Bush and the Media ("New tone" will cause 43 to lose)

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/lindachavez/printlc20031001.shtml ^ | 10/1/03 | Linda Chavez

[cwb]

Frankly, I think Morris is a two-faced puffed-bag. That doesn't take away from this observation that many have made. To argue that Bush's polls are as good as others have been, is not a good idea...especially since Bush is going down with daily beatings.

[lasereye]

Name all of GWB's finer points that make me proud to call him a Conservative.

His judicial appointments have been consistently conservative. Have you heard about the Democrat fillibusters? Did you know Federal judges are there for life? Did you know they have a huge impact on life in this country? Then there's the partial birth abortion bill that Clinton vetoed twice that he will sign as soon as Congress puts it on his desk. Are you paying attention?

[Coop]

At this point, despite my differences with his domestic policy, I fully intend to vote for President Bush next year. If, however, he signs the AWB extension, I will do my best to see that he is not reelected. This is probably a non-issue, being that I'd be really surprised if the bill got through the House.

I'm glad you at least recognize the AWB is not even a legitimate issue yet. I just wish folks would look at that against the context of other, good 2nd Amendment legislation that has passed during his Presidency. A defeat for Bush in 04 will NOT be a good thing for gunowners.

[ostephani]

You have the right to withhold your vote, but it is republicans like you that put us all in danger. YOU are the one who needs to look at the big picture--present and future included.

[neverdem]

I don't believe Bush can do anything unless he drops the "new tone". Rove's calculations require him to sit tight, do nothing else that could be considered conservative and stay above the fray. He has no individual opponent to focus on until the rats have a "standard" bearer.

Stealing the rats issues gets him nowhere with the rats and the media and alienates his base.

Tax cuts to stimulate the economy are derided by those who love class warfare as tax cuts for the rich.

His realistic foreign policy is attacked as aggressive and imperialistic.

He can't say that the conservatives believe as they do because the left scares the crap out of them.

Did I leave something out?

[okie01]

"Wasn't this Daddy Bush's problem? His failure or reluctance to step into the campaign fray? If I remember correctly, George Bush's re-election push was lackluster at best."

Yes, it was. In many respects, GHWB lost the election more than Clinton won it.

However, recall how active GWB was in the mid-term elections. He showed great resolve and strength the way he stepped into the Senatorial races -- proving himself more than a match for the First Felon when it came to campaigning skills.

My impression is that the father never really enjoyed or appreciated the need for campaigning. The son, however, seems to recognize that there is a time to govern, and a time to campaign.

[AHerald]

The man who is most responsible for the Republicans' highly improbable midterm election victories of 2002 (not to mention his capture of the White House from the incumbent party during an era of perceived "peace and prosperity") has already proven that he knows what in the hell he's doing.

The hardcores have been criticizing Bush's "new tone" political style since he was a first term governor. They were proven wrong then and they'll be proven wrong again. How many times does Bush have to prove that his political style is a winner at the ballot box before people will learn?

[neverdem]

I wish I could be as sanguine as you. I hope you're right.

[LS]

Again, I just go to evidence. Bush/Rove have won 3 elections with Bush as the nominee, and one based on Bush's record. They are 4-0. That is the evidence, not some theory that Chavez forwards. So I have to go with the evidence until I see evidence to the contrary. And "Bush '41" is not evidence to the contrary.

[dwilli]

Who is the stronger conservative politician:GWB or Bill Frist. Which one shows more backbone dealing with liberals?

[Area51]

The hardcores have been criticizing Bush's "new tone" political style since he was a first term governor. They were proven wrong then and they'll be proven wrong again. How many times does Bush have to prove that his political style is a winner at the ballot box before people will learn?


67 posted on 10/01/2003 9:45 AM PDT by AHerald
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

---

In case you missed it the first time, W won the election by 527 votes against a Shag Bark Hickory Tree that couldn't carry his OWN HOME STATE.

That and the last week of the elections revolation that GW had a DUI He lied about, is hardly what I would consider a masterful job of planning out a stradegy for a national Campaign.

One slip by W and he will be a one termer.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

With all due respect friends.. I heard President Bush say to Brit Hume recently regarding this very subject.. "that he will wait until there is ONLY ONE Candidate and then answer all the rhetoric".

I think that is a good strategy. USE THE MONEY WISELY.. and then BLAST THEM BIG TIME and make their HEADS SPIN!!

As is "blatantly obvious" only TWO SHORT years after 9-11, the American people have VERY SHORT memories!!

