Politically speaking, G. W. Bush has a premature ejaculation problem

Great Debates
1

I have noticed somewhat of a trend in regards to the political machinations of the current U.S. administration. Specifically, it seems as though the current administration has no concept of timing and how to use it to their advantage. In short, they blow their load much too early. For example:

Back in 2002, Bush introduced steel tariffs much to the dismay of several key trading partners as well as U.S. manufacturers. Some political analysts stated then that this was an effort to try to gain some popularity in the steel producing states. I found that a bit odd since it there were still two more years before the U.S. was in an election year. Wouldn’t any increase in popularity generated by this move be worn off by then?

Then came the infamous carrier landing complete with props, background scenery, and self-congratulatory speech declaring “Mission Accomplished.” What mission would that be? It certainly wasn’t the Iraq mission, and one could even go far as to say that it wasn’t even the end of major hostilities. So again, what mission was accomplished?

The most recent example poor timing is the lifting of the steel tariffs. This has in effect not only lost any popularity that the administration may have gained, it has angered the steel producing states and their respective constituencies which may be a boost to the Democratic party (who already has a strong support base amongst unions). There is no doubt that the mounting international pressure combined with the possible actions taken by the WTO against the U.s. was a primary motivator for the lifting of the tariffs. But this just lends further credence to the notion that this administration has little to no clue about political timing.
So the debate is, were these moves actually timed well, or does this administration actually suffer from political premature ejaculation?

2

Is it really GW’s problem, or is it the incompetance of puppeteers such as Karl Rove and the PNAC crowd who have not quite mastered the art of jerking, thus denying the poor puppet his staying power and endurance beyond 2004?

3

If you don’t think that this administration has been pretty masterful in how its managed its public image, you’re missing out. They’ve played one of the best political games I’ve seen in my lifetime.

The Homeland security thing, for instance, was brilliant: they managed to turn an embarrasing security failure (9/11) into an issue that embarrased the Democrats by championing legislation the Dems had tried to get passed pre-911 (and which might well have prevented 911 had it not been blocked and stonewalled by the administration prior to that) but with a stipulation that the Dems couldn’t agree to (no worker protections), making them look like they opposed protecting the country.

You’re also being foolish about things like “Mission Accomplished.” Whatever flak Bush might be getting now, it was something that endeared him to the troops, and was, again, a masterful bit of PR. Only nitpicky liberals can even seriously maintain that declaring “mission accomplished” was really so off the mark: after all, the mission of defeating Saddam need not have been the ONLY mission concerning Iraq, and even if the occupation needs to continue, the mission of taking out the regime was, indeed, accomplished.

With regard to the steel tarrifs, I think people are misreading it. Bush put up the tarrifs to protect an industry that was failing. And in most respects it, worked out great: gave them some extra time to get their act together, and the WTO was so slow on the ball that he’s now going to get away with it without any repercussions at all.

It doesn’t even make a whole lot of sense to say that he’ll be hurt for repealing the tarrifs. Sure, SOME steelworkers don’t like that he did it, but the fact that he enacted the tarrifs in the first place is good enough: it’s not like any of the Democrats are planning to put the tarrifs back up.

Was the tarrif move wrong? Probably. There have been some fairly lpausible studies showing that, even when counting only the US, we probably lost more steel USING related jobs than the tarrifs saved in steel producing jobs. But, on the other hand, maybe it also prevented the implosion of the whole industry.

http://www.ucomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2003/11/22/

4

The Mission Accomplished banner referred to the mission of the aircraft carrier itself, which was indeed steaming home right that moment (although the Bush thing delayed the arrival for a few hours, possibly). The Lincoln’s mission was accomplished, that’s all. I understood it right away (I’ve seen such banners at some of my brother the reservist’s events) and think the brouhaha about it is pretty funny.

5

I see. Is that what is meant by “happiness is found in the journey itself, not the outcome?”
So the guy takes a semester course and regularly attends all the lectures. At the end of the course, he takes the test, and goes celebrating “Mission Accomplished”. The fact that the test result arrives, and he flunked the course, is beside the point.

