Broder: George Bush Has Regained His Political Footing
Washington Post columnist David Broder points to President George Bush’s press conference and concludes what yours truly did when he watched it as well:
Bush seems to have regained some of his political footing. The key Broder paragraphs:
Like President Bill Clinton after the Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994, Bush has gone through a period of wrenching adjustment to his reduced status. But just as Clinton did in the winter of 1995, Bush now shows signs of renewed energy and is regaining the initiative on several fronts.More important, he is demonstrating political smarts that even his critics have to acknowledge.
He then points to several things that were indeed clear when you watched Bush’s press conference:
When Bush faced reporters on Wednesday morning, he knew that virtually all those in the Democratic majority would be joined by a significant minority of Republicans in voting today to decry the “surge” strategy.He did three things to diminish the impact of that impending defeat.
First, he argued that the House was at odds with the Senate, which had within the past month unanimously confirmed Gen. David H. Petraeus as the new commander in Iraq — the man Bush said was the author of the surge strategy and the man who could make it work. Bush has made Petraeus his blocking back in this debate — replacing Vice President Cheney, whose credibility is much lower.
Second, he minimized the stakes in the House debate by endorsing the good motives of his critics, rejecting the notion that their actions would damage U.S. troops’ morale or embolden the enemy — all by way of saying that the House vote was no big deal.
And third, by contrasting today’s vote on a nonbinding resolution with the pending vote on funding the war in Iraq, he shifted the battleground to a fight he is likely to win — and put the Democrats on the defensive. Much of their own core constituency wants them to go beyond nonbinding resolutions and use the power of the purse to force Bush to reduce the American commitment in Iraq.
This was the most glaring part of Bush’s statement: he brushed off the importance of the nonbinding resolution as meaningful, which might be news to some of the GOPers who see dire consequences if it’s passed and who in roundabout (and not so roundabout ways) suggest that Democrats who seek a nonbinding resolution don’t care about the troops. Bush cut his losses and pooh-poohed the vote’s importance, thus shifting the real fight to binding war-related votes to come.
Broder also notes that Bush has launched a kind of charm offensive with the media, offering many more one-on-one interviews. And Broder notes this:
While forcefully making his points, he has depersonalized the differences with his critics and opponents. He has not only vouched for the good intentions of congressional Democrats, he has visited them on their home ground, given them opportunities to question him face to face, and repeatedly outlined areas — aside from Iraq — where he says they could work together on legislation: immigration, energy, education, health care, the budget.With the public eager for some bipartisan progress on all these fronts, Bush is signaling that he, at least, is ready to try.
Perhaps. But demonization politics is far from buried yet. It seems to be alive and thriving in many areas of American politics, in media and in normal discourse where going on the offensive is chic. In the 21st-century, when going gets rough some turn instantly to demonization and accusations.
The public may crave bipartisanship but is it realistic in the present political environment? And is this current period of time that at first blush seems so confrontational in reality a honeymoon period for the true political grappling that lies ahead?
But there are serious risks facing the Democrats, as the AP points out:
Democrats face a host of risks as they move toward more substantive steps to tie President George W. Bush’s hands with funding restrictions on the Iraq war.Leaders are wary of allowing the more intense anti-war activists to define the party’s image.
Simmering divisions within the ranks over how soon to move — and how far to go — could quickly diminish a tactical victory this week on a resolution criticizing Bush’s conduct of the war.
“There are those in our caucus who would rather we not do anything, and there will be people who want to see us extricate ourselves overnight. We’ll have to balance those interests,” said Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, House Democrats’ chief vote-counter. “We’re not going to sit anybody out, but we will have to decide how to weigh those things.”
Several factors are at play. Bill Clinton was rescued from political shrinkage by Newt Gingrich and Congressional GOPers’ overreaching. Many Republicans long predicted the Democrats would go too far and lose that elusive American center that the Republicans lost in the elections of 2006.
The Democrats’ dilemma is truly how to remain cohesive as a party at a time when it seems like Republican backlash against Bush’s brand of Republicanism was bubbling over. The party’s most adamantly anti-war wing believes the war is an issue on which compromise is, if not possible, not morally desirable.
Privately, some Republicans concede that Democrats have a chance to tie Bush’s hands without paying a political price if they carefully handle an upcoming debate on the president’s request for nearly $100 billion (€76.1 billion) in additional money for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans would be hard-pressed to reject measures that shift funds or place conditions on spending, such as those envisioned by Murtha, they said.“As long as (Democrats) can tamp down on the Kuciniches of the world and they are modest in what they try to do, they can hit it out of the park,” said one former senior House Republican aide, referring to peacenik Rep. Dennis Kucinich, an Ohio Democrat.
