GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Doing some recent summer cleaning, I came across a crumpled copy of the November 15, 1999 issue of Time Magazine. It was buried at the bottom of a box devoted to old periodical subscriptions. Curious, I leafed through the pages and found that a few articles were dedicated to the 2000 race for the Republican presidential nomination. With the exception of some pictures showing much younger and more energetic versions of George W. Bush and John McCain, I was not particularly intrigued by the passages that detailed the respective temperaments of the two men or McCain’s steady rise in New Hampshire.
The final article, however, did catch my attention. Entitled “Why Bush Doesn’t Like Homework,” the piece is not meant to ridicule the President’s intelligence or question his much-discussed academic past, rather it is a candid assessment of then-candidate Bush, his leadership traits, and his managerial skills. I believe that the arguments made in the article shed some light on the failures and inadequacies of Bush’s presidency. Furthermore, I think the lessons we will learn from the following passages could go a long way in evaluating McCain’s chances in November.
First, a few passages detailing Bush’s successes as Texas Governor, his struggles to command key foreign policy issues as he rose to the national stage, and the consequences that come with a leader that does not pride himself on mastering those devilish details:
In Texas, Bush is known as a skilled manager and a confident, crisp decision maker. He has pursued, for the most part, simple, understandable policy goals and has stuck to his agenda with remarkable discipline. But on the national stage these past eight months, a competing image of Bush has appeared–that of a cautious, staff-dependent candidate, likable but lacking gravitas, who sounds out of his depth on some of the most serious policy issues a President must consider. Last week reporters pounced on the fact that he failed an interviewer’s pop quiz by not knowing the leaders of three out of four world hot spots–Chechnya, India and Pakistan.* (He got right the leader of Taiwan, Lee Teng-hui.)
…
The fear that continues to fester about Bush–as we read about his periodic foreign-policy gaffes and then hear him blithely assert that what he doesn’t know he can learn from his advisers–is that at 53 he has the same cavalier attitude toward knowledge that he had at 21: he could learn what he needs to know, but he doesn’t seem to think it’s worth his time.
Bush speaks convincingly about how important it is for a leader to assemble a trustworthy cadre of advisers. And he argues that there is no percentage, as Governor or as President, in trying to master every subject or micromanage every decision. But as Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist at the University of Texas in Austin, says, “Bush is trying to turn his weakness into a virtue. He’s not a policy wonk, so he has to rely on people who are.” And there is a risk to that approach, adds Buchanan, who is an admirer: “Bush’s biggest weakness is that he might not be in a position to discern the credibility of the options his advisers lay out for him.”
Obviously, hindsight is 20/20. Yet, I cannot help but see that the American people elected to the Oval Office a man that was not ready for the international stage, just at time when the world’s worst evil would come crashing ashore months later. More distressingly, George W. Bush would manage the White House with a clear distaste for policy specifics:
His leadership style is similarly direct. Although he insists “the details are important,” Bush freely admits that he prefers one-page memos to bound treatises, oral briefings to long meetings. When he is briefed, he doesn’t just sit back and listen. He engages his advisers, testing their logic and pressing them to get to the heart of the matter. From the minute someone starts talking about an issue, Bush is itching for a recommendation. As Albert Hawkins, his state budget director, says, “If you’re going on too long, he tells you so.” Says Bush: “I like to hear someone enunciate a position, pro or con. Because if someone cannot explain a position, that generally means they don’t understand the issue well enough to be part of the decision-making process.”
I am all for those expert advisers and policy wonks that guide the president as he is making tough choices. It seems, however, that President Bush has taken it too far. From the invasion of Iraq to Hurricane Katrina, Bush has a long history of depending heavily upon those around him. Ranging from the rise of the Iraqi insurgency following the invasion to the continued failures of the No Child Left Behind education act, significant evidence can be found that Bush failed to hammer out the more integral pieces behind his decisions. Sadly, President Bush’s trust in his closest advisers brought about the loss of his credibility among the American people.
Where am I going with all this? This passage may help:
The elder Bush, unlike his son, was a foreign-policy expert. A former CIA director, U.N. representative and ambassador to China, he is probably on a first-name basis with more world leaders than George W. can name. But the former President’s blind spot was domestic affairs. He wasn’t much interested in social issues or education. When it came to domestic policy, President Bush deferred to his expert advisers, much as George W. does now on questions of foreign affairs. That arm’s-length behavior cost the father a second term. A similar problem could cost the son a first.
