Quest to save civilized world will put Bush in history books
LOS ANGELES—President George W. Bush may well go down as one of the great presidents of recent history because he has one single-minded purpose.
That is to defeat radical Islamic world terrorism and save western civilized democracy from annihilation.
This is quite a formidable challenge—and you aren’t going to measure up to it by getting queasy when tormented Lib-Left termites tear at you.
In any fight, you have to go straight for the jugular and not be distracted by menial problems.
Recall, in their first terms of office, president Ronald Reagan and British prime minister Margaret Thatcher concentrated solely on getting their nations’ economies rolling again.
Then, in their second terms, they pinpointed as their No. 1 priority toppling the Soviet Communist slave empire.
They were successful in both, and have now become figures of historic proportions, much like Sir Winston Churchill, who put all his muscle behind defeating Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler’s war machine.
None of these individuals micro-managed.
They delegated other chores to their cabinet ministers or senior aides.
One fellow who did try to micro-manage was U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who quickly assumed a bumpkin image as everything he touched fell apart at the seams.
Carter was unable to see the big picture and unable to delegate.
He had to handle everything personally down to the smallest detail.
Absolutely distracted, he became a laughing stock, and is bitter to this day he was never granted a second term.
The concept that presidents in their second terms are “lame ducks” is utterly false.
That they do not have to have their eyes on winning again allows them to forget about partisan politics and oiling their machines and instead focus on the main endeavour.
Were Reagan and Thatcher lame ducks in their final years at the helm?
Anything but—some assessments might be that their second terms were their best.
The political electoral process in the U.S., unlike in Canada or most other democracies, is an ongoing affair.
The mid-term elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives assure that, and virtually as soon as this November’s elections are over, the race for the 2008 presidential nominations begins.
The primary process is a grinding, exhaustive one—but it quickly weeds out the weaker candidates.
Already there’s talk about who will succeed Bush—and as mentioned earlier, he doesn’t really have
to concern himself at all with the party apparatus.
In “Turning point,” (Feb. 28) I mentioned the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination is still Hillary Clinton, though the party hierarchy has increasingly expressed qualms her harridan-like personality will polarize uncommitted or floating voters against her.
Because of the Christian Right and several smaller factors such as the growing force of the Latino vote, the Republicans are thought to have 40% of the ballots wrapped up, so their fight is mainly to win just 11% more voters.
That’s not figuring in the complex Electoral College process, but you’ll understand the math.
Despite the harsh criticism of Bush—particularly from Liberal Canada and weak-kneed nations such as France and Germany—opinion polls show the Republicans with Senator John McCain or former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani at their helm between 10 to 15 points ahead of Clinton.
If leads like that continue to hold up, the Democratic hierarchy may well coalesce around anyone but Clinton.
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who currently says she doesn’t want the job, is a wild card in the Republican stakes.
So is Virginia Senator George Allen, a fellow with movie star goods looks who, amongst Republican party members, ranks up there with McCain and Giuliani.
What the GOP needs on the ticket if delegates choose McCain or Giuliani as their presidential candidate is a staunch, right-wing conservative running mate as the vice-presidential candidate to balance the ticket.
With such a team, the Democrats would be toast.