These large events were reinforced by several smaller ones, including what even some Bush political aides acknowledge were middling performances in a high-profile "Meet the Press" interview on NBC last winter and a news conference in the spring in which he professed himself stumped when asked whether he could think of any mistakes he had made.
In its own way, that answer was of a piece with the values Bush has followed at every major juncture of his presidency. It is a brand of politics that believes the assertion of power can create the reality of power -- and that it is preferable to act boldly and make other politicians accommodate Bush's agenda rather than try to accommodate their doubts. Bush did not offer coalition government after winning the contested 2000 election with a minority of the vote, nor did he offer to split the difference when Democrats complained that his tax cuts were too large. Instead, he corralled Republicans and a handful of Democrats and enacted the tax cuts into law.
A top official from a former Republican White House said Bush's governing operation created critical problems for his political arm by deciding to "divide and conquer rather than unite and win." This official, who refused to be identified because he works with Bush's inner circle, said that largely because of Vice President Cheney's influence, the White House adopted a confrontational style with Capitol Hill and with the Democratic Party that is endangering Bush's chance of reelection. "There's nobody over there saying 'No,' " the official said. "It's all the same Kool-Aid. Instead of the art of governing, it's been, 'Are you for me or against me?' "
Steven Schier, a Carleton College political scientist, has edited a book on Bush's political style called "High Risk and Big Ambition." In pursuit of large goals, Schier believes, Bush and his political team are willing to take "audacious risks" with voters in the middle so long as the GOP base is secure; 2002 showed the rewards of this style, while 2004 has so far highlighted the perils.
"When you take risks, if your premises are wrong, you pay a price," said Schier, who noted that Bush might well be coasting to victory had he been proved right that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or that tax cuts would have an unambiguous stimulative effect on the economy. As it is, Schier said, Bush has spent the year stroking his partisan base and pursuing an electoral strategy that amounts to "reaching the top of a low ceiling."
The Clinton Comparison
In 2000, Bush campaigned expressly inviting a comparison of his leadership style and Clinton's. "They have not led; we will," he declared at his first nominating convention. What has been striking about the past two years is the extent to which Bush has been a mirror opposite of Clinton.
The comparison worked to his advantage in the fall of 2002. Clinton's first midterm elections resulted in a massive repudiation of his party and majority control that Republicans have yet to surrender. The GOP gains after two years of Bush contradicted long history dictating that a new president's party loses seats in midterm elections.
Clinton's humiliation forced him to transform his strategy for reelection. He adapted a governing style in which he cast himself as unconcerned with partisan politics and relentlessly embraced policy positions that had been extensively polled and proved popular with large majorities. After the State of the Union address in 1996, when Clinton angered liberals in his party but captured the center with his declaration that "the era of big government is over," he never trailed in the race for reelection. By August, after Republican Robert J. Dole's convention but before his own -- exactly the point where Bush is now -- Clinton was leading by 10 points in the polls. Bush started the month a couple of points behind Kerry but has nudged slightly ahead in several recent polls.
In contrast to Clinton's "near-death experience," Bush's experience apparently has emboldened him to believe that he can win by playing down independents and "making Republicans come out of the woodwork," said Bruce Reed, a former Clinton administration official. The Clinton comparison is revealing of Bush's election strategy in other ways. Clinton's brand of campaigning involved regular policy pronouncements and proposals, sometimes several a week. Some, such as cell phones for neighborhood watch groups, were criticized as piddling, but collectively they presented a vision of a smaller-but-still-activist government that proved popular with voters.
The president is focused on large questions of national security and the changing economy, and has no interest in such minutiae, even if popular, said Ken Mehlman, Bush's campaign manager.
But critics say Bush has not filled out his policy agenda for a second term in ways big or small. White House communications director Dan Bartlett said the president made a decision to save many details about his vision for his acceptance speech.
Mark Penn, a Clinton pollster, believes the shortcomings of Bush's political strategy on both domestic policy and Iraq were on vivid display in the State of the Union address. While no rhetorical formulation could offset bad news, such as the Abu Ghraib prison scandal or mounting U.S. casualties in Iraq, the political costs of these would have been lessened if Bush had presented "more of a flow of information and an explanation to state the case," Penn said. Bush has later made such acknowledgments, but his initial posture of refusing to admit error or surprise apparently caused many people to stop listening to him, Penn said.
Keeping Up Appearances
There were few indications that Bush hit panic buttons last January. This was the same month that one of the White House's 2003 assumptions about the campaign -- the president would be running against the antiwar Howard Dean -- was overturned by Kerry's comeback success in Iowa and New Hampshire. Even then, the assumption was that Bush's then-formidable financial lead could be used to fund advertising that would leave Kerry irrecoverably behind in polls by the time of his convention. This did not happen, although Bush aides say they are pleased at polls showing that ads depicting Kerry as weak-willed and a flip-flopper have influenced public opinion.
The public posture of unyielding optimism about Bush's prospects and insistence that his strategy has worked creates a dissonance. Top Bush operatives such as Mehlman say they have been surprised that Kerry has not offered more policy substance to date, and other Bush aides are more blunt in bad-mouthing the Democrat as a weak candidate. In the next breath, they say the campaign is happy with the president's posture -- even though he is running even, with job approval ratings under 50 percent in most polls.
Surely, though, it would have come as a rude surprise if Bush strategists had been told a year ago that two months before the election the president would be running even with a man they regard as a clumsy opponent. In fact, the numbers illuminate a steady decline. Bush's job approval in a Washington Post-ABC News poll this month was 47 percent, 11 points lower than a year ago. Even his core asset -- the public's confidence in how he is handling terrorism -- has dropped more than 20 points from the spring of 2003 to this summer, and stands in the mid-50s.
Some White House officials acknowledge they have not had a major success since the capture of Saddam Hussein in December, which provided a fleeting bump in polls. Some of these officials have begun what is the rare process of second-guessing themselves. For instance, some of Bush's senior aides believe they would be better off if they had preserved Medicare prescription drugs to use as a campaign issue.
But Dowd said no strategy was going to prevent the election from being a narrowly fought and highly polarized contest. "The dominant parties occupy 90 to 92 percent of the landscape. There are very few people that swing in the middle anymore," he said. "We're playing within the 45- or 47-yard lines, so nobody's going to break away in this thing." Bartlett predicted that Bush's aggressive posture will pay dividends this fall, as even people who disagree with him on particulars appreciate that "there's no ambiguity where he stands." Paraphrasing a hypothetical voter, Bartlett said, "Do I agree with everything Bush is doing? No. But on the big things, I feel pretty good about him, or reassured about him. If things go wrong again, I feel good about him being there."
