Comments on: Should Bush Have ‘Stayed the Course’ Past the Elections?

By: Pug

Pug — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 00:25:18 +0000

Lakoff has talked about how good the Republicans have been at framing issues with words. Things like the "death tax" to replace the more benign estate tax. They've always been good at it. This time they tried to frame the debate as "stay the course" versus "cut-n-run". They thought that would work. We'll see in a few days, but it looks like an all-time clunker. People may not be in favor of cut-n-run but they sure don't seem to like stay the course, either.

By: Cernig

Cernig — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:17:05 +0000

James, it's worth a look at cognitive scientist George Lakoff's take on this, today in an NY Times op-ed. (Lakoff's also done some work for the Dems. I have an academic background in cognitive philosophy and I'm a lefty. I'm an avid follower of his work. There, that's "full disclosure". :-) Regards, C

By: Harry

Harry — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:56:19 +0000

This struck me as an oddly-timed bit of a desparation move on the part of an administration that is otherwise trying to project an air of calm assurance that the Republicans will still hold both houses of Congress after the November elections. And the manner in which Bush tried to show whatever it was he was trying to show, was clumsy at best. He could have said "look George, people have taken our repeated assertions that we were going to stay the course as a stubborn refusal to react to changing situations, and that isn't what it's been about. Here's some examples...". But what he did was to appear to claim that he'd never used the phrase. That just plays into the hands of those who say he isn't on top of things.

By: Triumph

Triumph — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:26:16 +0000

Dan Drezner believes that the administration’s abandonment of the “stay the course” mantra, while good from a public policy standpoint, may be quite harmful politically

Legion has it right. There is no policy change--it is entirely rhetorical. Bush's main problem is that he can't own up to the fact that the war was an idiotic and tragic decision and that his administration was incapable of competently executing the war. Furthermore, he has so consistently trumpeted the very people and elements of that failure. For crissakes, he gave the Medal of Freedom to Jerry Bremer and George Tenet--two of the most incompetent men involved in the war effort. It is weird that he hasn't canned Rummy, given the fact that he is acting like a trapped and wounded tiger, telling critics--as recently as yesterday--to "back off" and "relax." Perhaps ditching Rummy might be something that happens before the election as an "October surprise."

By: legion

legion — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:10:46 +0000

It does seem that dropping the slogan has been perceived as some sort of admission that the whole policy has been a disaster and that there’s going to be a major shift after the election.

It may seem that way, but anyone who percieves that hasn't been paying attention to Bush for the last several years. This is just more lip service to make on-the-fence people believe, just one more time, that he won't lie to them again. He's already said he's going to ignore Baker's recommendations. He had a planning conference with all the JCS and CENTCOM bigwigs about changing strategies, and then announced exactly no such thing at his presser. Bush has stated firmly, many times, that he is going to use the hammer of the military to fix Iraq, and no other tool will do. This is more lip service & voter distraction, and nothing but. "Mars, bitches!"

By: DC Loser

DC Loser — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:01:32 +0000

Look, Bush is just bowing to the realities on the ground. GOP candidates with tough races have already abandoned the "Stay the Course" rhetoric as it was becoming increasingly untenable as a policy position. If he continued on that rhetoric he risked alienating even more supporters.