The political genius of George W. Bush

[Guest guest]

Complete nonsense. The latest effort designed to create the illusion that

Bush has a brain.

JP

-

" DitziSis " <mk2967

" mk2 " <mk2967

Wednesday, December 15, 2004 12:45 AM

The political genius of George W. Bush

 

 

>

>

>

> The political genius of George W. BushDemocrats have much to weigh as they

> look to 2008

>

>

>

> WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Whether you are a Democrat, a Republican or an

> independent, it is hard not to look at President Bush's re-election

> victory last week and conclude that he is probably one of the three or

> four most talented politicians of the last half of a century.

>

> Why do I write that? Think about it. In 10 short years, George Walker Bush

> has won not just one but three high-profile political races that most able

> politicians would have lost.

>

> In 1994, with no real previous political experience, he beat a popular

> incumbent governor in the nation's second most populous state. Six years

> later, he beat a sitting vice president during a time of peace and

> prosperity. And last week, with a mediocre economy, an unpopular war and a

> well-funded and unified opposition, he not only won his race but also

> helped increase Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

> Rove not the only reason

> Many people will point out that Bush has enjoyed advantages that most

> people never dream of -- inherited wealth, a famous family name,

> unbelievable connections and multiple second chances. But while those are

> legitimate critiques, the reality is that FDR's sons never won the

> presidency; there never was a David Eisenhower administration; and Ronald

> Reagan's kids have never inspired much political fear.

>

> Others will write that Karl Rove deserves much or all of the credit. But

> do you really believe that you can beat former Texas Gov. Ann Richards,

> Vice President Al Gore and Sen. John Kerry just by being a " puppet " ? Sure,

> Rove helps -- as all savvy advisers do. Remember Dick Morris, Lee Atwater

> and Michael Deaver?

>

> Politics is as much about the person as it is about the process. It is a

> tough, intense game, and the candidate has to be up to the fight. If not,

> he will eventually fail -- if not against Richards, then against Gore; if

> not against Gore, then against Kerry.

> Five Bush qualities

> Instead of just crediting his family name or Rove, Bush's extraordinary

> political success is probably owed to at least five key things: (1) great

> political fundamentals, including an ability and willingness to raise

> large sums of money; (2) an ability to propose a clear, coherent and

> easily understandable policy agenda (e.g., " compassionate conservatism " );

> (3) an ability to attract, manage and retain a strong team of advisers

> (e.g., Rove, Ken Mehlman, Ed Gillespie, Karen Hughes, Matthew Dowd and

> others); (4) a willingness to go for the jugular -- repeatedly and without

> remorse (e.g., the " flip-flopper " label, gay marriage issue, South

> Carolina primary in 2000); and perhaps most important (5) a willingness to

> take a risk repeatedly (e.g., targeting Democratic Senate Minority Leader

> Tom Daschle for defeat, offering a Social Security overhaul plan proposal,

> relying and counting on an evangelical turnout plan).

>

> I write all of this not to rubber-stamp the president's political tactics

> or policies, but to say that if you are a serious observer of politics, it

> is worth your time recognizing a rare political talent when it is in your

> midst. Indeed, such talents do not come along very often -- Bill Clinton

> in 1992, 1996 and again in 1998-99; Reagan -- not just from 1980-88 but

> also from 1976-80 (his years in the wilderness between presidential

> campaigns); JFK as a candidate during his 1960 campaign; and LBJ for his

> legislative successes from 1963-66.

> The bigger picture

> While Bush's re-election victory was a significant one, perhaps just as

> noteworthy is the reality that his second-term presidency may ultimately

> emerge as the most consequential four years since LBJ's only full term 40

> years ago.

>

> Given the big issues in front of him, his significant " political capital "

> (as he puts it), his proven ability to get legislation through Congress

> and now his increased Republican strength in the House and Senate, the

> president has an opportunity to make some of the most significant -- some

> would say radical and unjust -- policy changes in the last four decades.

>

> From Social Security, the Supreme Court and taxes to education, the

> environment and the United Nations, Bush may make significant departures

> from established U.S. policy during the next four years -- and thus,

> absent illness, scandal or major surprise, his second term may one day be

> regarded as the most consequential presidency in two generations.

> Democrats and policy

> Before criticizing the Democrats or Kerry too strongly, it is worth

> remembering that if out of the 115 million-plus voters nationwide, some

> 70,000 had switched sides in Ohio last week, we would be trumpeting

> President Kerry instead of President Bush. We would be discussing the

> groundbreaking miracle of a Catholic, a senator and a Northeastern liberal

> winning the presidency against a talented and well-funded wartime

> commander. But as my father taught me long ago, life is a game of inches,

> and so once again Bush won a difficult presidential election.

>

> In analyzing the 2004 Democratic effort, many political observers will

> focus on " MMC " : the messenger, the message and the campaign. Many of those

> critiques are likely to be right on. Kerry could have been a more

> charismatic and enjoyable candidate; Democrats should have had a clearer

> policy message -- a brand so to speak; and the campaign's television ads

> and get-out-the-vote effort could have been better.

>

> But one critique that you may not hear is that the next Democratic

> candidate needs to love policy more. What do I mean? I mean that one of

> Kerry's real weaknesses may ultimately have been that he did not seem to

> love policy broadly and know what he wanted to do -- separate and apart

> from the political strains of the moment or the polls. And so when he

> discussed creating jobs, fixing the situation in Iraq or helping kids

> improve their education, the talk sounded to undecided or uninspired

> voters like just that -- talk. It did not sound concrete and real to many

> voters (including more than 80 million people who were eligible to vote

> but did not cast a ballot for Bush, Kerry or anyone else last week).

>

> Part of that may be because while senators create new programs and

> guidelines, they do not implement them. They often do not see firsthand

> the jobs being created or destroyed, the list of parks to be cleaned up

> across a state or the number of new courses the state universities will

> offer this year. But governors do see such things.

>

> Now that does not mean that any governor is automatically better than any

> senator as a presidential candidate. But it does mean that the most

> effective presidential candidates love policy, think deeply and broadly

> about it, and can personalize it as well. So as the Democrats head into

> 2008, they would do well to find not only a politically talented candidate

> or a candidate who just happens to go to church, but a policy-talented

> candidate whose ideas as well as her or his image and manner will connect

> with voters.

>

> George W. Bush, Clinton and Reagan all did that.

>

>

> Find this article at:

> http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/08/watson.policy/index.html

>

>