« Now We Get Reports of Democrat Corruption | Main | San Francisco Again Proves it Doesn't Really Care About the Children »

Bad political reruns

1988 was the first presidential election I could vote in. The choice that year was Vice President George Bush vs. Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis.

I didn't really appreciate the choice. On the one hand, I had liked Bush back in 1980. He ran as a moderate Republican, the alternative to Reagan's staunch, rock-solid conservatism, and even at the age of 12 (I turned 13 just weeks before the election) I preferred the more middle-of-the-road course. He also had, I thought, the best resume of all the candidates running -- Representative, CIA Director, and UN Ambassador. I lost a smidgen of respect for him when he accepted the vice-presidential slot, as he'd been fairly critical of Reagan in the primaries, but I had to admit he was a pretty good veep. He was loyal to his president and didn't use the bully vice-pulpit to espouse where he differed and disagreed from Reagan.

But when he ran for president in 1988, he didn't run as the same man he was -- and the same man I'd liked -- back in 1980. He tried to run as "Reagan's third term," and he just couldn't pull that off convincingly to me. He wasn't Reagan and he wasn't the Old Bush, and I couldn't decide just how I felt about that.

When they picked their vice presidents, I was even more appalled. Dukakis tapped Lloyd Bentsen, a senator from Texas. The transparency of Dukakis' trying to re-create the 1960 race -- the Democratic Massachusetts politician tapping a Texas senator to go against a sitting Republican vice-president following a very popular and loved two-term Republican president -- was just too much. Bentsen's main qualification seemed to be that he'd beaten George Bush before, in the 1970 race for the US Senate from Texas.

On the other hand, Bush seemed to be picking his assassination insurance when he chose Quayle. The guy seemed even less articulate than Bush (that itself no mean feat), and the fact that his family owned a newspaper and he was STILL utterly inept at handling the media was, I thought, a pretty hefty black mark. I did NOT appreciate my choices that year.

So when November came around, I had two very unappealing choices. And when I was alone in the booth with my very first choice about president to make, I did not vote for George Bush. I voted against Michael Dukakis -- Bush was just the beneficiary of my rejection of the Duke.

Bush won handily, and promptly had an extremely mediocre presidency. He oversaw the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but Reagan had done most of the heavy lifting on that one. He got rid of Panama's dictator, and that was pretty much a good thing.

And then there was the Gulf War.

That was Bush's shining moment, when Iraq invaded and overthrew the Kuwaiti government . Bush managed to pull together a massive coalition against Saddam Hussein, then ordered a brilliant military campaign that soundly defeated the Iraqi military and forced Saddam to withdraw and accept severe sanctions in exchange for not being overthrown completely. Bush's popularity was at record levels in the wake of Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

(Author's note: some readers have previously questioned why I tend to refer to Saddam Hussein by his first name after first mention. It is not out of any sense of familiarity, but a legacy of my age. For most of my life, there were two leaders in the Middle East named Hussein -- Saddam Hussein of Iraq and King Hussein of Jordan. On the other hand, there has only been one notable Saddam, so use of his first name was a convenient shorthand.)

Alas, Bush could not sustain his popularity in the wake of that first war. (Which, it should be mentioned, John Kerry voted against, but later supported -- unlike the second Gulf War, which he voted for, then later opposed. He was against fighting Saddam before he was for it, and was for fighting Saddam before he was against it. But I digress.) He let Congress bully him into repudiating the key element of his 1988 campaign -- "Read my lips, no new taxes!" -- and that left him in the eyes of many voters (myself included) "damaged goods.

Bush knew he was in the fight of his political life in 1992, and promptly turned loose his secret weapon: James Baker.

Jim Baker, Reagan's Chief of Staff and Secretary of the Treasury, as well as Bush's Secretary of State and, later, Chief of Staff, was pretty popular on his own. He was given much of the credit for pulling together the Gulf War coalition, where we actually got a large number of Arab nations to side against one of their own. He also kept Israel out of the fighting, despite numerous attacks, knowing that an Israeli reprisal would instantly turn those allies against us.

Bush said that if re-elected, he would have Jim Baker focus on the economy. In fact, Jim Baker would be handling a lot of the problems of the Bush administration in the second term.

When election day rolled around in 1992, I went into the voting booth, said "if Jim Baker is going to fix all these problems, why the hell isn't HE on the ticket?" and voted against giving George Bush a second term -- and in the process, doing my bit to inflict Bill Clinton on the nation. (In my defense, I voted for Tsongas in the primary, and am proud to this day of the time I saw Bill Clinton gladhanding voters in downtown Manchester -- and deliberately snubbed him.)

Flash-forward 14 years. Bush's son, George W. Bush, has just suffered a major political defeat in the midterm elections. So, what's his response?

One of the defining elements of the Bush family is loyalty. They are very loyal to their friends, their family, and their allies. This is often to a fault -- I suspect that was one of the elements behind the incredibly bad idea of nominating Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court.

But Dubya is very loyal to his father, and very respectful of him. By extension, I suspect, he sees "41's" old allies and supporters as those to whom he owes a familial debt.

And that is why, I believe, he is bringing back so many of them. Robert Gates, who "41" appointed to his old job as CIA director, is returning as Secretary of Defense. And Jim Baker, the alleged "miracle worker," is being called in to work his magic yet again in Iraq.

