Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lurqer who wrote (21813)	7/10/2003 3:39:09 PM
From: stockman_scott	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

High-stakes poker game ______________________________ Will Bush maintain public trust on Iraq occupation? By Howard Fineman SPECIAL TO MSNBC.COM msnbc.com WASHINGTON, July 10 — George W. Bush likes cards now and then, and the favorite game in the state he hails from is called “Texas Hold ‘Em.” The choices are limited, though the betting is not, and most of the cards are dealt face up. It puts a premium on bravado, and on a willingness to put everything on the line in an “OK Corral” style shootout. You win big — or lose big. THE PRESIDENT has played the poker game of war leadership this way — cards face up — since 9/11, pushing all his, and our, chips to the middle of the table in a showdown with the axis of evil. He hasn’t shied away from betting big time on dramatic victory in Iraq, which he decided to invade a year ago. Now the question is whether he chose the right game and the right strategy. His presidency, and our safety, depends on this deal of the cards. By and large, the American people still like his “bring ‘em on” attitude. They still seethe at the memory of the 9/11 attacks on something they’ve only recently learned to call “the homeland.” They rallied in 2001 to an untested president’s firm response — rhetorical and actual — and cheered, or quietly enjoyed, the sight of bombs falling on the Taliban and Saddam. INGRAINED AMERICAN VALUES They also like his basic notion, which is that we will use force when and where necessary, with the United Nations or without, to protect ourselves. It’s an idea as deeply ingrained in America as, say, the right to bear arms. Even if you think the Second Amendment applies only to state militias, the point is the same: Diplomacy is all well and good, but where’s my rifle? Americans also have a sense that something bigger is at stake in the war on terrorism: the idea of freedom and democracy in the world as a whole. They know that there is no more “Over There,” as the song went in World War I. Over There is everywhere, and no country is too obscure or distant. Any of them could breed the hate and the repression that threaten us. For all those reasons — emotional, intuitive, pragmatic — President Bush’s approval ratings remain high, and confidence in the course of the war in Iraq, while diminished somewhat, remains pretty strong. Europeans detest Bush’s vision; most Americans still see it as their own. But there is a cloud on the horizon of the Bush presidency, and it is not the controversy about what he did or didn’t know concerning the alleged — and we now know fictitious — effort by Iraq to acquire uranium “yellow cake” from Niger. In and of itself, the question means little to the American people, who wanted Saddam Hussein obliterated no matter what the specific excuse. They knew that, even if he wasn’t an immediate threat, he or his Baathist regime quite likely would become one eventually. Better to deal with him now. PERSONAL VS. POLITICAL The political threat to Bush is elsewhere, but very real. It has to do with how the voters see him. Much of the president’s support is personal: People tend to like the guy. They tend to trust him. If he undermines that trust, his presidency could collapse. “Trust Me” works as an explanation for political leadership — but only when the voters already do. Reacting defensively or dismissively to questions about who knew what when won’t work in the long run. The risk for the administration is that it will react badly to all the questions — and put at risk the thing that holds it together, which is Bush’s credibility with mainstream voters. LOSING THE MILITARY The president also needs to speak frankly about the long-term costs of the war in Iraq, in blood and treasure. Forget the Democrats: They’re lining up against his policy, big time, even though many of them voted for it. An open-ended war with no evidence of a stable government in Baghdad will begin to undermine the president’s support in the place it has been strongest — among the military and military families. Gung-ho once, they are no longer. It’s hard to imagine a Democrat who could successfully appeal to those voters over Bush’s head. But they could simply stay away from the polls — or not mail military absentee ballots — next year. Finally, and most important, voters need to be convinced that the president’s anywhere and everywhere theory of the world has made us safer here at home. With Osama Bin Laden at large and Saddam Hussein still a factor in Iraq, that isn’t as easy a sell as the White House might think. The conventional wisdom is that, if there is another terrorist attack on the homeland, voters will rally around the president. Maybe. Maybe not. It would depend on the facts. Big bets are on the table, but we don’t know what cards the other guys are holding. ______________________________________ Howard Fineman is Newsweek’s chief political correspondent and an NBC News analyst.