Why isn't George W. Bush's message getting out? :The Dukakis Trap

[jbfam4]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/823rflqq.asp


Interesting how the Faux channel was comparing Kerry to Dukakis,now Barnes and Kristol write that * Bush could be .

The Dukakis Trap
From the March 15, 2004 issue: Why isn't George W. Bush's message getting out? The truth is the White House isn't trying very hard.
by Fred Barnes and William Kristol
03/15/2004, Volume 009, Issue 26



Who has been assigned to publicly make the president's case for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? we asked a White House official. The response was, well, er, no one in particular. And thus, one rarely hears the case made in a serious authoritative way, on an issue important to the president's prospects, but one which he is not personally going to address every day.



Lack of concerted effort is the least alarming part of Bush's problem. What's worse is the White House and the Bush campaign seem to have been spooked. They seem fearful and tentative and weak at exactly the moment when they need to be confident and aggressive. Democrats and their allies are united behind Bush's opponent, John Kerry, and have no qualms about attacking the president on any subject whatsoever. At best, Bush's aides respond defensively. At worst, their clumsiness turns a minor flap into a prolonged controversy.

Fine, but only for starters. Entirely missed was an opportunity to turn the tables on Kerry and his cohorts, who don't want 9/11 or terrorism to be salient issues in the campaign. The issue, McClellan or Hughes or someone should have said, is not a TV ad but how seriously we take the terrorist threat. Bush has declared war on terrorism. Kerry doesn't want to be a war president. He says the threat has been exaggerated and that law enforcement and intelligence should be the chief weapons against terrorists. This was the policy that allowed the attacks on 9/11 to happen. Bush thinks a more realistic and tougher approach is needed, including a strengthened Patriot Act, which Kerry opposes. Sadly, we heard little of this from Bush's defenders. Nor did they express outrage at the grotesque exploitation of 9/11 widows being trotted out with identical talking points attacking Bush's alleged "exploitation" of 9/11.

Who could have imagined the situation Bush finds himself in? The Democrats are trying to take the finest hour of Bush's presidency--his magnificent response to 9/11--off the table. Republicans often liken Kerry to Michael Dukakis, the wimpy Democratic presidential nominee in 1988. But perhaps it's Bush who should worry about falling into the Dukakis trap. Bush and his team seem to assume opposition charges won't hurt because, of course, voters will know the charges are unfair and disingenuous. It's Kerry and his adviser Bob Shrum, with their relentless attacks, who are following the example of Bush's father and Lee Atwater. We know who prevailed then.


--Fred Barnes and William Kristol

[Trinity]

1. but this here is oh so wrong

Excerpt
" Bush has declared war on terrorism. Kerry doesn't want to be a war president. He says the threat has been exaggerated and that law enforcement and intelligence should be the chief weapons against terrorists. This was the policy that allowed the attacks on 9/11 to happen." (snip)


This is exactly what prevented the Millenium attacks, and what WOULD have prevented the 9/11 attacks.......



Peace? :hippie: :smoke: :freak:

[coloradodem2005]

3. Could you explain that a little more clearly?

[Trinity]

10. I don't have the links handy, but

Hopefully someone can lend a hand...


but on dec 31st 1999 there were aprox. 5 terrorist attacks prevented with international and US police work... An airplane attack on the Eifel (sp?) Tower and the airports at Boston, London,LAX and New York plus other minor ones. I'll do some searching but I remember the links from Buzzflash, Josh Marshall, Bartcop etc.....


It's out there just not within the "mainstream media"


Peace? :hippie: :smoke: :freak:

[coloradodem2005]

12. So....

..that seals the deal with Shrub's incompetence. Potentially major terrorist attacks were prevented under Clinton, while Bush let the most colossal security failure happen under his watch.

[Trinity]

14. exactly , and of course the "librul media" is holdin back...

:eyes:


AND the outgoing NSA director TOLD Rice that Bin Laden AND terrorism would be their biggest problem for their time in office.....





Peace? :hippie: :smoke: :freak:

[mot78]

21. Don't forget that * wanted to cut counter-terrorism money for SDI

[Trinity]

13. ok here's more

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/752808.stm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/trail/inside/attacks.html


http://www.romm.org/Pol_links1.html


there is more... Actually a ton at the NYWT but I refuse to pay, as it is , they think I'm a 97 year old women from vermont ;-)


Peace? :hippie: :smoke: :freak:

[Gman]

4. Had Bush bothered to read Gary Hart's report

9/11 would never have happened, assuming, of course, 9/11 wasn't a MIHOP or LIHOP.

