*** ORBUSMAX GUEST OP/ED ***
THE PRESIDENT'S BIGGEST MISTAKE - By Edward L. Daley
April 14, 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
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?
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edward L. Daley is the owner/operator of the news website The Daley Times-Post.