Still, the small but vocal band of lawmakers led by Kucinich who are pushing for an immediate cutoff of war funding and withdrawal of troops could pose a problem. Democrats could suffer politically if the party is perceived by the public as being too quick to pull the plug on the mission.
Indeed, it’s not hard to predict.
Pullling the plug too quickly on funding would alienate a segment of voters who strongly oppose the war but believe defunding is a hideous mistake. Some would be voters the Democrats won back in 2006. And, in 2008, if the war was defunded, the Democrats would likely lose these centrist Democrats, moderate voters and independents again. But, in reality, it’s unlikely the war will be defunded.
Privately, however, some Democrats concede they will have to steer a careful course to avoid being demonized and divided on Iraq.“There’s tension between those who want to end the war immediately and cut off funding and those who aren’t there,” one senior House official said. As for Murtha’s proposal to use benchmarks to control war spending, lawmakers are “getting there,” the official said. “I’m not sure they’re there yet.”
And into this vacuum of uncertainty moves someone to fill it with certainty….George Bush. Part of his rebound is due to the dilemma facing Democrats — and how they’re responding to it.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
31 Responses to “Broder: George Bush Has Regained His Political Footing”
Well, this would have been smart moves if Bush had any reputation left. But he hasn’t.
I agree, George Bush moves in to full the vacuum with NO political strength beyond his party, who is currently voting against him on numerous issues, and while the Senate is currently moving slower then the House, its not moving in Bush’s favor. How supposedly Bush is benefiting from this escapes me. I just think yet again the press needs a story of a one-last-try resurgent president before he succumbs to his last fall, and gets out of Iraq. I hate the Kabuki theater that is our national politics. Since most of the prediction of the media elites (including Broder) have been ooohhh so wrong in the past, I’ll make my own prediction. By summer 2007 we’ll begin starting to pull our troops out because of how bad the situation will be, and George Bush will have his first poll at 25% supporting him, and 70% opposing him.
The Jury Is Out…
The heat is on for the Mullahcracy for they are facing a difficult dilemma: Fueling sectarian violence in Iraq, they are convinced, is the best strategy of driving American troops out of Iraq and eventually out of the Middle East. But, on the other han…
Doctormatt06 said: “I agree, George Bush moves in to full the vacuum with NO political strength beyond his party, who is currently voting against him on numerous issues…”
I disagree. Doctormatt, mainly because your description exactly fits another recent President…Clinton after the ’94 wipeout of the Democrats by Gingrinch’s Contract with America.
Remember the Time magazine cover entitled: “The Incredible Shrinking Presidency” with a tiny Bill Clinton evaporating away to nothingness?
Clinton responded by declaring that the Constitution makes the President important, regardless of Congress or opinion polls. And he was right. Gingrinch overreached…and blew it.
That is the risk the Democrats in Congress take. George Bush is not being innovative here…he is only following a game plan devised by his good buddy Bill a decade ago.
It’s hard to forget what he said during the last election cycle about cutting and running and how the terrorists would be happy with a Democratic victory…
How do you reconcile that point of view? If you strongly oppose the war, then you should want it to end, and defunding would end it pretty quick.
Now there are those that support the war but are angry that we are losing, but that’s entirely different.
Marlowecan…Well I don’t think comparing Clinton and Bush is relevant at all, Clinton was a peace-time, economic boom, socially moderate president. Bush has alienated all of the Democrats, almost all of the independents, and some of his base, and its nearing the end of this, his final term. I just don’t see this great Bush resurgence. Clinton had six more years to recover and remake himself, Bush has barely 2. And by no means is Bush the Great Communicator that Clinton was, I just don’t think he has any ability to sway anybody anymore.
But the point is, he doesn’t have to sway anybody. He has constitutionally granted powers, and he has a veto pen (at least I think he does…seems like he may have misplaced it sometime over the last six years…)
He knows how to find it when has to please the wingnuts on stem-cell research.
[...] David Broder thinks Bush got his groove back, and Joe Gandelman and James Joyner discuss the merits of Broder’s piece. Personally, I think Joyner nailed it: [...]
[...] UPDATE: Joe Gandelman saw the Broder column as positive and as proof that Bush may be regaining his political footing. [...]
When you are down asw low as Bush is, anything looks like up.
If Broder must drag in Clinton, then why not Lincoln too? When his own parthy disowns him, how well can he be doing?
