Bush and the Economy Spend time campaigning Vs. Spend time on the economy

I have been watching this argument now since congress authorized the President to go to war if needed. The question is if the President with the highest percent, 62%, of the popularity vote in the history of the Presidency at this time in office should be campaigning or if he should be spending that campaigning time working on the economy. While I admit that I should have written this earlier when it was more relevant I still think that the final statements can be made.

...

Spend Time on the Economy:
The President is already the most popular President in history at this time in his presidency and campaigning is a waste of time. He needs to spend his time working on the economy and keeping in touch with the current war on terrorism.

Even some of the Democrats are riding on the President’s coat tails claiming they support the President in his war on Terrorism, his lower tax initiatives and so on. The President has the support that he needs now and he needs to use it. Campaigning will only lower his record high support and create more hardships in the future.

The President needs to be doing his job and work on the economy right now. He needs to stop running around the country drumming up support for his own gain.

Spend time Campaigning:
In order to completely fix the economy, the President needs to have control of Congress. In order to get control of Congress, the Republican Party must have enough representatives. In order to get those representatives, the President needs to use his popularity to sway the voters to elect Republicans, especially since the elections are so close.

People are not looking at the big picture here. If the Republicans do not gain the power in the Senate and the Republican majority of Governors then the President himself may find it hard to be re-elected in 2004. It shouldn’t be too hard to see that if the country is mostly Republican that it will work in the President’s favor in almost every issue. It is true that he is “drumming up support” but it is not just for his own gain.

The current control of the Democrats in the Senate has only succeeded in a constant rejection of bills and economic incentive packages that have been turned over to the Senate by the House and the President. If the President has a Republican majority to turn to in the Senate he’ll have a better chance of building a better economic plan that will actually be passed to make a difference in the first place. Spending time butting heads with the Democrats at this stage of the game is the real waste of time.

This isn’t just about the economy. There are still problems with Social Security, health care, prescription drug coverage and many more issues to think about. If the President is to be successful he needs to build a strong, supportive, Republican leadership base to keep from spinning his wheels for the next two years.

As for the war on terrorism, this is the 21st century and a lot has changed in the past 50 years. JFK had unusual popularity shortly after the Cuban Missile Crisis and in 1968 (correct me on this year if I’m wrong) he was not found on the campaign trails because he was focusing on the war. President Bush has new inventions like cell phones and the Internet technology (I use these two examples simply because everyone that hasn’t been living in a cave has heard of them) to use now. JFK did not have the luxury of these modern day technologies that would have allowed him to be in constant contact with the war efforts. Today’s President can be anywhere at any time and still receive and send all the information he needs to send just as if he was in Washington.

Sources

All of the points made are in my own words as formed by the numerous arguments I have seen and read about on this issue.

Most of the numbers I have given including the percentages have came from Meet the Press on the morning of 11/4/02. I have seen a few articles stating that the President only has “unusually high” ratings for this time in his Presidency as compared the all the past Presidents. I really don’t trust these sources as much as I trust Meet the Press and the major newspaper journalists that were on the show. I can’t remember which newspapers were represented but this isn’t an advertisement for those newspapers either. I only know that I recognized all of the newspapers and it is generally accepted that they are within the top of their category throughout the US.

I do not have much on why the President should spend time on the economy. This isn’t because I think that he shouldn’t, it is simply because the half-dozen debates and numerous articles I have read on the subject have been one sided, a simple statement and then a time and space dominating response. Even the people that have made the statements on the air have been cut short which has allowed for a detailed response. I believe that this isn’t because the issue has favoritism either way. I believe that the short statement vs. overwhelming answers is because the statement is to the point while the answer has many levels that must be emphasized before it can become a valid point.