|
When President Bush suggested that we depose Saddam Hussein, Jacque Chirac, among others, dismissed Bush as a mere "cowboy." He believed, and perhaps secretly hoped, that President Bush would fall flat on his face. It fed Jacques Chirac's massive ego to demean the President of the world's last superpower. President Bush's response was, "We'll do it with your help, or without it."
While President Bush was successfully waging war against tyrants and religious fanatics, protecting the homeland and nurturing a long, bullish economy, liberals in this country and around the world were waging an unrelenting war against the President. They were convinced he was stupid, despite the fact that he was smart enough to beat their best political strategists and two of their best candidates, a Nobel prize winner, and their closest approximation to a war hero. The brutality of their attacks became apparent when the President's father, a real war hero and veteran of many political battles, was brought to tears by the humiliating accusations being heaped upon his son.
Flash forward to the present. The "coalition of the willing," led by President Bush, has succeeded, and the whole world loves a winner (except, of course, the world's most unapologetic leftists). This stupid cowboy accomplished what his detractors thought could not be done, especially by him, and he did it without their help. Liberals everywhere are due for a large helping of humble pie, but I don’t think most of them have figured that out yet.
When the American people at large come to recognize the truly great accomplishments of this President, the Democrats might suddenly realize that their whole strategy of running against the "stupid, evil George Bush" has been undermined, and that might leave their next presidential candidate on very shaky ground. Eventually, the American people will come to that realization. The question is, will it happen in time to affect the outcome of the next election, and will the Republicans be smart enough to make it happen?
The Republicans cannot win the next Presidential election if they run from the President’s record, as most appear to be doing. It would only make sense for the Republicans to run from the President’s record if he had no significant record of accomplishments. President Bush has a prodigious record of military and economic achievements to which Republicans can point with justified pride.
Republican candidates who run from the President’s record think that, by ignoring him, they can avoid having his "unpopularity" rub off on them. That’s about as unrealistic as passing gas in a crowd and hoping nobody will notice. You don’t win a debate by ignoring your opponent’s strongest arguments and most favorable contentions. You win a debate by confronting your opponent’s best arguments head-on and embracing them, and turning them in your favor. By doing so, you undermine your opponent’s strongest positions. The Democrats are relying on the President’s "unpopularity" to win the White House. If the Republicans play their cards right, and nominate a sound, capable candidate who aligns himself with President Bush, and if they can bring the American people to appreciate the President’s great accomplishments (which shouldn’t be difficult, as his accomplishments speak for themselves), not a Democrat in the current field would stand a chance of winning the White House.
If the Republican candidates have the fighting spirit of George Bush, they can win the White House. If they shrink from the battle, or meekly accept the campaign of liberal slurs against the President without challenging them, then they don’t deserve to win.
|