Thinking About Why Bush Lost (even if he really doesn't)

Written by Harry Forbes
Published November 03, 2004

As I begin this note, it is 10 minutes before 8PM on election night. On my computer a rotating Feedreader cube tells me that new posts await my reading and yet I will insulate myself from that information and from all outside information until I finish this little piece. Why? First, because pieces written in the wake of defeat are inevitably tinged with disappointment and bitterness, while pieces written in victory are just as strongly clouded by happy emotion. So for the moment, not knowing how the election will turn out, I can sit calmly and dispassionately and consider (in a state of complete sobriety) what might unfold during the next few hours. Certainly my lack of emotions will disappear, if only that...

Consider this a list of reasons that President Bush lost today's election. Even if he didn't lose, these reasons in my mind constitute major areas for concern that Bush, his advisers and his campaign did not address, and these point to weaknesses in the candidate, in the administration, and in the Republican Party.

Mission Accomplished
The scene of the president on the deck of the aircraft carrier at the "end of major hostilities" against the regime of Saddam Hussein is in hindsight clearly perceived to be inappropriate. Since that moment over 900 American servicemen and women have returned from Iraq in body bags. Both the military and the president can be forgiven for having high spirits at that point in time. After all, the bitter Iraqi winter and a Stalingrad-like siege of Baghdad proved to be figments of the wobbly liberal imagination. No, the cardinal sin here was to set expectations far too high, and to thus allow our enemies to take advantage of those overly high expectations. In retrospect it was a mistake to speak to the country from that military setting. Rather, it would've been far better to speak to the country from the chamber of the House of Representatives and save the military talk for the carrier deck. It also would have been far wiser to more soberly prepare the nation for what was to come. Churchill understandably set expectations very low in the days leading to Dunkirk. In the days that followed the evacuation he continued to remind his countrymen that wars are not won by successful retreats. No one in the Bush Cabinet or in the White House staff was advising the president to keep his emotions and rhetoric in check. Someone should have been.

Abu Gharib
The high expectations after Iraq's military defeat were quickly brought low by the unconscionable scandal of the events that took place in that prison. In those events there is enough blame to allocate a generous portion to all responsible. Certainly the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General bear significant responsibility in that they created an environment which allowed uncertainty to pervade the ranks of the military with regard to the limits in treatment of prisoners. Of course the military units involved are responsible as well, but to the Army's credit they had begun a complete investigation months before the story broke in the media. What was further inexcusable and also indicative of the problems within the administration, was the fact that the president was not aware of the situation until shortly before it became headline news. Again, someone should have told the president.

page 1 | 2
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
Buy from Amazon.com
A Charge to Keep A Charge to Keep
Karen Hughes
Book,

Thinking About Why Bush Lost (even if he really doesn't)
Published: November 03, 2004
Type:
Section: Politics
Writer: Harry Forbes
Harry Forbes's BC Writer page
Harry Forbes's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Harry Forbes
All Politics Articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — November 3, 2004 @ 00:54AM — aacool [URL]

That's a great piece on (first) second thoughts

#2 — November 3, 2004 @ 01:05AM — Mac Diva [URL]

Well, observing you take a break from kneeling before Bush is refreshing. But, as I've come to expect, you've blundered.

One obvious candidate is national security adviser Condi Rice. It is distressing to think what a huge positive contribution Rice could have made to the ticket.

Placing a woman many people consider a war criminal on the ticket would not have helped Shrub. Nor would raising the hypocrisy against homosexuals problem of the GOP, already in play because of the Mary Cheney publicity, a second time. And, no, Rice could not have run without declaring herself one way or the other. Last, you insult the intelligence of people of color with your assumption we would support Rice. People have a very low opinion of her in the African-American community, with she has gone to great lengths to separate herself from. She would not have attracted minority voters to the ticket in any substantial numbers. And, since the GOP is the party of bigotry, some of the people you represent, white conservatives, would have stayed home or defected to the Libertarian or Constitution Party had a 'nigra' (as Southern Republicans still say) been a candidate. You reveal a significant lack of knowledge about the minority vote. But, then, your interest in that vote is only in regard to trying to use it to reelect a president who has caused minorities particular harm during his four years in office. You assume too much. Most of us are not so stupid that we would allow ourselves to be used by George Bush.

#3 — November 3, 2004 @ 02:17AM — Harry Forbes [URL]

SIncere thanks for the comment, Mac.

While I cannot claim to represent the "party of bigotry" (would you call that hate speech if I said the same about you?), I believe that as a running mate Rice would have cost Bush near zero of his current support, and maybe helped him by virtue of her far superior skills in articulating policy.

I also think that she would make an excellent, though accidental, president. If one can rise to the top of the cut-throat world of academic administration, then politics probably seems easy by comparison.

#4 — November 3, 2004 @ 03:13AM — Mac Diva [URL]

It is interesting that you have evaded responding to even one of Rice's liabilities.

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/21794)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments