the need to restrict himself.
Kennedy even went so far not too long ago as to accuse President Bush of taking the nation to war with Iraq for purely political gain when he said "This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud." He has also stated that Bush has "the largest credibility gap since Richard Nixon", later remarking that his administration "broke the basic bond of trust between government and the people" and told "lie after lie after lie" about the war. Are these the kind of words that any political leader uses who has even the slightest intention of behaving in a bipartisan manner? I don't think any rational person could believe so.
The "new tone" in Washington is undoubtedly one of bitter disdain, at least on the part of liberals, in spite of the fact that President Bush has gone out of his way to extend a hand of, if not friendship, then at least civility and inclusion toward his political adversaries. Still, I suppose that this state of affairs wouldn't matter so much if the president's efforts were appreciated by even a few left-leaning voters in this country. Unfortunately, that's not the case. For all his attempts to appear inclusive, Mr. Bush hasn't managed to persuade any Democratic voters of his sincerity or even his basic human decency, at least not that I can see. I used to think that liberals hated Ronald Reagan, but the things I hear them say about George W. Bush makes their relationship with 'the Gipper' seem like a regular love-fest in comparison.
As for the centrists among us, few of them seem to think that being a nice guy is a particularly important attribute in a political candidate. They'll listen to the most divisive and bellicose speeches by people like John F. Kerry without blinking an eye, as if they are incapable of recognizing the difference between pointing out the negative aspects of a politician's history and assaulting his integrity and motives. The leading Democratic presidential candidate has attacked Bush on the most personal of levels, implying that he is everything from incompetent to insidiously corrupt, yet no matter how malicious the accusations get, nobody but conservatives act as if they care.
Which brings me to the whole point of this article. Bush's biggest mistake is that he has played the nice guy too long. Even though the popular media likes to characterize his recent campaign promotions as being "attack ads", they have not been one tenth as hard-hitting as they could be. While I have heard some Republicans say that they respect the president for not stooping to the level of the liberals in Congress, and his main electoral rival in particular, I have to point out to them that the president's chief concern is with convincing people outside the GOP to vote for him in the coming election. Will Republicans suddenly decide to vote against George W. Bush because he comes to the conclusion that destroying the reputation of John Kerry is the best way to assure his reelection in November? I seriously doubt it.
He also needs to stop catering to the whims of Congressional Democrats in some naive attempt to garner support for his more conservative policies later on. That strategy has not and will not work. The only way to fight rats is to get right down in the gutter with them, as unpleasant as that may be to some people. Politics is not just dirty business, it's utterly filthy at times, and people like Senators Kerry and Kennedy are experts at mud-slinging. Like it or not, their tactics work, and anyone who believes that victory can be achieved over their ilk by taking the moral high road is fooling themselves. President Bush's foes are far too well organized and motivated to be dismissed as a shameless partisans or flip-floppers who's empty promises average folks will inevitably see through. Voters need to be shown exactly what kind of people individuals like John F. Kerry really are, and the only way to do that is to throw it in their faces over and over again.
A lot of conservatives may not be comfortable with the idea of the president "going nuclear" with the liberals in Congress or resorting to character assassination in order to win an election, but those same people need to ask themselves if they are really willing to lose the White House for the sake of their own peace of mind. After all, how much peace of mind do they think they'll have if Senator Kerry is elected president of the United States at this particular time in history?
|