Back in 1992, I had the chance to vote for a second "Bush 41" term, and I rejected it at the time. I didn't vote for it in 2004, either -- I wanted a second "Bush 43" term -- I'd liked (or at least respected) what he'd achieved in his first term, and I preferred more of that over (shudder) a John Kerry administration.

If you're trying to make your last two years into a de facto second term for your father, Mr. President, you should be aware that it NOT what I voted for two years ago. And, I dare say, not what a lot of those who voted for you wanted. Loyalty to your father and his legacy is well and good, but remember -- when given the chance to give him that term on his own, we chose not to.

You've never been one to play to people's expectations, Mr. President. And now, after being "thumped" in the midterm elections, many people expect you to be the lamest of lame ducks for your last two years in office. Bringing back so many of your father's cronies advisors is NOT a good idea.

After all, they are the ones that helped him piss away a 90% approval rating into a crushing defeat.


Comments (8)

The fact that Brent Scowcro... (Below threshold)

The fact that Brent Scowcroft's name has popped up shows how bad things have gotten. As if they could go any lower.

I always thought you were o... (Below threshold)
Jay:

I always thought you were older than me, not six years younger!

I don't think it's loyalty ... (Below threshold)
fatman:

I don't think it's loyalty to his father's (and his) friends so much as a desire to surround himself with people he knows and trusts in a crisis. And both Cheney (SecDef) and Condi (adviser on Soviet and East European affairs) worked for Bush the Elder, so it's really nothing new.

Interestingly (and OT), Rumsfeld didn't work for Bush the Elder. Rummy made the mistake of backing Bob Dole in '88 and Daddy never forgave him for it.

As much as I love W as a ma... (Below threshold)
John F Not Kerry:

As much as I love W as a man of integrity and character, I am really beginning to despair of his judgment when it comes to his advisors. If I had the president's ear, I'd advise him to get a few more people like Rumsfeld around him, people who are not afraid to mix it up a little and challenge assumptions. I'm not sure if he can even get the nomination, but for now my support is behind Newt in '08.

"And that is why, I beli... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"And that is why, I believe, he is bringing back so many of them"

I prefer the suggestion that "41" plans to run for another term. It has a certain "Rovian Charm" to it.

Other friends and associates of the elder Bush will be helping out, too. But I don't think this is just a case of a father bailing out a son. I think this is all part of a calculated grand scheme by the Grand Old Party to do whatever's necessary to keep the White House in 2008.

So, who do they plan on running for President in 2008? Let's see. Who's comfortable with all these friends and advisors of the first George Bush? Who has experience in waging war against Iraq? And who could become president without saying one negative word about the current president? There's only one man who fits this bill. That's right -- George Herbert Walker Bush.

Your concerns about 41's in... (Below threshold)
Imust B Crazy:

Your concerns about 41's infiltration of 43's policy-making is valid, but 43 didn't pick Baker, Hamilton, et al. Congress, Baker, and Hamilton did.

"Co-chairs Baker and Hamilton were chosen by mutual agreement among the Congressional organizers, USIP, and the other supporting organizations. After being named co-chairs, Baker and Hamilton selected the remaining group members in consultation with USIP and the other supporting organizations."

source: http://www.usip.org/isg/fact_sheet.html

I don't quite understand yo... (Below threshold)
ryan:

I don't quite understand your reasoning here Jay. I mean, you're basically saying that you disagree with Bush calling on some of these people because they are associated with Bush sr, right? And you didnt vote for Bush senior in '92, so you don't want anybody from his administration around in 2006 because of that. Doesnt make sense to me.

I think that "fatman" made a good point when he said:

I don't think it's loyalty to his father's (and his) friends so much as a desire to surround himself with people he knows and trusts in a crisis. And both Cheney (SecDef) and Condi (adviser on Soviet and East European affairs) worked for Bush the Elder, so it's really nothing new.

We all know that there are some serious problems in Iraq, and things that need to be dealt with. It sounds to me like Baker might be a decent person to bring in, regardless of who he once worked with. You even wrote:

Jim Baker, Reagan's Chief of Staff and Secretary of the Treasury, as well as Bush's Secretary of State and, later, Chief of Staff, was pretty popular on his own. He was given much of the credit for pulling together the Gulf War coalition, where we actually got a large number of Arab nations to side against one of their own. He also kept Israel out of the fighting, despite numerous attacks, knowing that an Israeli reprisal would instantly turn those allies against us.

Sounds like someone GW can use.

Remember, based on the argument that you are presenting here, there is no way that you would have voted for GW in 2000...running with Cheney (while Powell campaigned with Bush in Texas), let alone in 2004 (Cheney plus Rice and Powell all in administration).

So even though people who have been associated with old 41 have been with GW from the start, all of a sudden you're against it.

Stop buying in to what you ... (Below threshold)
Florence Schmieg:

Stop buying in to what you read in Newsweek and the MSM and wait and see what the actul decisions are. Bush did not appoint this group, Congress did. The generals are against withdrawl and now give the Democrats' defeatist ideas grief. Dems were the great champions of the "generals" . So what do they do now?
Bush has just instituted an internal administration review of Iraq on his own today. He will have 3 reviews to use now in his decision making process, this one, the one being done by the Pentagon, and the Iraq Study Group (which by the way has only 1 or 2 people on it with actual foreign policy experience-ridiculous). Sometimes the reactions of you guys are as adolescent as those of the liberals.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy