PICK ONE
·
Monday, September 8, 2003
·
Reading various commentaries on President Bush, there seem to be two mutually exclusive opinions floating around:
Which is it? It can’t be both, can it?
Related Posts
- None Found
About James Joyner
James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. Follow James on Twitter.
Or, it’s (a) for domestic policy and (b) for foreign policy. Of course, nothing drives away moderates and energizes opposition like the appear of failure and/or actual failure.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
He’s in danger of losing his base because he does not fight hard enough for conservative principles and is willing to compromise on damned near anything.
He’s energizing his opponents and driving away moderates in droves because he is a right wing ideologue who refuses to make even the slightest concession to achieve consensus.
It’s certainly possible that he could end up with the worst of both worlds, seen by his base as overly compromising but at the same time seen by moderates and opponents as too inflexible. Perception is everything, and it’s plausible that the same actions would be seen in an entirely different way by these factions. For a simple example, look at the situation the Palestinian P.M. finds himself in, where he’s unable to satisfy either the hardliners on his own side or the Israelis.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
Welcome to the squeeze.
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
does the name jimmy carter ring a bell when it comes to this conundrum?
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0
Splitting the Difference
SPLITTING THE DIFFERENCE….James Joyner has a question today:Reading various commentaries on President Bush, there seem to be two mutually exclusive opinions floating around: He’s in danger of losing his base because he does not fight hard enough for …
—
Helpful or Unhelpful:
0 
0