creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Steve Chapman
Steve Chapman
19 Feb 2012
China as Punching Bag

Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping came to the United States last week, and that set alarm bells clanging. … Read More.

16 Feb 2012
Food and Conscience

Factory farming and its abuses were once the province of an eccentric minority that invited ridicule and scorn.… Read More.

12 Feb 2012
False Fears About a Nuclear Iran

"The stupidest thing I have ever heard." — Meir Dagan, former head of Israel's intelligence agency,… Read More.

The Certain Loser In This Election

Share Comment

Regardless of what the polls say, it's not clear who is going to win the presidential race. But it is clear who is going to lose: George W. Bush. If this contest proves anything, it's that the electorate is sick of him and eager for someone very different.

They might even prefer the candidate they elected in 2000. The one who promised to be "a uniter, not a divider." Who said he would "call for responsibility and try to live it as well." Who said the United States should be "a humble nation." Who faulted Al Gore for plotting to enlarge the government.

That candidate soon became famous for exploiting divisions, refusing to hold himself or his subordinates accountable, letting expenditures soar and making America synonymous with arrogance in much of the world. Whatever Americans hoped Bush would provide, it's safe to say that an open-ended war, an assault on the Constitution and an economic panic were not among them.

Americans may decide to replace him with another Republican, but if John McCain emerges victorious, it will be a tribute to his efforts to convince voters that he and Bush have barely met. Sometimes he sounds like he's running against Bush rather than Barack Obama.

One of his TV ads asked, "The last eight years haven't worked very well, have they?" An earlier one charged, "We're worse off than we were four years ago." At a recent rally, for anyone who missed the subliminal message, he thundered, "I'm not George Bush!"

Any GOP nominee might do the same. But not just anyone could offer attributes that contrast so markedly with Bush's. The president arrived as a foreign policy novice, with only six years in public office and a history of uninterest in what lay beyond our borders. Bush referred to the people of Greece as "Grecians," and in a 2000 radio interview, couldn't name the president of Pakistan.

Those are not the sort of mistakes the Arizona senator would make. McCain has traveled the world and made it his responsibility to inform himself about it, from multiple visits to Iraq to regular appearances at the annual Munich Conference on Security Policy, where defense officials from dozens of countries gather to discuss matters of war and peace.

Last spring, his aides were able to name 69 countries he has visited, which they said was not a complete list.

One of the most arresting moments of the campaign came in the second debate, when he said, "I've been to Waziristan" — winning the prize for the most unlikely boast ever heard in a U.S. election.

He was also a combat pilot and a prisoner of war, both of which tend to confirm one's seriousness in a way that Bush's unimpressive stint in the Air National Guard didn't.

Obama can't flaunt a military record, but his strengths, like McCain's, have a way of mirroring the president's shortcomings. Bush got where he is with the help of first-class family connections; Obama had to rise through brains and initiative. Bush regularly loses wrestling matches with the English language, while Obama expresses himself with unnerving fluency.

Bush becomes defensive and peevish when asked to answer the simplest questions about his policies; Obama never gets ruffled. Where Bush treats criticism like the Ebola virus, Obama conveys the impression that he hopes to learn from those who disagree with him.

The response of so many people to his message of unity comes partly from weariness with the administration's nonstop scorched-earth tactics. He conveys the novel view that Americans can disagree without hating each other. It's impossible to imagine an Obama attorney general braying, as John Ashcroft did in 2001, that his critics "give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends."

If Obama loses, though, it may well be because of something he shares with the Bush of 2000 — a thin political resume that raises doubts about whether he can handle the most demanding job on Earth. If McCain loses, it will be largely because he is identified with the obstinacy and errors of the current White House occupant.

In the end, Americans may vote for either candidate. But after eight years of Bush, most of them will leave the polls singing the words of an old country tune: Thank God and Greyhound you're gone.

Steve Chapman blogs daily at newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman. To find out more about Steve Chapman, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
Sir;... Good article... I think Mr. Bush points out that it is way too difficult to change the members of government even when they are not cutting it. ...We cannot count on government to police itself... It is clear that some people are not acting with a clear mind or in the best interest of the country, but people seeking power never attack power, and always attack people. I think change ought to be built in... If you get an opportunity to drive the bus, then you should get overwhelming support to remain at the wheel... If the best you can manage is fifty one percent support after a shot in office you have failed, whether you are elected or not... That is one good reason why representatives ought to be elected by, and represent only, 30,000 citizens, because if the vote were united for a representative it would give him direction, and real strength. What courage does a divided electorate give to a representative??? He must play politics with his own district rather that playing politics on their behalf...Where is the ultimate good in playing the people of a district off against themselves??? Where is the ultimate good in dividing the whole country against its self??? The object may be to deny unity to any district, and to deny unity to the nation so that great swathes of the population can be denied their rights, but inevitably, it makes the office more uncertain, and the power more uncertain so that officials must govern to smaller and smaller factions to be re-elected... You cannot convince me that we could not find consensus in this land, but I will agree that consensus will be forever beyond us if we do not seek it out... And government, which should lead us in that direction leads us away from that goal... They should thrash out differences for the people... Instead, they represent differences, are elected out of difference, deny differences, and throw difference back in the laps of the people where differences are aggravated, to fester... We cannot get government to settle our differnces so long as difference is the source of their power...Thanks... Sweeney
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sun Nov 2, 2008 9:13 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Steve Chapman
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 27 Feb 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 20 Feb 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 19 Feb 2012

25 Mar 2010 Why Don't More Cops Go to the Videotape?

21 Sep 2008 Clinton Is Gone, But His Policies Carry On

15 Jul 2007 Unshakable Optimism on Iraq