Mickey Edwards has some advice for George W. Bush this election season, and it’s good advice. He argues:
Perhaps Bush could win more converts if he were more forthcoming — admitting mistakes when he makes them, showing anger when anger is called for, walking us through the process. So far he has shown little inclination to do that. Assertion ain’t explanation.
First, there’s the war. The president continues to assert that the world is better off without Saddam in power. Well, duh. He also argues that Saddam had the inclination to do us harm and would have if he could have. But that’s not why we went to war (here you will notice, I ignore the silliness of those who argue that it was about revenge, oil, Halliburton, or a plot to make Bush 41 an honorary member of the Saudi royal family).
Why doesn’t the president simply say this: “As the president, charged with the responsibility of protecting the American people, I was presented with what every major intelligence agency in this country and Europe believed to be credible evidence that the United States was in danger. A president, faced with what he believes to be a serious threat to this country and its citizens, has no choice but to act decisively to remove that threat.” There will still be many who won’t buy the argument, but at least it will be a straightforward description of why he did what he did. Why is it so hard for him to say that?
The President has said this, but he needs to make it very clear. However, in order to do that, he needs to pierce through the media smokescreen which obscures everything he does and distorts it back. Bush has given some quite impressive speeches recently on the war, but the media hasn’t covered them. Bush has to assume that the press is part of the Kerry campaign, because they might as well be.
Where Edwards’ advice can play in is with the debates. I have a feeling that Bush will wipe the floor with Kerry in the debates, but only if he makes himself clear (which with Bush can often be difficult). Bush needs to lay out the case step by step. The CIA and the Butler Report rip to shreds the idea that he lied about intelligence – what he said is what he got. Some of it clearly was wrong, he needs to admit that.
But at its core, the case for the war remains solid. All Bush has to ask is “would we be better off with Saddam Hussein in power?” The answer to that question clearly is no. Kerry’s only response on the war is critique of Bush not making the effort sufficiently “international” – again Bush can easily counter that the help of the French is no help at all.
But most importantly, debates are as much about appearances as issues. Kerry has a major appearance problem. He’s a rich patrician snob in populist clothing. He oozes a thinly veiled contempt for much of America. Bush needs to push him – remind the voters whenever Kerry starts setting himself up as the protector the middle class that he represents the ultra-ultra-rich.
Edwards is right, Bush needs to get in front of the issues more than he has and do a much better job of stating his case. However, I have a feeling that the Bush campaign knows what it’s doing, and Kerry’s weakness plays to their advantage. If Bush can show half the fire and oratorical skill he did after September 11, Kerry will be toast. Bush has never been a great public speaker, and his speaking abilities off the cuff are atrocious, but even with that disadvantage all he needs to do is push the right buttons with Kerry and he can easily make Kerry look like the tax-raising weak-on-defense fop that he is.
Perhaps Bush could win more converts if he were more forthcoming—admitting mistakes when he makes them, showing anger when anger is called for, walking us through the process.
If Bush were they type of person that could even think about doing that, most people wouldn’t oppose his re-election to the degree that they do.
Yeah, this would be good advice for Bush. The reason that I’m not voting for him is because he’s the kind of person that will never take this advice.
You guys can dream, though, I guess. Good luck with that.
Members of the Bush administration will never admit to be wrong about anything. It goes against their “I’m a strong leader” caricature which helps Bush tremendously among his base, and men in general. Just think about it, Reding. There’s not a problem in this world you don’t have the exact blueprint for solving. Or if there is, one certainly wouldn’t know it by reading your cartoonishly self-assured critiques of everybody else’s policy and life decisions. Just like you, Bush thinks he has all the answers. Can someone who consciously or unconsciously declares themselves perfect ever admit error? Seems like a contradiction in terms to me. Why do you think it’s a good idea for Bush to do what you would never do yourself?
More needs to be made about the British investigation results into their intelligence information pre-invasion. There were alot of inaccuracies in the intelligence reports added to the big one that WMDs still haven’t been found, but the parliament cleared Blair and co. of any wrongdoing or intentional deceit.
The point is that the information was pretty strong and our leaders shouldn’t be called liars for making what were at the time very reasonable guesses.
Example: Your neighbor has a motorcycle jack in his Garage and a motorcycle helmet hanging from a nail in the wall. He wears Harley davidson T-shirts often and even has a motorcyle driver’s license. It is beyond resonable to assume from this information that your neighbor has a motorcylce, but if in fact he doesn’t, no one would blame you for the assumption. Likewise, Bush should not bear the blame thta the left is flinging at him.