John McCain, of course, is a foreign-policy expert. The American people, just as they were in 1992 and 2000, are concerned most about the condition of the home front. In both of those elections, they chose the candidates that stressed domestic issues. In 1992, Bill Clinton fit the bill as a centrist, Southern Democrat who captured the middle-class mood soured by the recent economic downturn. In 2000, with America still on its post-Cold War vacation, the electorate settled (kinda) on a man who championed a humble foreign policy and a return to government integrity.
Let us hope, then, that we avoid a potentially grave mistake by electing Barack Obama, a man heavily versed in domestic issues, yet lacking greatly in the foreign policy department. Wait, I thought it was the economy and the home front that would decide the election. Won’t McCain just be George H.W. Bush, sixteen years later? Despite all the doom and gloom over the direction of the country and our “slumping” economy, the fact remains that the outside world poses far greater threats in 2008 as it did in 1992.
Don’t get me wrong, John McCain must develop his knowledge and speaking skills on domestic issues such as healthcare and education. He will certainly not win in November by promoting a strictly foreign policy/national security (McCain) versus domestic issues/economy (Obama) campaign. Yet, the American people must understand that the costs of electing another unqualified visionary are far too great to risk. “Hope” and “Change” will not produce stability in Iraq and Afghanistan, obtain energy security, or keep Russia and China in check. As always, a free-market society will experience economic distress and public angst, causing leaders to focus temporarily on domestic concerns. While the economy will eventually see brighter days, the world does not rest. And the world cannot afford another Jimmy Carter, not when he refuses to acknowledge recent successes in Iraq or speaks ill of free trade. Barack Obama: politics as usual.
June 24th, 2008 at 2:04 am
Did any of you guys vote for Gore or Kerry?
If not then I’m afraid you have no point.
June 24th, 2008 at 2:10 am
Yet, I cannot help but see that the American people elected to the Oval Office a man that was not ready for the international stage, just at time when the world’s worst evil would come crashing ashore months later. More distressingly, George W. Bush would manage the White House with a clear distaste for policy specifics
George W. Bush has proven himself more than ready for the “international stage” — which deserves to be knocked down more than a couple of notches on the scale of reverence — by holding steady to his justified principles in the face of overwhelming opposition ready to bury its head in the sand so as not to confront the evil in this world that threatens America. By such gutsy moves as bashing appeasers while abroad, sending John Bolton to the UN, staying the course in Iraq and then pushing the surge, and refusing to capitulate to the contemptible demands of Chirac and Schroder (Oil-for-Food, anyone? History certainly has validated George W. Bush on this count already), he has more than proven himself worthy of the ‘international stage’ — the man’s brought a visionary view to foreign policy. Simply recognizing the Islamofascist threat and regarding it as more than just a law enforcement issue — and taking it head on — should be enough to recognize W. as a good president, if not a great one.
I am all for those expert advisers and policy wonks that guide the president as he is making tough choices. It seems, however, that President Bush has taken it too far. From the invasion of Iraq to Hurricane Katrina, Bush has a long history of depending heavily upon those around him. Ranging from the rise of the Iraqi insurgency following the invasion to the continued failures of the No Child Left Behind education act, significant evidence can be found that Bush failed to hammer out the more integral pieces behind his decisions. Sadly, President Bush’s trust in his closest advisers brought about the loss of his credibility among the American people.
Bush is not infallible or clairvoyant; needless to say, mistakes are made in war and the strength of the insurgency was obviously underestimated. But Iraq has hardly been a parade of horrors, unless the only media that you absorb is written by Maureen Dowd and Seymour Hersh.
Also: How is John McCain a foreign policy expert? “Of course” he is? How? And George H.W. Bush is a subscriber to the realist school of thought, whereas John McCain is far more on the side of the neo-conservatives.
Yet, the American people must understand that the costs of electing another unqualified visionary are far too great to risk.
Throwing George W. Bush under the bus — among fellow Republicans! — because he’s unpopular to get a shot at Obama is beneath contempt. So George W. Bush is nothing more than an Obama figure to you, an “unqualified visionary”? Well, then.
Feel free to IM me sometime (you have my screen name) if you’d like to debate the merits of Bush’s foreign policy.