BESIDES.. HE IS A TAD BUSY RIGHT NOW!! It would be REALLY stupid to fight 10 candidates. That is like going into a gang fight with the odds 1 to 10!! How dumb is that?

BTW, to those who suggested he give more reports, he "IS" giving reports.. I see them all the time on TV. They are during the day. But you mostly see them on FOXNews. They aren't repeated on other network news, or cable tv. Surprized? He is on right now as I type Signing into law the Homeland Security Act of 2004!! Lets see if it makes ABC, NBC or CBS tonight. Want to make any bets?

To those who say "Daddy Bush" was relying on the Gulf War to bring him through.. that and his economy SHOULD have brought him through. He had a good economy AND a successful war. Clinton inherited both. The only two things that lost President Bush 41 his Presidency was "Read my lips" and "That Bozo" regarding Klintoon.. in hindsight, that's pretty amazing, isn't it?

They say that a Presidents policies take effect 5-7 years into or after his Presidency. So that being the case.. Clinton inherited "President Reagans/Bush's" economies. But!! However.. he NEVER suffered HIS OWN!! The media never talked about it. This last recession STARTED in 1998, which President Bush 43 inherited!! It was talked about before the last Presidential election, and is on TAPE. (Thank the LORD!)

Because of President Bush's dramatic tax cuts, the economy will turn around faster than normal (Sooner than the NORMAL time span of 5-7 years because of the size of the tax cuts. Which were done so by design). If we give President Bush the election again.. we will see his economy and the recovery last.. but if he loses.. those gains are lost!! We will go back to the destructive economics of the democratic/socialist agenda. God Forbid! (I mean no disrespect to our Father.. that is an ernest prayer from my mouth to His ears!!)

We better pray Americans have the good sense to re-elect President Bush. Not only for the sake of our nations security .. but for the economy!!

People and terrorist (who aren't really people) constantly underestimate this President. I say he will surprise his foes. We have never waivered in our support of him. Never. He has never let us down. We think what is happening in GITMO is nothing short of BRILLIANT. (Do a search on our name to see what we mean. BTW. When I say "we", we discuss things, and then I type our views out here in the forum). I don't have a mouse in my pocket.. LOL

Lastly.. look how QUICKLY the polls changed here in California. President Bush is saving, and will spend it wisely. We have a WHOLE year to go. I think they are waiting and will spend it WISELY. POLLS CHANGE like one changes a baby's diaper! DAILY..

[LS]

Yes, I agree, but most of all I rely on the evidence of FOUR successful elections. There's always the exception to the rule, but winning elections is skill, not luck, and Rove/Bush have shown they know how to win.

[Alamo-Girl]

Very good analysis! Thank you!

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Agree!!

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Welcome FRiend

[StayoutdaBushesWay]

Bush needs to get on a positive marketing blitz! IMHO, I think he needs to have weekly updates on all the good things going on in Iraq.
He himself needs to do this, maybe he needs to have townhall meetings with images, videos, progress charts or whatever he can do that will be hard for the lamestream press to ignore.

[AHerald]

The last week of the Bush 2000 campaign was a stumble, to be sure, but winning is the bottom line. And Bush won. Period. The rest is all what-if-and-or-but-could've-would've-might've-been hindsight. Gore may have sucked as a candidate, but Bush still had no business even being close in that election given the perceived economic situation and general content with the status quo, much less winning.

Bush's electoral victories aren't accidents. From Texas to the White House to the across the board Republican gains in Election 2002, the results speak for themselves. The naysayers keep whining while Bush keeps winning.

[Enterprise]

Excellent post. There is no real point in fighting everything, and every political adversay right now. A total waste of time and resources. And as you have said, wait until there is one candidate.

The other thing I have noticed is this asinine media spotlight on the President's polls. Geez. Who cares? The election is a year away! I might start paying more attention to the polls then, not now.

It just seems that every damned week since he won, the media have announced new poll results. So what would happen if he wins again? Are they going to immediately start posting polls about who the next Democrat candidate would be and how well he mightdo, and keep THAT up for four years?

[ought-six]

"Bush cannot wait until the primaries he has to begin his campaigning right now!"

I couldn't agree more. It's uncanny how Bush II is repeating the performance of Bush I almost verbatim. If he raises taxes, he's really toast. Also, do not be surprised to see a challenge to Bush, either within the party or from a conservative running as a third-party candidate. Bush is a very decent man, a good and honorable man, but that ain't gonna cut it any more.