George Bush would be a bartender if it was not for his father
I think you've seen Being There once too often.
There's no doubt that GWB's connections got him in many doors and bailed him out more than once. But no major party will put an incompetent at the head of a major ticket, for their sake if not for his. GWB was a success as governor of Texas, and he's having a successful Presidency.
By success, I mean: being able to define the terms of debate, being able to propose your programs, being able to pass your programs. Compare to Clinton 3 years into his term:
Clinton wanted 1) gays in the military, 2) a tax increase, and 3) health care reform. He got 1/2 of 1), 2) and a crushing defeat on 3). Then the Democrats got crushed in the midterms and the Democrats lost the Congress. People began to ask, "is Clinton still relevant?" Then Newt overreached with the shutdown of the Federal Government, and people found the answer was "yes". Then Clinton moved way over to the center, and passed Nafta and welfare reform, his two biggest legislative achievements, both essentially DLC/moderate Republican programs.
GWB wanted 1) tax cuts, 2) war in Afghanistan, 3) war in Iraq. He got 3 out of 3. Then the Republicans scored big gains in the Midterms after Bush campaigned heavily, and the Republicans retook the Senate. Now with a favorable Congress, he's in the process of getting his $87 billion and is heavily favored for 2004.
To me the evidence is obvious: Bush is a focused politician who concentrates on a few goals, and usually gets them. Clinton was a brilliant and totally undisciplined politician, who used his talents mostly for getting himself out of troubles that he'd gotten himself into. In the process he infuriated his enemies and none of his friends liked him either.
But you keep on thinking Bush is a moron if it gives you comfort. Karl Rove thanks you. |
