THE TYGRRRR EXPRESS

Dick Morris has finally confirmed what most people feel when they think of political strategists. They sometimes represent the worst of America.

I personally find Dick Morris to be one of the most brilliant political strategists in America. His triangulation strategy was the main reason Bill Clinton was reelected. His analysis of Hillary Clinton’s struggles is dead on, particularly his comments that “you cannot triangulate the war.” If I was running a campaign, or was the candidate, I would want Dick Morris on my cell phone the entire time offering advice.

Having said that, winning elections is short term. Actually governing is long term. Having “the vision thing,” is not Morris’s strong suit. For him, enacting policies is specifically for the purpose of winning the next election. This is not a criticism of Mr. Morris. It is just that his job, which he excels at, is short term political strategy. Making the world a better place, which he has never claimed to do (although helping to defeat Hillary does help), is not his modus operandi.

He has advised a way for President Bush to weasel out of his promise to fix Iraq without it being seen as weaseling. He is trying to get President Bush to act like a Clinton. This cannot and should not happen, not with the entire fate of the world at stake.

Specifically, Mr. Morris said this…

“Will George W. Bush…begin to pull troops out of Iraq by the end of the year? If he does, will it save the Republican Party? If Bush decides to act in this way, he will be doing himself, his party, and the country a big favor. There is still time to rescue the fortunes of the Republican Party in the 2008 election. It is Iraq that is dragging the president’s ratings down and killing his party’s chances in the election. If he began to pull out troops, he could begin to recover his personal ratings and move his party up. And a switch in time might just save the White House.”

With all due respect to Mr. Morris, we had one president under his tutelage who did nothing but read polls all day. Bill Clinton became the “Seinfeld President,” and his presidency about nothing is remembered only for impeachment, and that he won reelection. George W. Bush sees the larger picture. We are at war, and we have a moral obligation to see the mission through to its successful conclusion.

John McCain said that he “would rather lose an election than lose the war.” That is leadership. Speaking about President Bush, Mr. Morris states that “He has already made it quite clear to this angry, disappointed nation that he doesn’t read the polls and doesn’t much care what we think when it comes to his foreign policy.” Yet Mr. Morris then goes on to practically contradict himself when he states that Mr. Bush “has quite a record to present to the country in 2008. The economy seems to be avoiding a recession, unemployment remains low, North Korea seems to be caving in, and the Iranian regime seems to be in real trouble at home.”

So why should a man whose instincts have turned out very well on so many fronts give in to the nervous nellies? The only reason I can think of is that they are scared of losing the 2008 election. To that, I say too d@mn bad.

Mr. Bush’s first obligation is to America, not the republican party. He has done enough to help the party, possibly cementing the Supreme Court for a generation. He has led a vigorous War on Terror. It is not his responsibility to win in 2008. It is up to the nominee to be better than the democratic candidate. Bill Clinton was popular, and yet Al Gore lost because he was alousy candidate. In fact, he was timid. Mr. Bush offends some people with his ‘what you see is what you get” attitude, but that is precisely why his supporters like him. They know where he stands.

Unlike Dick Morris, President Bush wisely is choosing to follow military advice from a military strategist, General David Petraeus. What Dick Morris is to politics, the General is to winning wars.

Dick Morris’s job is to help his candidates win elections. He does that well. However, what is the point of winning an election if it comes at the cost of losing your soul? If we abandon Iraq, our few supporters in the Middle East would see that our words mean nothing. We would be dead in the water in terms of diplomacy in the future.

Winston Churchhill was fired after winning World War II. He is still one of the all time greats. Tony Blair was forced out of office, and so was Margaret Thatcher. Both of them are in many people’s hall of fame for world leaders. Rudy Giuliani was forced out of office by term limits, and when he offered to stay longer after 9/11, he was told no thank you. Yet history will forever honor his leadership under horrific times.

Lastly, Ronald Reagan, beloved as he was, had some teflon wearing off in 1987 under the weight of inconsequential scandal. George HW Bush still won reelection. A year is a lifetime in politics.

Pulling out the troops to secure a 2008 victory is an act of dishonor. The right thing to do is stay the course, listen to General Petraeus and the troops on the ground, and do whatever is necessary to win the War on Terror. If the republican party sticks to its bedrock priciples, we will win both 2008 and the War on Terror.

Mr. Bush’s world vision is honorable, noble, and must be implemented. If we lose 2008, so be it. We will have deserved it. If we lose the Global War on Terror, God help us all.

eric

This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 27th, 2007 at 1:29 pm and is filed under POLITICS. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.