Third-Party Peril. President Bush could have some serious 2004 worries.

NRO ^ | October 20, 2003, 8:31 a.m. | John Derbyshire

[.cnI redruM]

I really am amazed neither party has willingly attacked this issue. It's one that could decisively swing a major voting block. I doubt a 3rd party candidate would really get 20 mil. votes on it, but a 1st or 2nd party candidate could assist his side in totally changing the landscape of the House of Representatives.

[grobdriver]

Here is my prediction. Should a candidate come up saying these things, or anything close to them, and should that candidate's campaign not be derailed by the machinations of his opponents or the media, or by some gross blunder of his own, he will get at least 20 million votes next November — more than Ross Perot got in 1992.

And if my Aunt had balls, she'd be my Uncle.

[Nonstatist]

I really am amazed neither party has willingly attacked this issue

This an issue that only people who dont have political money to throw in the ring care about. The business class and leftist multiculturists could care less. And the big center can barely get out of the sofa chairs on Sunday afternoon.

[Capt. Tom]

Did Perot cost Bush that election? Nobody really knows

Did Ralph Nader cost Gore the election?
I know. ...He did. - Tom

[Republican Red]

The Dems have much more to worry about in a third party scenario.

Green Party candidates like Ralph Nader take votes away from Democrats. Ralph really has no reson not to run. He's already been marked as a spoiler from 2000. If he doesn't run, I hear that Cynthia McKinney might run. Certainly would take away some of the black vote.

[Wonder Warthog]

"I really am amazed neither party has willingly attacked this issue. It's one that could decisively swing a major voting block. I doubt a 3rd party candidate would really get 20 mil. votes on it, but a 1st or 2nd party candidate could assist his side in totally changing the landscape of the House of Representatives."

The whole article is horse hockey. The only "third party" possibility anywhere even remotely on the radar screen is Nader/Green Party, which hurts the liberal wing of the Democrats, not George Bush.

As to the "illegal immigration" issue--to MOST people, it is a minor irritation, not a source of major political "juice".

[Tijeras_Slim]

I agree. Once the "anoited" democrat starts moving back towards the center after pandering to the base, the looney left will begin to defect in the name of ideological purity.

I think that the third parties of the right may have been somewhat of a casualty of 9/11.

[.cnI redruM]

When Barracks Emporer Wastely Clark entered the race, Dean hinted at a 3rd party run. I could see Hatred-Powered Howard going over 5% as a Whacko Party nominee.

[Grampa Dave]

You are right on target re the Rats have more to fear from a 3rd party. Even the master of the third party, PJB, has just written an oped on this.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1004296/posts

Is it Bush vs. Dean?

Posted: October 20, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

With an uptick in his approval rating to 56 percent – higher than Reagan at this point in his presidency – George W. Bush seems to have weathered his summer squall and to be well-positioned to do what his father failed to do: Win a second term.

The resurgence in the president's ratings appears due to two factors: the California recall election that riveted the nation – and in which the face of the Democratic Party was that of Gray Davis, and of the GOP that of Arnold. Second, the bull market, with the Dow nearing 10,000 again.

If Wall Street remains the lead indicator it has usually been – a predictor of what is to come in the economy six to 12 months out – Bush could be presiding over good times in 2004.

Moreover, with the dollar sinking, aiding U.S. exports, with most Bush tax cuts taking effect before November '04, with Alan Greenspan gunning the money supply and with a $550 billion deficit pumping out cash, the economy has all the steroids it needs for an Olympic performance in 2004.

Then there is Iraq, about which a consensus seems to be emerging. Those who opposed the war do not want to cut and run and leave Iraq to chaos and civil war. Those who supported the war do not want to stay on forever and fight an Iraqi intifada.

The consensus appears to be this: America will not send fresh new divisions to fight a 5- or 10-year war. Iraq will be helped onto its feet and power transferred as soon as possible, so Iraqis themselves can take responsibility for their own independence. And then, the Americans go home.

But if the United States is losing half a dozen soldiers a week with scores wounded in October of next year, and Bush comes back to Congress for another $87 billion, "Bush's War" will be the issue of 2004. Especially with the Democratic nominee likely to be Howard Dean of Vermont.

Here is another reason to bet on Bush. Though badly cut up by rivals over the summer, Dean still runs ahead of Rep. Gephardt in Iowa and of Sen. Kerry in New Hampshire, with summer sensation Gen. Wesley Clark trailing badly in both states. And we are only three months away from the voting.

During the summer, Gephardt failed to win the endorsement of the AFL-CIO. Clark has had problems both with message and organization, and was beaten up in the last debate. And Kerry just got some very bad news from a Granite State Poll.

Last winter, he led Dean 39 percent to 11 percent in that New Hampshire survey of likely Democratic voters. Now, Dean leads Kerry 30 percent to 17 percent, a turnaround of 42 points. Where 65 percent of likely voters had a positive image of Kerry as of last winter, only half that number do today. Add to this that Dean led all other Democrats in fund raising in the third quarter, and it is becoming difficult to see just who is going to stop the anti-war ex-governor.

The anti-Dean vote may be the majority inside the Democratic Party. But it is divided among Gephardt, Kerry, Clark and Sens. Joe Lieberman and John Edwards, with no sign any of the five can pull it together before Dean begins rolling up victories in Iowa and New Hampshire, and pulling away. One Democrat could step in at this late hour, stop Howard Dean and seize the nomination. But she is reluctant.