[Trinity]

15. Again Exactly, didn't that report suggest re-enforcing cockpit doors? n/t

Peace :hippie: :smoke: :freak:

[Gman]

2. They're pissed. They think their issue is getting taken away from them

"Last week's Democratic-generated pseudo-firestorm (perpetrated with extraordinary media collusion) over Bush campaign ads with fleeting pictures of Ground Zero offered a prime example of White House timidity. The charge that the ads demeaned the 9/11 dead was totally trumped-up and cynical."

Well, maybe, just maybe, people were really outraged at Bush molesting the dead. People aren't so stupid.

If people keep revolting against Bush molesting the dead, the C(R)EEP will go into full throtle panic mode. They will then have nothing to run on. Nothing, nada, zip, zero. Unless you think a gay marriage amendment will get Bush elected. Ha!

[MrBenchley]

5. Too too funny...

yeah, that's the problem...the GOP isn't slimy enough...

"opposition charges won't hurt because, of course, voters will know the charges are unfair and disingenuous"
But unlike with Dukakis, the attacks on Chimpy are true, and right on the money.

[bemildred]

6. I hope they stay this stupid. nt

[dw]

7. "the finest hour of Bush's presidency"

Would that be the hour after the first plane slammed into the WTC North Tower, in which Bush* hid in the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota?

Or would it be the hour the gutless wonder was in the air circling over Sarasota and then heading for Barksdale, while all the country was calling for leadership and no one except Cheney had heard from the pResident?

Or would it be the hour he was in the air between Barksdale and Offutt, heading for a bunker to hide in?

Huh, Bill? Eh, Fred? Exactly which of the 27,413 hours of his reign has been his finest?

[bpilgrim]

8. in an almost 2 hour TRADEGY that they couldn't respond with EVEN 1 jet?

i say let them bring it up it gives us a gret opprotunity to point out what an UTTER FAILURE he was to his country on that horrible day.

TRIFECTA!

peace

[Vogon_Glory]

9. 9-11 And Not Even One Jet

For the sake of argument, if George Minor knew that al Quaeda was planning some air-hijacking activity or other weeks before 9/11/2001, why couldn't he have had military interceptors jets ready for a worst-case scenario well beforehand? Was he afraid of leaks getting out from the Air Force? It's not like the US Air Force is chock-full of Islamic fundamentalist sympathizers.

[bpilgrim]

20. 9-11 and he didn't even REACT!? when told we were UNDER ATTACK!

andrew card just turned on his heel... like he didn't even expect a reaction.

strange...

we may not know for certain how we would have reacted in his soes but i am certain ANYONE would have at LEAST reacted, no!

psst... pass the word :bounce:

peace

[teach1st]

11. Tactically, Bush is against the wall...

Bush's offensive efforts have been embarrassing so far. Democrats have taken away some of the "strengths" he had been counting on - Iraq and 9/11. They've exposed the Bush fantasy photo ops and manufactured good old boy crap. Bush may have been blindsided by the new Democrats, by the Democrats who won't take any shit, who fight back with strength and conviction. Bush has been on defense too much lately and his defense is weak from lack of practice.

[belle]

16. Oh, they HATE being on the defensive.

These people define "entitlement." I'd bet that a big part of why they're coming off badly now that they're finally under attack--besides the fact that they *have* no credible defense, I mean, credibility's never stopped them before--is that they simply can't believe that they're in such a demeaning position. Like, who would *dare* to criticize the Masters of the Universe? Who would pick on the precious Golden Boy? Did a wall speak? Huh? What?

[teach1st]

17. It's starting to look like the Dems...

During this past month, it seems like the Dems have some kind of Neorovian guru helping to keep Bush off balance, while - on the other side - Rove the Wonder Geek has morphed into Earnest T. Bass.

I don't doubt that the Republicans will come back with some good stuff, but for now it's just fun to watch.

[pacifictiger]

19. if bush is against the wall

tactically, its because tactics don't hold up when confronted with truth.

[teryang]

18. Kerry appears annoited at this point

He has social credentials, military credentials, political credentials while the chimp is a parody of a leader.