June 24th, 2008 at 2:31 am
Michael: As an actual swing voter this election, this is a deeply impressive piece of analysis for me. If you want to write more on this theme, though, I’d like to see a broader analysis: what were the biggest failures of the Bush foreign policy? How could these have been avoided with a more experienced chief executive? And above all: is Obama’s managerial style similar to Bush’s?
Alex: Clearly, I’m not the audience you’re writing to. But I would take umbrage on Michael’s behalf in your second-to-last paragraph. I think it’s unfair to say that Michael is “throwing George W. Bush under the bus — among fellow Republicans! — because he’s unpopular.” It’s not because he’s unpopular; it’s because he’s been a bad president - or at least Michael thinks so.
June 24th, 2008 at 3:31 am
Its funny how these things operate in cycles. The arguments GOP glossed over in 2000 are now being emphasized in 2008 (as they now apply to the other side).
Meanwhile, the question of foreign policy experience the Dems lauded in 2000 has been replaced with ‘judgment’.
Politics is weird sometimes…
June 24th, 2008 at 4:17 am
Michael Stubel:
Bite the dust you ignorant fool. Read this and weep.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/opinion/24brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
June 24th, 2008 at 4:28 am
Michael Stubel:
You are exactly the type of human being I loathe. You are ease to jump on the bandwagon when things are good. And jump off when things are bad. You have no core principles. You have no principles other than your own popularity proxied by political polling. Raise your head when you say Bush was a bad president. People of your ilk said Abraham Lincoln was a “bad president” at the analogous point in history for inciting a civil war which killed hundreds of thousands.
Read this. Fools. It contradicts your base premise. Bush is Churchillian. He understands the “international stage” and the nature of evil in this world greater than you ever will.
Read this. Bush got it right when everyone else said do the other thing! Your premise is smashed. Read it. Ignoramus.
Bush Got It Right:
Let’s go back and consider how the world looked in the winter of 2006-2007. Iraq was in free fall, with horrific massacres and ethnic cleansing that sent a steady stream of bad news across the world media. The American public delivered a stunning electoral judgment against the Iraq war, the Republican Party and President Bush.
Expert and elite opinion swung behind the Baker-Hamilton report, which called for handing more of the problems off to the Iraqi military and wooing Iran and Syria. Republicans on Capitol Hill were quietly contemptuous of the president while Democrats were loudly so.
Democratic leaders like Senator Harry Reid considered the war lost. Barack Obama called for a U.S. withdrawal starting in the spring of 2007, while Senator Reid offered legislation calling for a complete U.S. pullback by March 2008.
The arguments floating around the op-ed pages and seminar rooms were overwhelmingly against the idea of a surge — a mere 20,000 additional troops would not make a difference. The U.S. presence provoked violence, rather than diminishing it. The more the U.S. did, the less the Iraqis would step up to do. Iraq was in the middle of a civil war, and it was insanity to put American troops in the middle of it.
When President Bush consulted his own generals, the story was much the same. Almost every top general, including Abizaid, Schoomaker and Casey, were against the surge. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was against it, according to recent reports. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki called for a smaller U.S. presence, not a bigger one.
In these circumstances, it’s amazing that George Bush decided on the surge.
The additional fact is that Bush, who made such bad calls early in the war, made a courageous and astute decision in 2006. More than a year on, the surge has produced large, if tenuous, gains. Violence is down sharply. Daily life has improved. Iraqi security forces have been given time to become a more effective fighting force. The Iraqi government is showing signs of strength and even glimmers of impartiality. Iraq has moved from being a failed state to, as Vali Nasr of the Council on Foreign Relations has put it, merely a fragile one.
The surge was decidedly Bush’s surge. The credit for this on the “international stage” is his and his alone.
The End.
June 24th, 2008 at 4:37 am
One other thing, Michael Stubel:
You have no core principles. You are the hindsight 20/20 genius that wouldn’t have a clue in foresight.
You are exactly the type of human being that enbles political advisors meet in smoke-filled rooms to attempt to lead to slaughter like a dumb sheep.
Think about that for a moment because it is true.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:06 am
You guys are being too tough on Michael here. I wouldn’t say that Bush was a bad president on the whole, but he was mediocre at best and he certainly wasn’t Reagan.
