Last week I had lunch with a friend who lamented that President Bush will win reelection in 2004. I disagreed with my friend’s grim analysis because the president has become vulnerable in two areas: leadership and straight talk. While few (come to think of it none) depict the president as a policy wonk in the manner of his immediate predecessor, leadership and straight talk was where he was perceived to excel.
As for the president’s leadership, his tax cut and spend philosophy, war, and a floundering economy have pushed this year's budget deficit to $455 billion. According to the Concord Coalition if one excludes the Social Security surplus the deficit is in excess of $600 billion. White House Office of Management and Budget (which makes this the rosiest scenario) put the 2003 budget deficit increase at $158 billion in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, 2002. It is expected to rise to $475 billion in fiscal 2004, even without additional costs for the occupation of Iraq, which according to the pentagon will now cost a billion per week. The first month of the Bush Administration projected a $334 billion surplus for 2003. Of the $789 billion swing to a $455 billion deficit, the administration attributed 53 percent to the economic downturn, 24 percent to war, homeland security and other new programs, and 23 percent to the three successive tax cuts enacted since 2001.
But of the $158 billion increase from FY 02 more than half is due directly to tax cuts. This column argued back in January that the latest round of tax cuts offered very little stimulus, it is now fair to ask is this leadership? The only people stimulated by the tax cuts are those who are already economically stimulated. Those looking for work are still looking. Republicans point out that former president Reagan also ran deficits and the economy took off. Reagan also raised taxes. In fact, the only action the president could take at this point to address the deficit would be to raise taxes and cut spending.
As for straight talk, or lack thereof, the administration has no one but themselves to blame. The president sold the war on the link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, which he could not prove; Iraq’s involvement in 911, for which there is no evidence; and Iraq as eminent threat to the United States because they had weapons of mass destruction, for which he cannot find. When asked how did the false claim that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa for their nuclear weapons program find its way into the State of the Union address, the national security advisor said the administration did not know definitively until March that it was false. But later said the statement was true, but it did not rise to the presidential level and should not have been included.
For those who minimize this issue as merely 16 little words in the State of the Union address, I suggest they read the 1,444 words written by former ambassador Joseph Wilson in the New York Times.
Meanwhile, the CIA director claims he told the deputy national security advisor in October 2002 something was wrong with the statement. The secretary of state said that 8 days after the president made the statement it could no longer pass the standard so he did not use it when going to the United Nations. After falling on his sword, the CIA director then told members of Congress last week a White House official insisted that President Bush's State of the Union address include the erroneous statement and that he did not see the final copy of the speech.
Would anyone consider this straight talk? Thus, the president looks like “Clinton lite,” half the substance with twice the spin.
To put the president’s recent leadership and straight talk shortcomings into perspective, a Fox News poll states that 42 percent said they would vote for the president in 2004, down 9 points from last month. Feeling confident I had successfully restored my friend’s sense of hope, he said to me, “But I still don’t think there is a Democrat who can defeat Bush.”
“Yes there is,” I said. “But she is not going to run until 2008.”