The fact that the power structure finds Kerry a grudgingly acceptable replacement results in the soft peddle. Chimp's father went real easy on Clinton during the 92 campaign for the same reason.

If it looks like your opponent may secure control of the justice department, you have to watch what you say.

The only hopes for the Chimp are either that events will somehow trip up Kerry or the dirty tricks/electoral fraud routine. If the regimes supporters choose the latter, it will be a very risky course, it had better work or some will go to prison. Of course with electronic vote fraud, and contrived terrorist attacks they could still pull it out.

Another handicap for the repukes is that they are generally venal as hell and more than willing to spend a fool's 150 million as quickly as possible regardless of its effectiveness or not. One disadvantage of madison ave spin machines is that they are most effective when the opposition is disorganized, ineffective and responding poorly. They don't really have that situation now. The WMD lies, the bad employment figures, regime secrecy and stonewalling are pretty well perceived even in the press. This reflects primarily the acceptance of Kerry by major power brokers.

Frankly, I don't see the holders of huge wealth wanting to caste themselves as fascists willing to do anything extreme to retain the crippled regime they have now. I think they might choose a lower profile operation (perhaps including some fraud and tricks here and there) to save their legislative power to continue and conserve their reactionary social agenda while a relatively ineffective Kerry sits in the WH.

[ljm2002]

22. Too, too funny...

"The Democrats are trying to take the finest hour of Bush's presidency--his magnificent response to 9/11--off the table."

Okay, it's true, many Democrats (and others) have complained about Bush's 9/11 ads. And many people on both sides of the political divide have stated that 9/11 should not be "politicized".

But, Bush & Co. have insisted: it's on the table, and it's staying there.

So now, the Democrats are in absolutely perfect position: tried to take the high road and keep 9/11 out of the political debate. Bush & Co. refused. Golly gee, guess we can't avoid discussing it then. Hmm, where to start...

So let me just cut and paste my suggestions from another thread, discussing specifics of Bush's "magnificent response to 9/11":

===============================================

• Before 9/11:
  
  
  
  • intelligence warnings, from many international agencies as well as our own, about an impending attack
    
  • vacationing for the month of August in Crawford -- not to mention his % of vacation time to date
    
  • Ashcroft stopped using commercial flights
    
  • knowledge of potential of airplanes to be used as weapons (Genoa, anyone?)
    
  • putting the fight against Al Qaeda on the back burner -- and pretending not to have heard of Al Qaeda later (oh, if only someone could get that video clip of him pronouncing it as though he had never heard their name before; because now we know without a doubt that he had)
    
  • on his watch, the FBI officer in DC who actively blocked investigation into Mossaoui (sp?) was PROMOTED, while the agents in Minnesota joked ruefully that A.Q. had a "mole in Washington"
    
  • on his watch, the Phoenix memo was ignored
    
  • and lest we forget, he was negotiating with the Taliban before this horrendous event -- why? and did his threat of a "carpet of bombs" blow up in his face -- and in all of our faces?
    
  
  
• On 9/11:
  
  
  
  • the biggest security failure since Pearl Harbor
    
    
    
    • he can't try and palm it off on "the previous administration" -- how many months do you have to be in office (8 mos. in this case) before you're actually responsible for what happens?
      
    
    
  • continued into Booker Elementary even though notified of first plane hitting the WTC
    
    
    
    • did he know that other planes had been hijacked?
      
    • if so, why did he continue with the photo op?
      
    • if not, why not? he's the CIC -- if he was not in charge, who was? if someone else was in charge -- or if no one else was in charge -- wasn't that a breakdown in the chain of command? and has anyone been held accountable for that breakdown?
      
    • continued the classroom session for 20 minutes (we need to make sure we get this time right and can document it) after being informed of the second plane hitting the WTC
      
    • again the question -- why? who was in charge during that time? and if it wasn't our CIC, wasn't that a breakdown in the chain of command?
      
    • continued with the photo op with the children, then stated he would have "something to say later" about the attacks
      
    • disappeared on AF1 for the entire day
      
    • we all remember Peter Jennings' pointed question that afternoon, "where is the President?"
      
    • later, Bush was quoted stating that he was "trying to stay out of harm's way" -- we need to find a clip, and use it...
      
