>
> This post put a lot of definition to my growing
>respect for Bush. Lumping him together with
>Joseph Lieberman was a jarring shock, but, you
>know, you're right. Whatever else Lieberman
>lacks in my eyes, the man's got convictions, and
>I can respect him for that.

Yeah, I had to look up the definition of "principled" before I used it to make sure it didn't actually imply "rightness" or "moral correctness". There are two different definitions, one of which *does* imply those things, but the other is the definition I was using, which simply implies conviction and deeply held belief.

>
> But do you really think that today's voters
>look for that in their candidates? I'd rather
>have a wishywashy President in office than one
>who marches unstoppably in the wrong direction.

See, the thing is, unless the guy lied about his convictions to get into office, we'd all know what he intended to do before he got there, and we'd vote for or against him based on that. If a person truly has a firmly held belief in something, it's hard for them to hide it. If a man held the convinction "The USA should go to war with everyone in sight" it'd be hard to get elected in the first place on that platform. Even if a President tries to hammer through some form of legislation, he's not by any means guaranteed of success even if his own party controls congress as well (witness Clinton's misguided and ill-thought-out attempt to hammer a national health care policy through Congress at the start of his second term.)

Perhaps I'm wrong when I say that all or even most voters look for that in a candidate. But I still think a great number do. I know I do. Bush Sr. made the "No New Taxes" pledge then went back on it, and that by itself (coupled with the weak economy) might have been all the political capital the Democrats needed to get rid of him.

> Anyway, as you say, Bush's determination to
>deal with Iraq is not the most political thing
>to do, regardless of whether or not it's the
>*right* thing to do. If it's not the most
>political thing to do, doesn't that basically
>imply his chances for re-election in 2004 are
>less than if his actions were more in line with
>popular opinion?

But the elections aren't today, or even this year. And popular opinion changes like the wind (and I'm not even convinced right now that "popular opinion" is against a war with Iraq anyway--most everyone I talk to is either on the fence or firmly supporting it.)

Bush might gain some short-term political capital today if he were to back down on Iraq. His poll numbers might go back up a few points. But that's nothing compared to what he could gain witha spectacularly successful war with Iraq, and nothing compared to what he would *lose* with a spectacularly disasterous war with Iraq. But either way, I don't see this driving his thoughts. He's bent on ousting Saddam because he truly believes it's the right thing to do.

> And then the point may be made that practically
>nothing of today will impact the 2004 election
>anyway. Voters have short memories; Bush's
>actions throughout 2004, and the state of things
>with the economy then, are what will decide the
>election, not his unflinching principles from
>way back in 2003.

True, but the rub is that he will still have those unflinching principles in 2004, and should Gulf War II go as well as the first one did, and should the economy get better (and I truly can't see how it *can't* get better, barring some new crisis or disaster) then we have a situation in which I really think Bush would be very well positioned for re-election. He can convincingly say he led us well through the darkest times of recent memory where others might have faltered. I know this is all hypothetical, but it's not exactly far fetched.

> His father knows all about that. The Gulf War
>came one year too early for him. Bush Sr. had
>phenomenal approval ratings in 1991. By 1992,
>all anybody was thinking about was the recession.

Right, but I think the difference here is that the recession of the early 90s didn't really get rolling until closer to the end of Bush the elder's term, and so didn't really have time to turn around before elections. This current recession got going almost exactly when Bush took office (Democrats will try to pin it on him, but how can he be said to have caused it when he'd accomplished exactly bupkis before it was clear the economy was already slowing down?) and so will have a much greater chance of having turned around by the end of next year. And if things swing up, disirregardless of whether Bush's policies really had anything to do with it, he'll still get credit for it.

> Unless significant developments with the war on
>terror occur in 2004, I'm guessing that Bush's
>prospects for re-election will depend almost
>entirely on whether or not the economy has
>recovered by that year. Even if his economic
>plan works but takes more time than that for the
>benefits to become manifest, even if his plan
>works except that a weak global economy drags
>the rate of recovery down, he'll take all the
>blame if voters aren't richer in 2004 than they
>are now.

You could be entirely right. I guess my entire argument hinges on the economy *not* getting worse or even just staying flat but getting demonstrably better. That may or may not happen, but I for one think it will get better. I think it is *already* getting better and a good old fashioned war economy boost can only help in the short run.

But I see at least two things that are entirely different now than they were in 1991-92. First, Gulf War I kind of came out of the blue for most Americans, and was off the radar as soon as it was over, which was almost before it even started. Gulf War II, if/when it happens, will at least be billed by the administration as part of an ongoing war on terrorism, or at least a war of defending national security. It's not just a one-shot "Oh, we're at war--now we're not!" thing like before. We're *already* at war as far as the Republicans are concerned, and an invasion of Iraq will simply be a campaign in that war. What I'm trying to say is that national security issues carry *much* more weight with voters (especially after 9/11) than do simple wars of liberation for a little country most Americans were only dimly aware existed before Iraq invaded it.

The second thing is the current state of the Democratic party. Witness their thumping defeat in the mid-term elections, elections that, historically, the party in the White House *always* does badly in. I feel right now the Democrats are lost, confused, and directionless. The Republicans have co-opted a lot of the traditionally Democratic issues and have put a distinctly conservative spin on them, and it seems to be playing well to mainstream America. The Democrats are currently leaderless, it seems--Dachle is probably the closest thing they have to a figure of national importance, and his importance was much diminished by his party's loss of control of the Senate. Hillary Clinton is probably the closest they have to a true "celebrity" politician, and I don't think she's going to run in '04 (although I'm convinced she's already gearing up for an '08 run and is only waiting to see if a Democrat wins in '04 or not to start it in earnest). Kerry is a typical Taxachussets liberal, which will play well in Mass, Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Maine, but where else? Lieberman is the current "favorite" but I just can't see him getting elected once people find out what he's all about. That's the biggest reason I felt they have to find someone with strong principles if they're going to challenge in '04. They've got nothing *else* to stand on. Their party is in disarray, their platform has been partially co-opted by their opponents, and new-wave liberalism is pretty much out of style outside of Massachusetts, SoCal, and The People's Republic of Boulder as far as I can see.

-- Dave