Hiya, Huck. You were right.
I'm here for breakfast.
Posted on 01/16/2004 12:32:26 AM PST by JohnHuang2
The 'term' of the tide
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
It has not happened in recent campaigns: The use of a term that embodies the branding of a voting block of one party's voters in support and association of the opposite party's candidate. But it happened this week and it was the New York Times that blared it as a headline.
Whether columnist David Brooks meant to or not, he coined the headline that is perhaps the most significant statement of the current campaign – given the fact that we are a divided nation politically. His column was simply titled, "The Bush Democrats."
It is a term that by its very existence indicates why the strength of this popular president has prevailed.
I do not remember the phrase "Clinton Republicans," "Gore Republicans," "Dole Democrats," "Dukakis Republicans," or even "Bush (1) Democrats." In fact, you must go back five presidential election cycles to see the last time this type of term played a significant role in the election. Enter the "Reagan Democrats." Given the options of a second term under the leadership of President Reagan or ousting him for the far-left options of Walter Mondale, the country rallied 49 states in favor of the president. Is the same thing developing in 2004?
David Brooks broke down the statistical data. Ninety-one percent of Republicans support the president. Democratic candidates – particularly Mr. Dean, who is leading nationally – can rally little better than 50 percent of his own party, leaving the disaffected group within the Democratic Party to ask themselves the same question: "A second term under a president that we pretty much like and trust, or do we pick the near-socialist option of Howard Dean?"
A penetrating question might be asked: Why does the Democratic Party have a hard time winning over even its own members?
The answer may be easier to discern than one realizes. The American public has always respected fairness in the tenor of debate. About a third of Americans are conservative ideologues, about a third are hard liberal, and the final third aren't either, but examine the tone of the campaign.
American voters don't expect perfect candidates, but they appreciate candid ones. American voters want their president to do his best, even if sometimes he makes mistakes. And, at the end of the day, if a president is honest and demonstrates to the voter that he passionately cares about what happens to them, voters are more than fair in their support of him.
So compare the actions of those who have been involved in the public relations of the two parties just over the last few of weeks.
In an unreported story, President and Mrs. Bush assisted with Prison Fellowship's Angel Tree project, delivering Christmas gifts to children of inmates. These kids – through no fault of their own – would not have seen a present this year. The Bushes huddled with the non-incarcerated members in the basement of an African American Baptist church and spent time – close to 45 minutes longer than scheduled – with the children in this unpublicized visit.
On the other side of the aisle this last week, MoveOn.org – the radical left-wing activist organization funded by billionaire George Soros – was still reeling from having equated President Bush to Adolph Hitler. The organization was caught having to apologize for running two separate MoveOn.org ads on their website that advocated such comparisons.
In addition, they decided to hold their "Bush in 30 Seconds" awards in Manhattan. The event was attended and hosted by various celebrities. Comedienne Margaret Cho, actress Julia Stiles, author and newly signed radio host Al Franken, as well as musicians Moby and Chucky D were all presenters. In partial transcripts made available Wednesday, each of them resorted to distortions, untruths and profanity to rally the hatred of what they perceive to be injustices carried out by President Bush.
Calling the president a "f------ liar" does little to convince concerned voters in the Democratic Party what someone else's leadership looks like. But as best-selling author Ann Coulter pointed out years ago, it is much easier for a hard-left liberal to call someone a "stupid mother f-----" than it is to actually debate the merits of actual policy that affects people's lives.
After reading through the transcripts of the MoveOn.org gathering, I asked my syndicated radio audience what they thought about the term "Bush Democrats." For the next 3 hours, the phone lines were blitzed.
Lifelong Democrats, especially after being exposed to the raw hatred of the MoveOn.org gathering – and realizing that is indeed the future of the Democratic Party, called one after another to explain why they would be voting for President Bush in November of 2004. Of course, they were following the lead of prominent Democrats like Zell Miller of Georgia, who have come to recognize that the Democratic Party is leaving the people of values behind.
Could there be another 49-state win in store for this president? It is too early to determine. But if it turns out to be the case, look for all sorts of political studies to be done on the voting block that made the difference.
I guess you could call it, "The 'term' that turned the tide!"
Yes, my hope is to be able to find this thread again on November 3rd, 2004, and renew our conversation, regardless! Of course any number of things could occur that would prevent me from doing so, or prevent you from responding to a bump...!
In the same vein, any number of misadventures could happen on the election front between now and November. I chose the word "interesting" in my post to you not to be flippant, but honest. It will be interesting not only to tally the results on the state scoreboard (and decide the winner in our little side bet here), but to discuss the D candidate - Dean, I surmise - in conjunction with the person he will have chosen as his running mate. I do not foresee this being Hillary. It will be interesting to discuss the running mate's flip-flops on issues and in personality in order to step in time with Dean. It will being fascinating to surmise what might of happened had a different candidate or running mate been chosen.
We have no guarantees that W. or Cheney, Dean or any other D primary contender, or you or I will remain on this earth until November 3rd, for that is in the Lord's hands, and all by itself makes the prospect of hind-sight discussion appealing. All we can do is intuit and surmise, and that serves to keep it all conjectural, unreliable, and therefore interesting.
My intuition at first told me Dean would not be allowed to lose to W. in '04, but that Clark would be chosen as the fall guy. I've changed my mind on this, mainly because Dean is setting himself up as a fighter, and that image will post well in '08 when Dean is dressed up to be the Comeback Kid, and Hillary makes her move for the oval office.
The Clinton-Dean ticket will be a powerhouse in '08, precisely because Dean will be trounced so badly by W. in '04. That's just my take. I find the difference in opinions now delectable contemplation for discussion after the fact, whether I am right or wrong, because neither of us are kool-aid drinkers and both of us know a great deal about what is at stake.
Be. It will be. Sorry about that.
I chose the word "interesting" in my post to you
I also see that I did not, in fact, chose the word "interesting" in my first post to you. That's one post I considered, however, before saying I was "very much looking forward to speaking with you again."
I'm really battin' a thousand this morning. Perhaps I'll prove to be equally bereft of skill in my political predictions? ( ;
People who scream "Allah akbar" as they fly planes into buildings are haters. It's probably not a good strategery to sound like a hater if you want votes this year. With scads of mass graves being found in Iraq it's probably not a winner to bring up the name of Adolph Hitler every time you mention the guy who ousted Hussein either. But what do I know I'm not a political consultant?
Are the other nine percent really Pubbies?
It did seem to me that the speakers line-up was designed to appeal to undecideds, independants and "Reagan Democrats". Rudy and Arnold and Zell were each appealing to voters other than the base. Excellent 'strategery'IMHO.
LOL! Hey, I'm glad you remember. Keep me posted!
Oh my! It looks like my wife is planning on having you over for dinner soon. I wondered why there were four and twenty blackbirds in the freezer. ; )
All I can say is I had no idea how BAD a candidate John Kerry is.
Hiya, Huck. You were right.
I'm here for breakfast.
Good morning! Well, before the debates, it sure looked like you would be right. I don't know how much difference that first debate train wreck cost Bush, but I think it made a difference. At this point I just hope we can get it closed and done and get the losers to admit they lost. Thanks for the ping! So much for sleeping! Time to go to work!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.