Christopher Ruddy
Wednesday, Aug. 6, 2003

President Bush has been hit with sharp partisan criticism, sagging poll numbers, a drumbeat of media attacks, a recessionary economy – and a war, which hasn’t gone so well.

With just over a year to re-election, George Bush should be sailing to a re-election victory. But it isn't so.

What has gone wrong?

In many ways the president has exhibited great leadership, such as pushing through tax cuts and dealing with the “Axis of Evil.”

When Bush does such bold things, he is applauded and supported.

Yet when the public senses his administration drifting, it dampens its support.

Bush seems to go through phases.

When he focused on “compassionate conservativism” during the primary election in 2000, he lost New Hampshire and nearly the whole race.

When he returned to the Reagan roots of the Republican Party, he roared back to success – first in South Carolina, then all the way to Philadelphia. Squish. John McCain was rousted and trounced.

During the 2000 election, Bush started off strong after the primaries, but a 20-point lead against Al Gore dwindled on Election Day to a popular election loss and a miracle win in the Electoral College.

The lesson should have been clear: Morph into a fuzzy Republican at your own peril.

Bush was being tested his first year, perhaps as no other president has been.

His bold economic stimulus plan was implemented and then he was hit with 9/11.

Had 9/11 not occurred, I believe George Bush would be sitting on a full-blown recovery right now.

But 9/11 happened. Such is life.

Bush should have done two things that first year, two things Karl Rove would never advise him to do.

Administration talking heads should have had a clear message: Bush inherited a “Clinton recession.”

The economic indicators starting falling before Bush was even sworn in, and he could be little blamed for Clinton’s wild excesses and a Federal Reserve Board that did little to squelch “irrational exuberance.”

But the Bush White House didn’t want to play the blame game. I understand their style, but in realpolitik you need to explain to the public why things happen.

The Democrats have been quick to blame Bush for the recession. Why should he have been a gentleman toward them?

And then there was 9/11.

Nobody in the RNC or the Bush White House wanted to utter the “C” word and blame Clinton’s disastrous national security policies for Sept. 11.

Hadn’t the hijackers operated for years within our borders, under Clinton’s watch, under the incompetent leadership of the Reno Justice Department, the Freeh FBI and the out-of-control INS?

What about Clinton’s efforts to emasculate the CIA and his banning recruitment of informants in terrorist networks? Or his failure to extradite Osama bin Laden when, by his own admission, he had the opportunity to do so?

No, it wasn’t gentleman-like for the Bush administration to point fingers.

But true to form, within months of 9/11, the Democrats were blaming Bush, wondering what he knew about al-Qaeda intelligence. They were bandying about words like “cover-up.”

These attacks have only intensified. Sen. Bob Graham, once thought of as a moderate Democrat, regularly accuses Bush of a cover-up and has raised the specter of impeachment.

Like Graham, many Democrats are already criticizing Bush, saying he has neglected homeland defense. What this means, and I’ll translate it for you, is that all hell will break loose the minute another 9/11 attack happens.

You can be sure the New York Times will lead with vicious Page One attacks blaming Bush for his failure to prepare the nation and wasting our resources in Iraq.

If another 9/11 were to happen, there would also be another Bush “mistake” coming home to roost: Hillary Clinton.

After eight years of scandal, ending with horrific revelations about the sale of presidential pardons and the trashing of the White House, the Clintons should have been pursued legally.

Dick Morris told me it has been Bush’s biggest mistake. Morris said that without accountability Hillary will get back into the White House in 2004 or 2008.

In Carl Limbacher’s new book, "Hillary’s Scheme," he also lays out a convincing case that the go-easy Bush White House made a huge mistake by letting the Clintons off the hook and not allowing the Justice Department to go after them.

If a Democrat wins in 2004, the funny thing is that president will inherit, like Bill Clinton in 1992, an economy ready to bloom and a country much securer, thanks to his predecessor, George Bush.

The verdict is not in on Bush the Younger, however. He can still win in 2004.

But he needs to find the old Bush. Don’t apologize for 16 words in the State of Union address. Don’t sit idly by as the Democrats pick you apart. Take the offensive. Early. Pre-emptively. The American people will pick the right side, if they hear both sides.

Editor's note:
"Hillary’s Scheme" reveals the darkest secrets of America’s most powerful and corrupt woman: Click here now.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
2004 Elections
Clinton Scandals
DNC
George W. Bush
Media Bias
Sen. Hillary Clinton