Bush was not intellectually curious. He never has been. Don’t fault Michael for what many of us have known for years. It was apparant in 1999 to anyone who was paying attention and not drinking the Rush Limbaugh kool-aid. Some of us thought in 2000 that it was foolish to nominate someone with so little to recommend him. He was TX governor. So what? It’s a largely ceremonial role. He wasn’t as sharp as he should have been. He SHOULD have known the names of foreign leaders. Where would Bush have been if he were the exact same person with the exact same weaknesses and strengths and abilities, only named George W. Smith?
There is a reason Bush’s approval is so disastrously low. I’m frankly surprised at the reaction to Michael’s words on this site. All of the conservative purists raised holy hell about McCain’s “amnesty” bill in the senate (not that the immigration bill bothered me). Who made the bill possible? None other than George Bush. And this wasn’t some surprise stance that came out of left field. His oil company was called Arbusto Energy . He made a point of saying that “family values don’t end at the Rio Grande”. He was perfectly clear that he was going to be soft on immigration and border control. Only a complete idiot would have missed the signs. Then there was all of this outrage from Limbaugh et al when Bush just acts like he promised he would.
Then there was spending. He could have gotten fiscal and economic conservatives more enthusiastic if he vetoed a single spendng bill. In failing to do so he was largely responsible for allowing DEMOCRATS to run as fiscally responsible in 2006. But again, what you see is what you get. Bush let Ted Kennedy write the education bill. Bush was all for expanding government. And it wasn’t just because of 9/11. Medicare part D - why did he need to do that? WTF? Creating ANOTHER ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM when Republicans controlled the White House, the Senate and the House. This is insane!
On the Iraq war - some of you had noted that it was “Bush’s surge”. Fair enough - but that was only after Bush decided to tread water for a year with Rumsfeld at the helm. And even worse - he couldn’t even speak. He kept quiet and let the Democrats hammer him and the Republicans for all of 2005 and watched the entire Republican brand go down the gutter for some reason or another. It was like pulling teeth to get any specificity on the end game in Iraq - or even any reassurance that he had any coherent plan at all to improve the situation. All the while the American people just slowly tuned him out. Consensus was reached that the entire military adventure was a failure - and as Maggie Thatcher rightly said, “Consensus is that which is reached in the absence of leadership”. Well there was NO leadership. Bush couldn’t sell anything - ever. He didn’t even try. I don’t know whether he was worried about Scooter Libby and Rove and indictments in 2005 but the fact that he stopped bothering to rally the public and let the Democrats beat the population into submission is unforgivable as far as I’m concerned - because look what it did. Even when Bush followed McCain’s surge idea public opposition to the war had already hardened.
Then there was the idea of partially privatizing social security. Good idea - ridiculously poor execution. Why didn’t Bush try to sell this in 2002 when he had stratospheric approval ratings? Talk about a missed opportunity! It wouldn’t be the only one.
Bush and his TX team largely earned the repuation of the gang that couldn’t shoot straight (The only person who knew his stuff was Rove - and even he sold out the long-term interests of the GOP for short-term gain). Alberto Gonzales was only picked for AG because of his blind loyalty to Bush. Harriet Miers was a disaster. “Brownie” was unqualified. There is no debate about that. Katrina was horrible for the administration. Yes - state and local governments dropped the ball, but what the hell was Bush doing getting guitar lessons at the time? How stupid of an idea was it to fly overhead at an altitude of hundreds of feet? From a PR standpoint at the very least, the president showed no confidence of being able to ably handle the situation. For a “can do” party - that’s completely unacceptable.
For all of his faults, Bush does deserve credit for his handling of the maneuvering in Afghanistan after 9/11, for shellacking the Taliban, for (eventually) nominating two excellent appointees to the Supreme Court and for eventually getting in right on the surge. Also, Bush deserves praise for the Terror Surveillence Program and the Patriot Act. But the bottom line is that the Bush presidency was a mixed bag , and in terms of what was best for the Republican Party, a complete and total failure.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:07 am
So Bush is Truman sjd?
June 24th, 2008 at 7:05 am
Bush had a hook to justify seeking the Presidency (his daddy) just like Obama has a hook to justify seeking the Presidency (his melanin).
In both cases better qualified men are passed over for a young guy with a shaky grasp of the world and the issues.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:38 am
sjd and others, I am sorry I did not make my point clearer, but I am not throwing Bush under the bus. I am not questioning the choices he made on foreign policy, rather his management and leadership of those events. Thank you Adam for elaborating on my premise: Bush is not a bad president, he is middle of the road. The successful surge came about after years of mismanagement and faulty command.