6

I don’ t agree with Tariffs for the sake of tariffs but I have always believed it is in the Countries best interest to:

-have a domestic manufacturing base so the scholastically challenged can earn real money (McTacoHut doesn’t count).
-maintain an infrastructure that is capable of making the machinery of war.

A steel tariff covers both of my wishes. Not sure of W’s intentions because they weren’t linked to an election. He clearly had to dump the tariff because of the political capital necessary to deal with a Euro pissing contest.

I was against NAFTA because Mexico does not represent an equal trading partner in comparison to Canada and the United States. I would have supported 2 separate trade agreements that grouped the US with Canada and the US with all of South America. The latter would have had some form of Tariffs or boundaries.

But to address the subject, Bush doesn’t have any blue-dress political problems. Last week’s trip to Iraq show’s he understands timing. Senator Clinton’s trip to Afghanistan was completely overshadowed by W’s trip to Iraq. And Hillary poured salt into her own wound by using the troops in a photo-op to slam the Commander-in-Chief for his war efforts. This doesn’t endure her to the troops or add to her persona that she loathes the military.

7

So the U.S.S. Lincoln “flunked its test”? It should steam back to the Persian Gulf, to do what exactly?

8

So, just to satisfy my curiousity, from which right-wing pundit did this flimsy attempt at spin control come from? :confused:

9

How about this right-wing pundit: G.W. Bush. Who said, as he was standing on the aforesaid deck, the following during his speech:

“We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We’re bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous.”

and

“Our mission continues.”

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/bush.transcript/

The question really is, what left-wing pundit has the gumption to argue that somehow Bush said on the Lincoln that Iraq was pacified and there wouldn’t be further violence there.

10

That made me laugh out loud. schplebordnik, do you have a license to shoot fish in a barrel? I thought that sign was put to bed but apparently not. I suppose the success of the photo-op stung more than I thought.

11

Cite?

From what I heard, Dick Morris has been taking a lie about this on the road, saying that Hillary bashed Bush TO the troops. The statements in question, however, were made to a reporter over the phone in response to his question, not in front of any troops.

12

This is from USA Today. Helping the sailors out is a good thing. Purposefully positioning the banner so as to give a misleading impression is pure political spin.

I would have to agree with Apos, at least in spirit. This administration has gone out of its way to give the USA a black eye in pandering to is own constituency. That their image is as good as it is is a credit to their ingenuity.

I must admit though that the ways in which their ingenuity has manifest give me the willies in a big way.

cj

13

I haven’t read the Morris report but I saw her on the telly with troops around her. The same piece also quoted a female military person as saying she hoped the Senator would run for President so it wasn’t a Hillary hatchet piece.

Whether she was speaking to the troops or not is irrelevant because she was speaking to a camera. She said it to God and everybody. Troops qualify as everybody.

I’m not a big fan of Hillary (or any other socialist) but I believe I would say the same thing about candidates I like. It is unprofessional to question the President in public during times of war. She can verbalize her disagreements in a neutral manner without giving aid to the enemy. IMO, she is stumping for political power at the expense of the troops she is visiting. I find it quite likely that people have heard her comments on Al Jazir and have acted on them.

14

What is misleading about the banner? What moron was confused about it? I’ve randomly asked people if they thought the war was over. Not one positive response. I don’t live in California so I can’t interview the dumbasses that Jay Leno finds on the street (the ones who can’t name the Vice President). Has the average citizen become that stupid? Seriously, I don’t see it.

15

Wake Up Call
You might be onto something there.

Apos:

I’m not necessarily weighing the importance, sincerity, or even political worth of the various examples. I’m mostly wondering if the timing doesn’t seem quite out of synch.
I also agree they have done some forms of politicking quite nicely. After all, isn’t Bush’s re-election war chest bigger than all the other current candidates by a far margin? That says something’s being done correctly.

And I definitely agree with you here…

Which incidentally would have been my rebuttal to Magiver’s point about helping to secure jobs. Perhaps, but only at a much larger expense to other industries. Did anyone hear how many Ford vehicles will have over 60% of their parts manufactured in China beginning next year?
But I disagree with your point that it helped to avert the implosion of an industry. The U.S. steel industry wasn’t under any such threat. Even if it were close, pushing the tariff’s out a year would have made it a much more politically well timed move. And I’m certain the U.S. steel industry would not have disappeared in that one year.

