Site Presented By
Wednesday, Nov 25, 2009
"Yes, but ..." says a Salon panel of political fortunetellers including Robert Dallek, John Fund, Sherman Alexie, Donna Brazile and Pat Caddell.
Jun 11, 2003 | He's riding high in Aqaba, forcing Ariel Sharon and Mahmoud Abbas to talk peace in the Middle East. He's Top Gun on the flight deck of the USS Lincoln, triumphantly greeting the troops to declare war with Iraq over, looking manly in his flight suit. He's pushed two gargantuan tax cuts through Congress, and his approval ratings remain sky high. True, in some 2004 election polls he's only a few points ahead of an "unnamed Democrat" -- but he trounces any of the Democrats currently running for president by at least 10 points.
Can George W. Bush be beaten in 2004? Every one of the dozen experts Salon asked that question answered a resounding "Yes, but ..." There's consensus that the economy will matter more than Republicans want to believe, that Bush is vulnerable as long as Iraq remains unstable, that the growing controversy over the missing WMDs might finally hurt him with voters, that Americans would rather have Social Security and public education stabilized than a tax cut for the wealthy -- but the Democrats haven't found the message or messenger yet to make a persuasive case.
Salon asked a range of political pundits, operatives and scholars to comment on the chances of Bush being upset next year. Their replies start below, and will run through the rest of the week. In the coming days we'll hear from Tom Hayden, Steven Brill, San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, Paul Berman and more.
Presidential historian Robert Dallek
A sitting president is always beatable. You just cannot assume anything in American politics a year and a half ahead of an election. I think Bush is most vulnerable now on two counts. One is the economy; if there's a kind of continuing deflation -- which the economists are worried about now -- if there is a recession that enters into the picture, I think it's going to remind people a lot of his father. He's a very smart politician, or at least surrounded by smart politicians, and they will, of course, make the case for the idea that he's intensely concerned about the economy and doing everything in his power to right the ship.
I think he's also potentially vulnerable on this issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- if they're not found and there's a continuing drumbeat about the idea that he pushed us into this war without really having authoritative information. I think the Democrats smell this as an issue. And it's not just the Democrats; there are Republicans in the Senate who are concerned about this -- most concerned, not about the idea that the intelligence services may have had it wrong, but that the administration may have exaggerated and distorted it.
John Fund, Wall Street Journal columnist
It would be the height of arrogance for anyone to suggest that an incumbent president can't be beaten. They get credit for the good things that happen during their administration, regardless of whether or not they had much to do with it, but they also get a lot of blame for the bad things that happen, even if they had nothing to do with those.
Bush has a commanding position in foreign policy, and an ambivalent position with the voters in the economy. If the economy continues to be less than strong, or becomes weaker, obviously that would be a major opportunity for the Democrats. The major problem the Democrats have is A) a stature gap, namely that their presidential field is not well known and two-thirds of the voters can't identify a single Democratic candidate, and B) Bush's tax cut is front-loaded, so it will have about $45 billion worth of stimulus the first year. So if tax cuts do indeed stimulate the economy, Bush will probably have a more robust economy a year and a half from now, when he faces the voters. So, of course Bush can be beaten, but at the same time incumbent presidents have a commanding ability to set the agenda, change the terms of debate, and obviously have an enormous advantage in name recognition and political clout. Bush is the favorite, but circumstances can change, and you never say never in politics.
Dick Gephardt has at least started by laying out real, substantive plans on how he would differ from Bush. You can argue with his healthcare plan, but it's bold, it's visionary, it's a break from the past, and I think Bush takes that seriously. The Democrats can't be Bush-like, but they also can't be blindly oppositional, like Howard Dean is. I think Howard Dean's sort of angry, in-your-face opposition to Bush plays well with Democratic primary voters but probably not with general election voters.
In terms of national security, if the Democrats are to retake that issue they may have to wait for something no American should wish for, which is a massive foreign policy failure. Other than that I think they're doing their best. John Kerry at least can claim he served in Vietnam; Dick Gephardt can say he supported the war in Iraq. I think some of the Democratic candidates have legitimate cover on that and some of them don't, including Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean and various others. I don't think they're credible on those issues.
