Comments on: Bush on Firm Ground with Base http://poliblogger.com/?p=1076 A rough draft of my thoughts... Mon, 08 May 2025 17:41:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1.2 by: Anonymous http://poliblogger.com/?p=1076#comment-3296 Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:59:59 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=1076#comment-3296 ]]> by: Wylie http://poliblogger.com/?p=1076#comment-3294 Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:59:59 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=1076#comment-3294 It is extremely difficult to see how W's foreign policy could backfire on him, with one glaring exception - the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is risking the alienation of a significant portion of his base - evangelical Christians - in what seems like the latest in a long line of Presidential attempts to prove how influential they are in trying to force a "solution" to the Palestinian "problem" by undermining Israel's strategies for self-preservation. Plainly put, this group doesn't like seeing the U.S. standing against Israel on the side of unrepentant terrorists, and Bush needs to recognize this. I suspect we'll see a subtle shift in this policy as Iraq's new government gains stability and acceptance. As far as the economy goes, if it was going to hurt him it would have already happened. The timing of 9/11 was fortunate for his political aspirations in that they distracted the public (and to some extent could be argued to have exacerbated the problem) during the worst of a relatively mild recession which began before he took office. The economy has been in slow-motion recovery now for about two years, and as the latest stimulus package kicks in, employment figures should begin to improve - about the time the primaries kick off - taking this issue completely off the table for the inept Democratic field (not that they won't still try to flog a dead horse). It is extremely difficult to see how W’s foreign policy could backfire on him, with one glaring exception - the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is risking the alienation of a significant portion of his base - evangelical Christians - in what seems like the latest in a long line of Presidential attempts to prove how influential they are in trying to force a “solution” to the Palestinian “problem” by undermining Israel’s strategies for self-preservation. Plainly put, this group doesn’t like seeing the U.S. standing against Israel on the side of unrepentant terrorists, and Bush needs to recognize this. I suspect we’ll see a subtle shift in this policy as Iraq’s new government gains stability and acceptance.

As far as the economy goes, if it was going to hurt him it would have already happened. The timing of 9/11 was fortunate for his political aspirations in that they distracted the public (and to some extent could be argued to have exacerbated the problem) during the worst of a relatively mild recession which began before he took office. The economy has been in slow-motion recovery now for about two years, and as the latest stimulus package kicks in, employment figures should begin to improve - about the time the primaries kick off - taking this issue completely off the table for the inept Democratic field (not that they won’t still try to flog a dead horse).

]]> by: mike van winkle http://poliblogger.com/?p=1076#comment-3293 Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:59:59 +0000 http://poliblogger.com/?p=1076#comment-3293 The other main advantage that Bush43 has over Bush41 is that, for the most part, the public doesn't blame the slumping economy on him...yet. Thus, if it doesn't get any worse he should be set for an relatively easy 04. It may be that his foreign policy will come back to haunt him however. And in a post-9/11 America, I think we'll see that foreign policy matters more to the electorate than it has since Reagan. The other main advantage that Bush43 has over Bush41 is that, for the most part, the public doesn’t blame the slumping economy on him…yet. Thus, if it doesn’t get any worse he should be set for an relatively easy 04.

It may be that his foreign policy will come back to haunt him however. And in a post-9/11 America, I think we’ll see that foreign policy matters more to the electorate than it has since Reagan.

]]>