Mehitabel:

Ah. Well that finally answers that question. How come the rest of the carriers didn’t get such a warm welcome home?

cj finn:

Well, it does seem as though some of the luster has come off. And given the extraordinary circumstances they found themselves in, I’d say that speaks volumes about their disingenuousness.

16

“Ah. Well that finally answers that question. How come the rest of the carriers didn’t get such a warm welcome home?”

Well, unfortunately, GW can’t be at Norfolk, Seattle, San Diego, etc. to welcome home every ship. And you know what else – that turkey he held up in Baghdad – not every soldier in Iraq got a piece either. Which apparently has now become the latest scandal: “Steam-tray-gate.”

17

Magiver,

GWB declared an end to major hostilities under a “mission accomplished” sign with a lot of fanfare (i.e. landing on a carrier, wearing a flight suite). The “stupid” ones aren’t the ones saying that that was premature since more US soldiers have since then than when the war was started. And the insurgency seems to be gaining momentum. Nothing he said that day even intimated that the major part the war was still ahead of us. So he was either misleading us, or, as the OP suggests, he blew has wad too quickly.

As much as Republican apologists want to downplay and spin that event, I just don’t see how it can’t be viewed as a “political premature ejaculation” without a lot of intellectual dishonesty.

Just to test your own logic, how would you have felt about the event if Bill Clinton had done that?

18

Dobody is apologizing for what Bush said because his words and accurate and to the point There is no hidden meaning involved. Major hostilities are over. The big guns have gone home. He has stated repeatedly that it will be a hard road to travel. This is not spin. It’s plain English. In the few speeches I’ve actually heard he has used “years” as a reference point. I take that to mean we will be deployed as we are now for at least 2 years. Again, no hidden message. If Bill Clinton said it the meaning would be the same. In fact, just before he left office he said terrorism would be the #1 problem we would face in the next century. It was a statement completely out of place with the rest of his speech and it made the hair stand up on the back of my neck. I’ve been following terrorism for about 12 years and It was if he had just screemed the words out. I believed his words were backed up by intel at the time and I was postulate now it was the Al Quada/Mogadishu connection. Just a guess on my part.

If you want to bitch about White House photo ops you will surely get a pocketful of comparisons with Former President Clinton. There were quite a few and I can assure you I laughed at them with the same disdain you have for Bush reliving his fighter pilot days in the National Guard. I realize it must irk the crap out of you to see him in a flight suit waving to the cheers of the troops.

If you are willing to say you believe the operation was complete based on the speech on the Lincoln then I don’t know what to say to you without breaking the rules of the board. There are certainly political differences you could discuss that are genuine and would lead to some form of interesting discourse. To say Bush was insinuating the war was over based on a mission-related sign goes against what he said in the speech.

19

Magiver,

If nobody is apologizing for what he said, now would be good time to start. How can we say major hostilities are over when more soldiers have died since that declaration? Bush did say and most reasonable people expected that the US involvement would be measured in years. US involvement went far beyond war in Japan and Germany too, but we didn’t have face guerilla warfare there. If the administration knew that more lives were going to be lost and the nature of war is going to change drastically then they had to be more specific than just basically saying we’ve got more work to do. That little weasel phrase doesn’t give them a pass on why it’s open-season on coalition soldiers in Iraq. “End of major hostilities” means more than USS Lincoln coming home. It means the place is safer than during “major hostilities,” which is clearly not the case. All that has changed is the nature of the war, and the place is just as dangerous as before. That day marked nothing more than a photo-op for him—a victory lap basically. Considering that he didn’t even have to land there with an airplane since USS Lincoln was well within rage of helicopters, it seems to me they were eager to claim mission accomplished in a spectacular manner without much though about what lies ahead in Iraq.

So he either jumped to conclusion (which I think is the case) or he mislead us intentionally.

20

Well, you certainly sound like just the sort of impartial observer I can trust to reount events faithfully. So again: cite?

Can you name a single Republican that didn’t criticize Clinton during wartime? And can you find a singleliberal pundit who, in response to said criticism, accused the Republicans of aiding or encouraging the enemy?