Analysis: Voters Gives Bush Mandate as Iraq Looms

Wed Nov 6, 2:22 AM ET

By Alan Elsner, National Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) won a mandate in Tuesday's midterm elections from voters still digesting the effects of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and looking ahead anxiously to a possible war with Iraq.  [...]

[...]  Temple University political scientist James Hilty said Bush energized Republican voters by campaigning aggressively around the country, putting his personal prestige on the line. Democrats by contrast were hesitant and disunited. Many reluctantly supported the president on Iraq and were unable to mount an effective campaign on domestic issues.  [...]

[...]  "When you look at the national picture, you have to conclude that many people wanted to support Bush because of the national security situation, especially since the Democrats were not putting forward a convincing message," he said.

Those voters who oppose the war against Iraq were left with no party to vote for and little reason to turn out.  [...]

In the weeks leading up to the election, I've read several articles chiding people for claiming that the "war" on Iraq was being pushed in order to divert attention from the weak economy and the scandals in the corporate scandal that could have been used to damage the Republicans if the Democrats had been willing to push the issue.

Whether that's been the reason behind the push for war or not is open to question, but - intentionally or not - it's been very successful in doing just that.  The news media are devoting considerable amounts of time to discuss the "countdown" to war, pushing aside news like the President having withheld - for 12 days - the fact that North Korea had admitted to a nuclear weapons program,  acknowledging it only after Congress voted to give him the war powers he wanted, and then, apparently, only because a former Clinton staffer was planning to leak the information to the media.  What reports there were on that little tidbit indicated that Democrats were outraged by the deception, but if they were, it was a very quiet outrage. 

Had the Democrats been willing to take a stand, they could have used Bush's deception on the North Korea issue to not only tap into the doubt that polls have indicated many feel about the war, but also to discredit the Bush administration, and it's Republican supporters.  They could also have publicized that the International Atomic Energy Agency report Bush and Tony Blair cited as saying Iraq could have nuclear weapons in six months didn't actually say that.  They could have brought up questions about Bush's claims that Iraq has ties to Al Qaeda - something that even magistrates in France and Spain, who have been working on investigating and fighting terrorish for two decades, haven't been able to substantiate.  They could even have publicized the CIA's conclusion that Saddam Hussein is unlikely to attack the US, unless he feels that its inevitable that the US will strike first.

One big question is what the Democrats are so afraid of.  Just in the last few weeks, 100,000 people gathered in Washington for the largest anti-war protest since the Vietnam era.  You would think that might clue someone in to the idea that there are a lot of people who don't support the war - and that there might be a fair number of votes to be gained by taking a stand against a war for which there is no coherent justification.  Yet the Democrats chose not to take to advantage of any momentum that the protests might provide, and, as seems to be their wont, stayed silent yet again. 

The end result of their unwillingness to educate their constitutants - of their cowardice and inability to stand up to Bush?  They gave people no reason to vote against Repubicans, and now Bush not only has the House and the Senate under Republican control, but he now can claim to have a mandate for his policies - including his desire to go to war against Iraq. 

While Holywood may not be known as a fount of wisdom, occasionally even movies can make a relevant point - as Arron Sorkin did in 1995's "The American President":

Louis Rothschild (Aide to the President): People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.

Personally, I think we do know the difference - when we are aware that there's a difference to be known. But for that to happen, someone has point out that the difference exists, and right now, no one seems to be willing to do that. 

It's hard to know what to say tonight, after watching the Republicans retain the House and regain the Senate. It shouldn't have happened. And it can't be good.

Over the last 2 years, I've heard many complain about the relative silence of the Democrats on major issues and their seeming inability, or perhaps refusal, to capitalize on the many missteps, lies and scandals that the Bush Administration has been handing out so freely. Clearly, the economy is a big concern to many Americans, yet we hear little from the Democrats on what should be done about it, or that there even is a problem. Polls have shown that, in general, Americans are not in favour of going to war with Iraq if it means that some of our soldiers might die. Bush has long had very strong ties to major businesses, such as the ones that are collapsing due to fraudulant accounting practices and excessive greed, but little is said to point out this fact or to question Bush's own potential involvement in similar scandals. Civil rights are being eroded, but no one has been willing to come to the forefront and point this out to people who may not, as yet, realize that our freedoms are even in danger. 

During the Clinton Administration, there was a lot of resentment generated towards the Republicans because of their unending exploitation of Clinton's missteps.  Personal issues were thrown in our face, questions about how much time he spent campaigning for Democratic candidates were raised, and any scandal that he might possibly have any tie to was publicized and pursued as far as it could be.  Despite all the public bitching and moaning over the Republican's tactics, however, it didn't stop them from winning both the House and the Senate in 2000 (remember that the Democrats only got control of the Senate because Jim Jeffords switched from Republican to Independent), and now they've got both the House and Senate back again.

I don't want to see the Democrats wallow as gleefully in the filth as the Republicans did, and I would hope they could carry on their campaigns with more dignity - but they need to realize that the flaws, lies, questions and concerns about the Republicans, in general, and about George W. Bush, in particuarl, MUST be asked, and that even if people say they don't want to hear it - they do listen, and it apparently doesn't chase them away.

We now have 2 years to get the Democrat leadership to wake up, step up and take action to prevent a repeat of this Republican sweep in 2004.