Ordinarily, I agree with Broder, and there’s no doubt that Bush has political and diplomatic skills that are surfacing now that he’s backed into a corner. We might be in a different place if he had chosen this approach in 2001, instead of waiting until there was no other choice. One point Broder made has me stymied:
First, he argued that the House was at odds with the Senate, which had within the past month unanimously confirmed Gen. David H. Petraeus as the new commander in Iraq — the man Bush said was the author of the surge strategy and the man who could make it work. Bush has made Petraeus his blocking back in this debate — replacing Vice President Cheney, whose credibility is much lower.
Petraeus is not the author of the surge strategy, it was dreamed up at the AEI by Fred Kagan. In other words, it is the product of a think tank, that was shopped to various military commanders. Casey and Abizaid rejected it, as did the JCS. Gates was able to get Petraeus, who has an admirable counterinsurgency record, to take it on. Why pretend otherwise?
These people lie so much that it’s just habit now. That’s why it’s serious news when the Administration actually says something truthful, like admitting there is a civil war in Iraq.
Bush Regaining His Footing?…
“Like President Bill Clinton after the Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994, Bush has gone through a period of wrenching adjustment to his reduced status. But just as Clinton did in the winter of 1995, Bush now shows signs……
doctorMatt066 said: “Well I don’t think comparing Clinton and Bush is relevant at all, Clinton was a peace-time, economic boom, socially moderate president. Bush has alienated all of the Democrats, almost all of the independents, and some of his base…”
Doctormatt, I agree with you about the time difference, but that is the only one. You have forgotten how Clinton enraged GOPers and alienated much of his own party.
I was reading a couple of Time magazines from the 90s lately, with stories of how enraged Democrats on the Hill were at Clinton triangulating with Republicans and undercutting them.
I think the Impeachment fiasco was the only thing the Democrats were ever fully onside with him.
Kritter makes an interesting point, I think, in saying that things might have been different if this exchange went on in 2001. I think this highlights the need for divided government in the United States. Historically, this has prevented excesses and disasters (FDR’s attempted stocking of the Supreme Court with extra Justices, for example…leading to his Democrats getting their clocks cleaned in the midterms in 38).
Having one-party rule seems to almost invariably be disastrous.
Kim,
I’ve heard that bandied about but what is the source of the information that Kagan was the author of the plan? Petraeus doesn’t strike me as a guy who’d risk his reputation by signing on to a plan that he didn’t really believe in, and he did author the counterinsurgency manual that at least seems to have been consulted heavily for the planning here. I’m not saying you’re wrong about Kagan but I do question it and wonder if there’s evidence of that?
I had heard about the surge, too, CS, even before Petraeus was appointed to replace Abizaid. It was all over the news that this was Kagan and Keane’s baby. It was dreamed up to give W an alternative to the ISG report, so that he could choose from different options. He didn’t like the fact that the ISG did not foresee a clear victory, and so decided on this plan instead. Its title is “Choosing Victory: A Plan for Success in Iraq” issued 12-15-06. I believe that is why there was such a long delay between the election and Bush’s announcement in January. Here’s a blurb from Wiki- but its all over the net if you google “Iraq Surge Plan”. MegaApologies for my ineptness at linking, lol.
This American Enterprise Institute report referenced is listed as having been posted December 14, and was called the “real Iraq Study Group report” by its author. file of report The draft was presented on December 14 by Frederick Kagan, AEI, General Keane, and Kenneth Pollack, (Brookings Institution) event detail. AEI released its final report to the press on January 5, 2007, under the title “Iraq: A Turning Point (With Reports from Iraq from Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman)”[[1]]. The event description stated the following:
“The study calls for a large and sustained surge of U.S. forces to secure and protect critical areas of Baghdad. Mr. Kagan directed the report in consultation with military and regional experts, including General Keane, former Afghanistan coalition commander Lieutenant General David Barno, and other officers involved with the successful operations of the Third Armored Cavalry Regiment in Tal Afar. An interim version of the report was released on December 14, 2006. At this event, Mr. Kagan and General Keane will present their final report, which outlines how the United States can win in Iraq and why victory is the only acceptable outcome. “
KR – Any coincedence that W’s speech was at AEI yesterday(source of plan). Like LBJ, W seems to like to give speechs and sing to the choir. Why not show some cajones and talk at CATO or Brookings?
Marlowe- I totally agree on the need for divided government. But look at other administrations where the ruling party had no problem challenging a chief executive from the same party. Ted Kennedy was a thorn in the side of Jimmy Carter, for example, in the late 70′s. I think Reagan was the architect of the eleventh commandment saying “thou shalt not criticize another Republican”. This uberpartisanship has now been picked up by both parties, to our everlasting detriment.