June 24th, 2008 at 8:02 am
#11:
Mediocore is too harsh for the President. I fully believe he is the Repulican Harry Truman. He led
America during a different kind of war. He fought the enemey over there instead of fighting them over here.
I don’t see how President Bush couldn’t be considered a Great President if
1.) There is no terrorist attack on America for the rest of his term. He promised to keep America safe and did
2.) McCain is sworn in on Jan 19th. President Bush is vindicated and he gets to enrage the liberals 1 more time
June 24th, 2008 at 8:30 am
“Let us hope, then, that we avoid a potentially grave mistake by electing Barack Obama, a man heavily versed in domestic issues, yet lacking greatly in the foreign policy department.”
Barack Obama is well-versed in domestic issues? Hiiiilarious. Didn’t we just have a whole Democratic primary campaign, where Barack Obama lost 13 of the last 15 states because he couldn’t talk about bread and butter (read domestic) issues, persuasively? George W. Bush was quite a bit stronger on domestic issues in 2000. I’m practically in tears at the thought that we’ve nominated a guy who cares not a whit about domestic issues, who doesn’t usually project any sort of compassion or humility, etc, given that we’re facing Barack Obama. I don’t like Mike Huckabee, but I’m convinced Huck would be beating Obama senseless right now on domestic issues. He’d be collapsing in tears. McCain’s just mildly better then Obama on domestic issues, so Obama’s “visionary” (read hopelessly hyperbolic and staccato rhetoric) qualities can usually make up the difference.
As far as Bush goes, I actually think he’s been a fairly good president, and might become a great President depending on how things in the Middle East evolve. I’m closer to the Alex position then the Adam position here. That said, I think it’s simply a fact that Bush has a taken a considerable time to achieve some sort of fluency on this stuff. I think this quote “Bush’s biggest weakness is that he might not be in a position to discern the credibility of the options his advisers lay out for him.” is really spot on. He didn’t know enough about foreign policy to determine who among his advisers, was offering the right advice on Iraq. That was a huge problem, and could have been remedied with a more well-versed president. You had McCain calling for more troops from day one. You had people like Niall Ferguson arguing that we ought to go in Iraq, but that it was highly unlikely we’d finish the job, because it required nation-building and nation-building would require at least 10 to 20 years. There were alot of people who seem prescient now, but were simply more competent on Iraq, foreign policy, the nature of insurgencies, Islamism, etc. And I don’t think it’s unreasonable for McCain or Republicans to point this out, vis-a-vis Obama. I argued as much in a post last week. It can be done tactfully. He could say:
“I like George Bush, I think he’s grown into a better president over time, especially with his decision to agree to the surge of troops in Iraq. But, it’s no coincidence that some of his early foreign policy decisions there were badly flawed. He just didn’t have the knowledge or experience to chose the RIGHT option between competing options. And we’re going to see the same thing with Barack. He’s opposed the surge, and initially proposed a timetable to remove all of our troops from Iraq by March 2008. March 2008. Do you have any idea what sort of madness would have ensued if we’d left by March 2008? Do you understand what sort of opportunities we’d have missed, if we’d left by March 2008? Then, he moved the timetable back a year and a half, and now he’s suggesting he’ll, of course, leave in a “safe” manner, and isn’t mentioning timetables. He made these mistakes, because he doesn’t understand the conflict. He doesn’t understand who’s advice to take, on foreign policy questions, and he can’t rely on his own knowledge, because he has very little. And this is going to be replicated in a whole host of foreign policy decisions, if he’s president. Maybe he’ll eventually GET it, but do you want to wait 6 years?”
I think that’s a winning message.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Matt, by well-versed I meant that Obama is idealistic and eloquent on domestic issues, not that his positions are right
June 24th, 2008 at 9:44 am
These are the arguments of the left. Yes, Bush has been wrong in many issues but not in foreign policy. History will judge in the end, now we just hear the voices of the defeatocrats and those who are more afraid of losing an election than losing a country.
June 24th, 2008 at 9:58 am
#10 - That is also true of the election in 1960.
#6 - I am not an editor or any other “official” with this site, just an avid reader and sometimes commentator, but allow me to say that the comments, and especially the tone, of “sjd” is totally out of line. There is nothing wrong with Michael’s posting; what is absurd is your assertion that Bush is Churchillian–my God!
