Not close and no cigar -- Bush as Churchill

By JEFFREY SIMPSON


UPDATED AT 12:37 PM EDT Tuesday, Aug 31, 2004





Advertisement



NEW YORK -- Republicans, like all members of successful political parties, are splendid at reinventing themselves.

Four years ago, when they nominated George W. Bush in Philadelphia, Republicans were the party of small government and something called "compassionate conservatism."

Both proved to be hoaxes. Nobody talks about "compassionate conservatism" any more, in large part because nobody could figure out what it meant, then or now. And as for small government, spending under Mr. Bush has risen faster than in the Clinton years (and not just for security and defence), taxes have fallen (mostly for the rich), and the deficit has soared.

If the election turned on these and other domestic disappointments, including a net loss of jobs, Republicans would lose the November presidential election. But just as Republicans portrayed themselves, more or less successfully, as the sternest of anti-Communists during the Cold War, so after 9/11 they became the party of anti-terrorism with Mr. Bush offered as the best man to keep the United States safe.

The election will turn on that issue more than any other -- who best can keep America safe? -- which is why Republicans chose New York, a heavily Democratic city, for their convention. Here, the horror of 9/11 struck; here, those attending and watching the convention will be reminded ad infinitum that George W. Bush took the fight to terrorists: in Afghanistan and, more implausibly, in Iraq.

The convention's first-day theme, "courage of a nation," was all about the war on terror, as will be much of the rest of the week.

On Sunday, while several hundred thousand demonstrators protested against the Bush administration and the war on Iraq, Vice-President Dick Cheney said his boss had been "calm in a crisis, comfortable with responsibility, and determined to do everything to protect our people." And last night, both Arizona Senator John McCain and former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani lauded Mr. Bush for his role in the fight against terrorism, with Mr. Giuliani comparing the President to Britain's wartime leader, Winston Churchill.

It was said of Mr. Churchill that he mobilized the English language, whereas it could be said of Mr. Bush that he mangled the English language. But Republicans couldn't care less about Mr. Bush's grammar. They are wildly happy with their President, who has turned out to be much more ideological than his father in the White House.

Mr. Bush has passed three Republican tests with flying colours, tests his father more or less failed. He cut taxes, a policy favoured by all red-blooded Republicans. He took the fight to terrorists and, in Republican eyes, kept the country safe. And he delivered just enough to keep content the social conservatives and "faith-based" organizations that form an integral part of the Republican coalition.

There remain, barely, inside the Republican tent a few gays, ethnic leaders and old-style balanced-budgeters, but they have been at the party's margin for some time.

These convention delegates are more conservative than the party's rank-and-file voters -- just as Democratic delegates were more liberal than their party's voters -- but Republicans as a whole have been moving to the political right for two generations. Mr. Bush understood this better than his father, and resolved to govern accordingly, despite the trappings of "compassionate conservatism" in which he wrapped himself four years ago. The party's rank and file adore him for it.

That the country might not have moved in lock step with the party explains why those you will see on television this week won't accurately reflect today's Republican Party.

Evangelicals and other "faith-based" organizations haven't been offered prominent speaking slots, in case their presence would remind independent voters what scares them about Republicans.

Blacks, Hispanics and Arab Americans will be on the podium, suggesting to the unwary that the Republicans are more multihued than they really are. And some of the party's fire-breathing right wingers have yielded to more moderate speakers such as Mr. McCain and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

This obvious if somewhat misleading packaging, however, pales beside this week's more serious business: portraying Mr. Bush as a wartime leader who speaks plainly, acts decisively, smites the country's enemies, scorns recalcitrant allies, and will do what it takes to keep the United States safe.

[fantassin]

Poor Sir Winston, he really did nothing to deserve that.

[budanski]

Originally Posted by EvanLloyd

You seem to have nothing positive to ever say about it and involve yourself deeply in American politics.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...litics&start=0

[American Patriot]

Now what's this aboot, eh?

[platform389]

Originally Posted by American Patriot

Now what's this aboot, eh?

"Furrin" observers reading biased media "journalism" and trying to discern American politics.

Impossible on any given day...

Originally Posted by budanski

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...litics&start=0

yes but i have more of a reason to involve myself in the american election this year.
I just moved back from the states, and was part of the most historical thing to happen to the U.S> since Pearl Harbour (9/11). And my interests are to see how the candidates handle that issue as it is very dear to me.

[Shake n Bake]

And my interests are to see how the candidates handle that issue as it is very dear to me.

Oh, So the whole world revolves around you now?

Do us all a big favor and STFU

Originally Posted by Shake n Bake

Oh, So the whole world revolves around you now?

Do us all a big favor and STFU

Do me a big favour and take a reading comprehension class.

[Sir Zach of R.]

I didn't even read the article. But I think I know what Evan is trying to get to.

Originally Posted by Sir Zach of R.

I didn't even read the article. But I think I know what Evan is trying to get to.

if you think you know what im trying to get to your wrong. i didnt write this article. i just found it interesting and that you guys might enjoy it. BTW the author of this piece is a rather conservative journalist, the type that you guys in the states usually like.

[SpazzMunky]

Who is Bush: Hitler or Churchill?

Film at 11

[Secret Squirrel]

Originally Posted by SpazzMunky

Who is Bush: Hitler or Churchill?

Film at 11

I heard there was a surprise ending and that Bush is actually the third anti-Christ.

[SpazzMunky]

Originally Posted by Secret Squirrel

I heard there was a surprise ending and that Bush is actually the third anti-Christ.

I thought he was Jesus's second coming?

[Secret Squirrel]

Originally Posted by SpazzMunky

I thought he was Jesus's second coming?

Well he's the sign that Jesus is coming. The rapture should begin in about 23 or 24 more years.

[Hiroshima]

See Passion of Christ for more details