    
    
  • compare the response of fighter planes to Stewart Payne's runaway Lear Jet, with the non-response of fighter planes when 4 US commercial flights were HIJACKED and -- certainly after the first one hit the WTC -- KNOWN to be used as weapons of attack
    
  
  
• After 9/11:
  
  
  
  • let the money trail re: "put" options on AAL and UAL grow cold
    
  • resisted a Dept of Homeland Security -- then took credit for creating it grudgingly (and used it to remove union protections from a majority of its workers)
    
  • promised NYC billions of dollars, of which only half (?again, someone needs to fill in the correct numbers here) ever materialized
    
  • gave local emergency responders more responsibility in national emergencies -- but did not increase funding for same
    
  • did not increase inspections of containers coming into the U.S. -- still only 2% are inspected
    
  • stated he wanted to get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive"; later changed his tune and said "one man isn't important" (clips of both would help here)
    
  • allowed Osama bin Laden's relatives and their entourage safe passage out of the country via AIRPLANES when the air space was closed to the rest of us
    
  • James Baker's firm is defending Saudi Arabia against a lawsuit brought by relatives of 9/11 victims -- include a reminder of the role James Baker played in the 2000 election fiasco in Florida
    
  • resisted having a 9/11 commission; then drastically underfunded it ($3M initially, compare that to the $30M initial funding for the shuttle investigation, probably best not to mention the $70M spent on the Clinton investigation as that is a distraction -- but still)
    
  • attacked Iraq for reasons now shown to be false, and knowing that Iraq was *not* a part of the Al Qaeda network
    
    
    
    • using our troops for purposes tangential to real national security
      
    • manipulating intelligence for their own purposes
      
    • and of course, this ties directly into the Niger/Uranium claims, and the resulting Valerie Plame outing -- how's that for protecting our national security?
      
    • make people aware of PNAC, their "another Pearl Harbor" remark, their agenda, and how long they've been at it
      
    • make people aware of the early planning for the Iraq invasion
      
    
    
  • the infamous "Lucky me, I hit the trifecta!" remark
    
  • the infamous "It's been a great year for Laura and me." remark
    
  
  
  Ah well. I'm sure others on this board can fill out this list. In fact, I can envision three ads: one each attacking him on his leadership in the area of national security *before* 9/11, *on the day* of 9/11, and *after* 9/11. There is a huge amount of material. We don't have to try and press any tinfoil hat issues (e.g., LIHOP or MIHOP) because none of that is provable (yet) anyway. Just the facts -- they're damning as they stand. And don't forget to bring up the issue of *responsibility* and how many layers of this administration seem to successfully avoid accountability!
  
  And of course, the Democratic candidate will have to have his answers honed when attacked back: what would you have done differently? aren't you denigrating the troops? how dare you politicize 9/11? etc., etc.
  
  But my point is this: they've opened the door, and they've propped it open. They have refused to take 9/11 off the table. So be it. Bush & Co. want to run on *this* record regarding our national security??? Take it to 'em.
  
  

[DemBones DemBones]

23. Excellent points. This is what Democrats should do. Bush*

wants to run on 9/11, let's really talk about 9/11.

Let's talk about a Bush administration that pressured the EPA to issue a false report on air quality at Ground Zero assuring New Yorkers it was safe to breathe the air.

Let's talk about Bush* promising millions to help NYC rebuild -- millions they never got.

Let's talk about Bush" promising millions to first responders in NYC and across the country -- millions they never got.

[scottxyz]

24. This is funny: "the finest hour of Bush's presidency"

"the finest hour of Bush's presidency--his magnificent response to 9/11"

Yeah - Bush's "finest hour":

- when he ignored all the threats in his Presidential Daily Briefings during August 2001 warning that Al Qaida was about to attempt a "spectacular" attack on American soil (well, he didn't exactly ignore the threats - he went on vacation for a month in Texas)...

- when he sat in an elementary school reading a book upside down for a half hour while the rest of the country was going crazy because the first World Trade tower had gone down...

- when he forgot to scramble NORAD to protect us and then scrambled all over the country in Air Force One trying to hide, lying and saying someone had "broken the codes" to Air Force One (a lie Safire faithfully reported then retracted)...

- when he authorized Bin Laden's family fly all around the country on 9/12 to escape questioning while the airspace was closed to our own planes...

Finest hour, my ass.