Now as to Michael’s posting:
The Time article states: “The elder Bush, unlike his son, was a foreign-policy expert.” HW Bush was a foreign-policy manager as opposed to a foreign-policy leader as was Reagan and/or Thatcher–or Churchill. He was very “Establishment.” He was a good manager but not really a leader. The real problem for both Bushes was/is that neither have strong, clear political convictions combined with that intangible “sense of leadership” that characterize successful presidents.
I agree with Michael that Obama is trying to position himself to ride a wave of public dissatisfaction with the status quo by sounding lofty and eloquent, all the while glossing over policy details and his fundamental beliefs, goals and methods of achieving them. Very similar to JFK in 1960, which should be no real surprise to anyone who has been paying close attention to the Obama operation from the beginning.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:25 am
Michael,
I wasn’t talking about his positions being right either. Obama is idealistic and eloquent, but he’s not idealistic and eloquent on anything in particular. He speaks in broad strokes, but domestic has always been about closer to home concerns. His eloquence is lost here. I’ve often made a distinction between two types of great politicians; those who inspire, and those who can “feel the electorate’s pain” or generally project humility and understanding. Occasionally you get someone like Reagan who can do both, but generally you’re stuck with one of the two(or neither). Obama fits emphatically in the “inspiration” camp, and has almost none of the “I feel your pain” ability. He’s as bad as almost anyone I’ve seen here, which is why Hillary whomped him on domestic concerns (and managed to turn herself into a working class populist), and it’s why even John McCain has an opportunity to grab the domestic issues mantle.
And I’ve consistently argued that if forced to chose between the two, the latter type of politician is almost always preferable. Bill Clinton in his heyday would beat Obama every day of the week and twice on Sunday’s. Mike Huckabee, if he could overcome his religious background, would beat Obama every day of the week and twice on Sunday’s. Obama isn’t good on domestic issues, either on policy, or on delivery. His rhetoric is too high-minded, he comes across as too arrogant, and he has too much of a tendency to give off a “this is for your own good” vibe. A competent blue-collar or populist, with a reasonable amount of experience, could absolutely wreck Obama.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:46 am
If ad hominem, vindictive postings like SJD’s become the norm here, then the site is of no use. If there’s one thing I can’t stand, it’s a bunch of conservatives trashing each others’ bonafides. Being a good Republican does not require one to admire President Bush, and I gently remind everyone that no matter how much we approve of the President’s prosecution of the War on Terror, this is the same guy that has thrown every notion of conservatism to the wind when it comes to expansion of the federal government. I signed on for a Republican party that kept its nose OUT of the states’ business. Bush has failed miserably at this.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Alex Knepper I am flabbergasted at your comment. McCain is not a neo-con.
- MAC was only one of two Republican’s members of the house to vote against sending troops to Lebanon, because the mission was not defined. (he was correct)
- MAC hesitated but did ultimately support sending troops to Kosovo, but warned America the troops would be there for ten years (everyone else was saying 1-2 years). Again, history proved him correct.
- MAC was correct about Rumsfeld and the surge
June 24th, 2008 at 11:07 am
sjd has never made a point with coming across like a jerk. Take him with a huge truckload of salt.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:07 am
sjd has never made a point without coming across like a jerk. Take him with a huge truckload of salt.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Kristofer,
Re: Lebanon. McCain was not correct. Pulling out after the bombing of the Beirut barracks was, arguably, the very worst mistake of Reagan’s presidency, and his weakness and lack of resolve in that instance are partly responsible for 9/11; not to mention Mogadishu (in which Clinton’s capitulation further emboldened bin Laden), the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, Khobar Towers, and the USS Cole.
Osama bin Laden: “The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat. And America forgot all the hoopla and media propaganda … about being the world leader and the leader of the New World Order, and after a few blows they forgot about this title and left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat.”
“We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American Government and the weakness of the American soldier who is ready to wage cold wars and unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia.
I found this 1983 statement on the House floor by then-freshman Congressman McCain to be utterly deplorable:
“The fundamental question is: What is the United States’ interest in Lebanon? It is said we are there to keep the peace. I ask, what peace? It is said we are there to aid the government. I ask, what government? It is said we are there to stabilize the region. I ask, how can the U.S. presence stabilize the region?… The longer we stay in Lebanon, the harder it will be for us to leave. We will be trapped by the case we make for having our troops there in the first place.
