The original objective was not winning at all cost, it was to institute policies etc., to improve the country. It should not be to manufacture strengths that do not exist because they appeal to the market at that time. To create falsehoods that incorrectly portray the opponent.
I am reminded of a few lines from a song sung by the late Ray Bolger, best known for his portrayal of the Strawman in the film, "The Wizard of Oz", from the musical "Where's Charley".
Love and marriage,
Love and marriage
Go together
Like a horse and carriage
This I tell you brother
You can't have one without the other
The object lesson here is found in the last line. The party candidates must first be elected or else their policies, practices, and programs can never be turned into legislation.
You can't have one without the other, can you?
Don't you long for a candidate / President with a solid vision and principals that transcend popularity as in Lincoln, Reagan or FDR?... and please don't compare W to Reagan, the poor man will begin to spin in his grave.
It is for a good reason that the president is known as the 'standard bearer'. It is not the president, but the philosophy of the party that controls the congress that determines what happens during his term of office. As a recent example, after the first two years of his presidency, Clinton was unable to do anything that the Republicans didn't want done.
In responding to a mistake, there are a few approachs. Humble acceptance of the error and letting the people know you are human... hoping for the best while throwing yourself at the feet of the electorate.
As the current teen age vernacular would put it, "Yeah, right!"
OR You can "discover" the mistake within your administration and FIRE some people for the screw up, showing both that you are a leader and decisive, even if you are having your people fall on swords for you.
This is much closer to the way the game of popular politics is played. And for good reason. The president of the US is more than just that. Like it or not, he plays a major role on the world stage. All else aside, he cannot be percieved to be a 'weakling'.
Then there is the George W method, of arrogantly thumbing your nose (flipping the bird is more accurate) at the nation and the world. Defiantly refusing to hold any of the cabinet members or agency people accountable for small foibles like the 9/11 intelligence train wreck. There should have been a shake up and strong messages sent that making the President look like he doesn't know what is happening, will not be tolerated.... did it happen? No -
Ah yes. Can't you just see the celebration throughout the Muslim world when Al Jazeera flooded the airways with endless repetition of the news that not only did the terrorists bring down both World Trade towers, but they brought down the Bush government, as well.
I fear that you have much to learn about the practical conduct of politics in the twenty-first century. Like it or not, on the world stage, perception is reality. In the words of Flip Wilson portraying 'Geraldine', the hot chick, "Whut yew see is whut yew git."
All we got was the defiant rants of an out of control bar room challenge... "yer either with me... or agin' me". It's even bad "reality" TV.
Right. The image of the tough Texas sheriff who takes no guff, who assembled the posse and took off after bad guys is probably the main reason why we haven't had another attack on the homeland.
I also wish to remind you that the last event to unite the people of the US was 9/11... W had approval ratings in the 90's. He had the momentum and lost it because he didn't handle the screw ups well,
How long did it last? Only until the Democrats thought they saw the first opportunity to begin their attack. Their sniping started in early 2002 and escalated all through the runup to the primaries at which time it shifted into overdrive.
and decided to compound it by initiating a campaign to git the guy who threatened his Daddy, without fully vetting his info. He HAD the country 110% behind him until he decided to tack his personal agenda onto national policy and now it has blown up on him. He was so full of himself and his Texas machismo, it made many of us sick. No little lady, I'm not a swaggerin'... in Texas, we call that walkin' Just what I want to hear from my President.
What else could he do? Clinton refused to stand up to an attack on a former president. He refused to stand up to an attack on US embassies in Aftica. He refused to stand up to the attack on the USS Cole. And the list goes on.
On the other hand, we could have had Al Gore, instead. As Clinton's protoge' he'd still be contemplating his navel trying to figure out what it was that we did to cause those Arabs to be so nasty. After all the Chinese loved us after we gave them the technology that finally got their ICBMs to work.