Imo, a congressperson’s first loyalty should be to the Constitution, rather than the president.That’s who they swear the oath to. For six years,however, Congress acted as an adjunct to the executive branch, rather than the independent branch that the founders intended it to be. George Washington warned against overemphasis on party loyalty, because it subverts loyalty to the country as a whole. Too cozy a relationship leads to uncritical acceptance of faulty policy decisions, and fosters corruption.
I really don’t see that at all, especially since he challenged a sitting president (Ford) in the same way that T. Kennedy challenged Carter. I guess he may have enforced party loyalty after he led his wing of the party to dominance, but I never saw him as being that much of an uberpartisan; more like loyalty to a particular ideology, not to party.
Forgot to add, Kim: Thanks for the info about AEI, Kagan, etc. I’ll read up on it more because I honestly didn’t know much about the authorship of the plan. I’ve looked at it more for what it contains than where it came from.
Maybe an audience at CATO or Brookings would bring up the papers and talks.
http://www.brook.edu/comm/events/20070129.htm
http://www.brook.edu/comm/events/20070111.htm
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa588.pdf
Escaping the Trap
Why the United States Must Leave Iraq
by Ted Galen Carpenter
Rudi- I think GW is improving at PR. He knew he couldn’t convince a doubtful nation based on a neocon think tank’s recommendation, so he tied the plan to Petraeus, who has a spotless reputation. But Petraeus is implementing the plan, he is not its author. He knows as long as the public doesn’t think that Cheney is engineering it, he has a chance to get their approval. Its a base appeal to our patriotism, so that we will overlook the real deal.
Kinda reminds you of the way Iraq was tied to 9/11, eh?
CS- Reagan actually said this during the 1966 race for governor of California. Except for the lapse with Ford, who he thought was too soft on Communism, I can’t really think of another time that he broke his own rule. I remember reading how betrayed Ford felt at what he perceived to be Reagan’s treachery.
Broder lost me by resorting to a 1960s handle used to denigrate antiwar advocates with a ‘you’re-a-commie’ label: peacenik.
It’s hardly common parlance anymore. And it may seem nitpicky, but it diminishes the value of Representative Kucinich’s input. If Broder wants to live in the past, he might want to add ‘pinko’ next time.
If he wishes to lower the debate to that level, fine. But older readers like me will just bypass his stuff, figuring he’s a dinosaur with one foot already in the tarpits.
Other than that, I don’t recall what he said after that point.
KR – For better PR I think a visit to Brookings or CATO would show that W is willing to meet with the enemy and debate his plan. Going to AEI is like the Cheney lovefests at Fox. When LBJ lost public support he spoke at military bases. Before the war turned bad, he eas walking the streets of NOLA when that city was hit by a hurricaine during his term. Shining a light at CATO….
This is the Bush I voted for…
more weapons we have in our arsenals, via their own words, to use against them…….Count on the fact that we will…
[...] From The Moderate Voice: This was the most glaring part of Bush’s statement: he brushed off the importance of the nonbinding resolution as meaningful, which might be news to some of the GOPers who dire consquences if it’s passed and who in roundabout (and not so roundabout ways) suggest that Democrats who seek a nonbinding resolution don’t care about the troops. Bush cut his losses and pooh-poohed the vote’s importance thus shifting the real fight to binding war-related votes to come. [...]
This was the most glaring part of Bush’s statement: he brushed off the importance of the nonbinding resolution as meaningful, which might be news to some of the GOPers who dire consquences if it’s passed and who in roundabout (and not so roundabout ways) suggest that Democrats who seek a nonbinding resolution don’t care about the troops.
Yeah, I kind of missed the clarity of the Republican’s message on this one. On the one hand they seemed to be saying that it was totally meaningless, but if you voted for it you were emboldening Zarqawi, and demeaning the troops. So maybe it wasn’t really that meaningless.
Rudi- Actually a better example of tying a shaky policy to an American hero is Rove’s decision to have Colin Powell deliver that prewar sales pitch to the UN. That was a stroke of genius, because Powell was such a trusted figure that most Americans never questioned him. That’s exactly how I see the surge plan and Petraeus.
Bush tho has improved his PR- for a while he would only give his speeches at military bases, where the listeners would probably have been court-martialed if they didn’t applaud. I wonder if he got the idea from Lyndon???
[...] It’s very important to read Joe’s post from yesterday called Broder: George Bush Has Regained His Political Footing. Reading that post, one gets the feeling that Bush is handling the entire debate in a very smart manner. His tone has changed, he doesn’t argue that actively against this nonbinding resolution, instead he simply (in Joe’s words) “pooh-poohed the vote’s importance, thus shifting the real fight to binding war-related votes to come.” [...]