“What can we expect if we withdraw from Lebanon? The same as will happen if we stay. I acknowledge that the level of fighting will increase if we leave. I regretfully acknowledge that many innocent civilians will be hurt. But I firmly believe this will happen in any event.”
June 24th, 2008 at 11:31 am
I think Matt Miller is right. Inspiration is useful but voters want someone working for them, not just for high minded ideals.
I’m a blue collar guy; I’m a close version of my dad’s Irish Catholic persona offline and in person.
When I think about what Obama would do for me, I’m not impressed. Transforming politics and bringing ‘hope’ does nothing to improve my life. It’s as if the problem in America are an afterthought to Obama. What really matter is how great Obama and his supporters are.
It’s like a mutual ego boosting society.
“Oh, you’re so great!”
“We’re going to bring hope!”
“I’ll stop the oceans from rising!”
“We’re the change we’ve been waiting for!”
If I want to have my ego massaged I’ll talk to my always affectionate wife. I’ll not go to a skinny guy from Chicago who’s full of himself.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Just to clarify a few key points I tried to make in the article:
1. Bush’s management style and his general disregard for details led him too often to wear strictly black and white lenses for major world issues.
2. I do not disagree with the invasion or the success of the surge, I am merely pointing out obvious missteps
3. Bush and Obama share a similar brand of visionary and idealistic politics sans sober realism
4. McCain, if he can bolster his economic cred, can grab the realist, policy-based mantle
June 24th, 2008 at 11:54 am
As the late, great George Carlin said so eloquently…”F*ck Hope!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W9Cs6KPTus
June 24th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Obama is apparently claiming that his health care plan will put 2500 hundred dollars into the pockets of the average American family. Where in the world is he getting those kinds of figures from. They need to be debunked and fast, before people start to believe them.
June 24th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Here’s another worth sharing…
Carlin on voting
June 24th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Illinoisguy,
You want to see something frightening?
Look at the results from this new Gallup poll:
If you had to choose, who do you think would do a better job on [issue], Barack Obama or John McCain?
Healthcare: Obama 51%; McCain 26%
Economy: Obama 48%; McCain 32%
Energy, including gas prices: Obama 47%; McCain 28%
Taxes: Obama 44%; McCain 35%
The only area in which McCain has a significant lead over Obama is terrorism; where he leads the naive first-term senator, 52-33%.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/pdf/ANWRlettertoCongress_June23-2008.pdf
Check this letter our to Harry Reid.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Aron, I know, I saw that, and it is scary, and unbelievable. It makes the American voter look really stupid. One thing at a time, we are going to have to debunk his figures, but the healthcare figures are particularly troubling. How in the world could they even begin to present figures like that as truthful. Apparently some people must be believing them though.
June 24th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
#22 Aron,
“What can we expect if we withdraw from Lebanon? The same as will happen if we stay. I acknowledge that the level of fighting will increase if we leave. I regretfully acknowledge that many innocent civilians will be hurt. But I firmly believe this will happen in any event.”
McCain again, was correct. This supports my point that he is not a Neo-Conservative. Thank for Aron.
As for “Reagan’s worst mistake”. Marine’s should never have been there in the first place. America is not a peace-keeping nation. Let the Canadian’s and Europeans do that (as they are doing now). We are much better off liberating Iranians, Syrians or the Cuban’s, than wearing blue UN berets. Somalia was a disaster because we reported to a UN commander. Let us never let that happen again.
What we believe from Senator McCain to be true, is that it took over a decade to rebuild the moral of the US military, post-Vietnam. We must never let our troops come home in defeat, and the best way to avoid that is for our Government to only send them on missions that are defined, with an end game. That is all Senator McCain asks for. Based on our expeiences in Korea, Vietnam and Somalia, I tend to believe him.
June 24th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
30: Just because the average American disagrees with you does not imply stupidity; you could be wrong.
June 24th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Good article Michael. But GWBush and Obama are totally different creatures. So it isn’t very accurate to compare the two. Obama is much more comparable to Bill Clinton in ‘92, with a little less experience, probably more true principles, and more personal discipline.
June 24th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
#32 - Are you on the right site? Somethings are as plain as the nose on your face. I’ll keep my terminology of stupidity without reservation.
June 24th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
34 - Are you saying that you’re infallible?
June 25th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Was Iraq Worth It?
By Tony Blankley