If, however, Dean is nominated, he will be an anti-war candidate of a party most of whose national leaders – Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman, Daschle, Clinton – voted for war. The last Democrat to take so vivid an anti-war stand was George McGovern in 1972.

Second, Dean's call for repeal of the Bush tax cuts will make him, for the purposes of GOP campaign commercials, the pro-tax candidate. Lieberman is already on tape predicting a "Dean Depression." Democrats have not nominated a tax-raiser since Walter Mondale in 1984, and like McGovern, he, too, lost 49 states.

Third, Dean's support of civil unions for homosexuals in Vermont will make "gay" marriage, and the GOP constitutional amendment restricting marriage to a man and woman, the social issue of 2004.

In 1972, Nixon ran against McGovern as the candidate, in Sen. Hugh Scott's phrase, of "acid, amnesty and abortion." If Bush and Karl Rove, using the $170 million they plan to raise by spring, can paint Dean as pro-homosexual weddings, pro-hiking taxes and "soft on Saddam," Dean and the Democrats could face a wipeout.

Nothing is certain in politics. Few predicted the Bush swoon of last summer. And the economy could go into that "double-dip" recession some predict. But as of now, it looks like "Four More Years!" for GWB.

---

Of course the swoon this summer existed mainly in the plains of the minds who wanted GW to have a swoon.

[wylenetheconservative]

Are you crazy? You're AMAZED neither party has attacked the issue? Gee, I guess you think losing the votes of the largest minority group in the country for a generation is worth getting the votes of a small "swing bloc" in one election. I see clearly why neither party has "attacked" this issue. All the illegals eventually vote and vote RAT. That's why the RATS haven't "attacked" the issue. The GOP thinks that if they keep speaking Spanish and "reaching out" that illegals will vote R. Plus, they don't want a repeat of California in the early 90's, when they looked anti-Latino and got tossed out of every statewide office. Also, the corporate community that provides the GOP with its funding likes illegal immigration because it provides cheap labor.

[11th Earl of Mar]

Along comes Candidate X. He is probably self-financing; a patriot with a ton of money, some experience of public life, and a deep concern

If there was such a person in ready to run for president, we would already know about him. The election is only ONE YEAR AWAY.

Does this guy think that someone can show up on November 1, 2004 and run for president?

[Mr. Bird]

Well, a right-of-center candidate who attacks illegal immigration will be painted as a bigot; possibly a Nazi, by the media. I don't know if the media would have the stomach for advancing such a candidate to the level of being a spoiler. And that's what a third party candidate needs: media support.

I also think the issue only plays at the border states, one of the largest being Texas. Bush will win Texas, and he never had California, so IMHO the impact wouldn't be exactly dramatic.

It seems to me that illegal immigration is still a 2nd tier issue. Not something you can run a campaign on.

[mrsmith]

Considering that the "Alien Act" contributed to Adams' defeat, Adams is an ironic example to use to suggest Bush should do something similar to win!

Illegal immigration is tough issue. It's so much a part of history that many people just won't accept that we have to crack down.

[AmericanInTokyo]

Mr. Bush better move to the HARD RIGHT and I don't mean maybe, or he's lost it and he will join his father as a single term president.

On Immigration/Illegal Aliens.

On Social Welfare/Taxes.

Fix the Economy.

Stabilize/Turn Over and Get the Hell Out of Iraq

This (above) scenario in the article, IMHO, is extremely plausible.

As it is, we are approaching, albeit not as bad, the same situation under Jimmy Carter, i.e. the media ticks off every day "Another GI Killed in Iraq" in the same way they heralded "Day #__ Of AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE" over Iran in 1979, his numbers in the polls drop 1-2% per week. Coupled with continuing unemployment, McJobs for White Collars/Lost Jobs to China for Blue Collars, stagnant economy, high prices at the gas pump, and we are staring at an American voting populace that is fickle and impatient enough to turn him out of office, no matter how charismatic he was three years earlier on that pile of rubble at Ground Zero with the Firemen.

To not grasp this is to forget history or to not appreciately the fickle nature of the American Electorate every four years.

[MEG33]

His job approval ratings are back up in the 55% range and steady.

[finnman69]

I thought Wesley Clark could have been a spoiler as an independent.

[hchutch]

"Who are we, and what do we wish to be?"

I thought we as a country settled that in the 1776-1787 timeframe, then revisted that issue from 1861-1865.

[.cnI redruM]

Some questions will not conveniently stay answered. No system is immune from external perturbation. The Roman world knew what it wanted to be until the Muslims showed up in the 7th Century.

[LS]

I agree that the GOP should tackle this. I totally disagree that any third party could successfully do so, for this reason: Perot (and, to a lesser extent, McCain) got fawning press attention because they presented "GOP Lite" policies. This allowed them to run, in a sense, to the left of Bush and Bush.

This issue has no such potential. Any party/person signing on to immigration control will be branded a "xenophobe" and a "hater" and will get no media support whatsoever. Moreover, at least 50% of Perot's vote, and about 80% of McCain's, came from LEFTIES, not from the conservative right. No, unfortunately, Bush does not need to worry about an attack on this issue from a third party.

[LS]

There is no evidence at all that Perot "cost" Bush the election. Every exit poll I've seen said that he took votes in an equal % from both Bush and Clinton. Nader's votes came 100% from Gore voters.