http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200407200900.asp By Rich Lowry Sometimes a political figure becomes so hated that he can't do anything right in the eyes of his enemies. President Bush has achieved this rare and exalted status. His critics are so blinded by animus that the internal consistency of their attacks on him no longer matters. For them, Bush is the double-bind president. If he stumbles over his words, he is an embarrassing idiot. If he manages to cut taxes or wage a war against Saddam Hussein with bipartisan support, he is a manipulative genius. If he hasn't been able to capture Osama bin Laden, he is endangering U.S. security. If he catches bin Laden, it is only a ploy to influence the elections. If he ignores U.N. resolutions, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he takes U.N. resolutions on Iraq seriously, he is a dangerous unilateralist. If he doesn't get France to agree to his Iraq policy, he is ignoring important international actors. If he supports multiparty talks on North Korea, he is not doing enough to ignore important international actors. If he bombed Iraq, he should have bombed Saudi Arabia instead, and if he had bombed Saudi Arabia, he should have bombed Iran, and if he had bombed all three, he shouldn't have bombed anyone at all. If he imposes a U.S. occupation on Iraq, he is fomenting Iraqi resistance by making the United States seem an imperial power. If he ends the U.S. occupation, he is cutting and running. If he warns of a terror attack, he is playing alarmist politics. If he doesn't warn of a terror attack, he is dangerously asleep at the switch. If he says we're safer, he's lying, and if he doesn't say we're safer, he's implicitly admitting that he has failed in his core duty as commander in chief. If he adopts a doctrine of preemption, he is unacceptably remaking American national-security policy. If the United States suffers a terror attack on his watch, he should have preempted it. If he signs a far-reaching antiterror law, he is abridging civil liberties. If the United States suffers another terror attack on his watch, he should have had a more vigorous anti-terror law. Bush's economy hasn't created new jobs. If it has created new jobs, they aren't well-paying jobs. If they are well-paying jobs, there is still income inequality in America. If Bush opposes a prescription-drug benefit for the elderly, he's miserly. If he supports a prescription-drug benefit for the elderly, he's lining the pockets of the pharmaceutical companies. If he restrains government spending, he's heartless. If he supports government spending, he's bankrupting the nation and robbing from future generations. If he opposes campaign-finance reform, he's a tool of corporate interests. If he signs campaign-finance reform, he's abridging the First Amendment rights of Michael Moore (whose ads for Fahrenheit 9/11 might run afoul of the law). If he accuses John Kerry of flip-flopping, he is merely highlighting one of the Massachusetts senator's strengths — his nuance and thoughtfulness. If he flip-flops on nation-building or testifying before the 9/11 commission, he proves his own ill-intentions, cluelessness, or both. If he doesn't admit a mistake, he is bullheaded and detached from reality. If he admits a mistake, he is damning his own governance in shocking fashion. If he sticks with Dick Cheney, he is saddling himself with an unpopular vice president, giving Democrats who can't wait to run against Cheney a political advantage. If he drops Cheney, he is admitting that the Democratic attacks against his vice president have hit home, thus giving Democrats who have made those charges a political advantage. If he loses in November, the voice of the American people has spoken a devastating verdict on his presidency. If he wins, he stole the election.
Sounds exactly like the hatred piled upon Clinton by the Republicans in the 1990s, eh? Funny how that stuff works.
It sounds like it sucks to him I just don't think he cares one way or the other. I have no sympathy for the man. there, how about that for bleeding heart liberal.
Yeah... if we weren't in a national if not world crisis with a bunch of acting-out looney terrorists, I'd make the same observation. Unfortunately it's all about politics and there never seems to be time for banding-together to solve even the really serious problems. .. can't afford to lose any ground or give anyone else the credit. Clinton cruised during a practically un-paralleled time of prosperity. He had time to diddle interns and travel the world like no other president. Bush has to do what he can to boost an economy rent by the 9/11 attacks, vigilantlly guard our borders, ferret out terrorist cells, and preside over a mounting body count while the critics howl. Yeah, I'd say it was just about the same...
Nice spin. I guess you forgot about the fact that Bush virtually abandoned the pursuit of Osama Bin Laden, the man responsible for 9/11, in order to go after Saddam Hussein, because he "tried to kill his Daddy". I suggest to you that had Bush kept the focus on Osama, the man who actually did attack the USA, there wouldn't be nearly as much howling from the critics, and his re-election would be a given. I spin, you spin, let's all do the spin-spin.
Did the WWII effort focus on killing Hitler? Osama is a dying man relegated to a life on the run (much of it undergorund) in the remotest areas of the Afghan/Pakistan border. Why worry? Al-quaeda has been seriously damaged by the arrest or killing of so many of his lieautenants. Capturing Osama will be a PR thing but I don't think it will be the winner that you seem to think it could have been. Symbolism is nice but it is usually over-rated. Think of this as a backhand winner to the baseline... not a dropshot.
A president on vaction probably works harder than most of us here... when we are at work. It's not like he leaves his cell phone at home or anything. Is that what you think? Or do you just hope the rest of us think that because you imply it?
Thanks for avoiding the question... you would agree that a President in the WHITE HOUSE can be more effective than a President on vacation, though right?
Actually probably not. Why would that be more effective? Important people are brought to him. Unimportant time-wasting people are not. Seems like the distractions are reduced.
Why worry? Such significant damage? I seem to recall that an attack is supposed to happen around election time. In fact, they are looking for ways to postpone the election. Are these all lies by the Administration? Do you actually believe what you wrote?
What?! OK, ya I see your point. "Hey Condi, can you send Richard Clark over to the east side of the ranch? I want him to brief me on the movements of Al-Queda along the Pakistani border while I CLEAR BRUSH FROM THIS WALKING PATH."
I don't think the writer realizes that America is large and complex. Not to mention the fact that many love to criticize and hate to remain content. No matter what Bush does, there will be a sizable group that is offended. In a country of 270 some million people, that isn't very hard to do. Likewise, there will always be a sizable group that will cheer the president, no matter what, even if he played hopscotch on puppies. Thank God we don't all have one opinion, but it is naive to believe that everyone can be happy on the same issue. Now to go to the concept of the 'double-bind' president, we have to realize that you don't become a 'DB' by just being who you are, you have to earn it. There will always be a small contingent of people from the beginning who will be against the POTUS, however, to get it to the size it is today, one has to make quite a few blunders and make decisions disassociated and detached from the public. In otherwords, I see Bush similar to Michael Jackson. There will always be people who hated MJ from the beginning, and there will always be some who love him today no matter what. But for MJ to get into his 'double-bind' status that he is in today, he had to have done some messed up stuff to get there. You can dig yourself potholes and people will forgive and pick you back up, but if you dig yourself into a well, you really can't come back out.
and despite all this he is able to take more vacation time than any other president in recent history. never fear though...president cheney has it under control.
Sometimes a political figure becomes so hated that he can't do anything right in the eyes of his enemies. Well since this is tue, why don't they urge him to resign?
