Twenty-one Reasons Why Bush Will Win

Just four days before the election, muckrakers uncovered a dirty little secret on their GOP rival. Twenty-four years earlier, George W. Bush was arrested for drunk driving. To make matters worse, he answered no when a reporter asked if he'd ever been arrested. It was the kind of bombshell that would have ruined his shot at the White House, except for the lead in the polls he had at the time. The effect of the report was evident later in exit polls. They indicated that a majority of people who made up their minds within three days of the election voted for Al Gore. Normally, undecideds break overwhelmingly to the candidate from the party out of the White House. In addition, an unknown number of voters who had been attracted to Bush's image of integrity were motivated to stay home. Without this perfectly-timed political hand grenade, Bush would have won the election with room to spare, and the blatant partisanship of the Supreme Court (of Florida, that is) would have remained local news. In all likelihood, Bush won't face a similar devastating revelation this year.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 2000, Al Gore enjoyed a huge advantage going into the election season. He was the sitting vice president during a time when the country was enjoying an extended period of peace and prosperity. Even under those circumstances, the American people thought enough of George W. Bush to elect him anyway. All things being equal, Bush will benefit from being in the incumbent party this time around. (I can hear Democrats mumbling something about Gore's poor campaign strategy losing the election. Maybe that contributed, but, nevertheless, Bush did possess a certain degree of electability. Imagine John Kerry..er..or not.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Special interests serving the Democratic party developed an intimidating get-out-the-vote machine during the 90's. That process culminated in an heroic effort in 2000. The result? Dubya took the best punch well-heeled civil rights activists and unions had to offer and still came out on top. Those Democratic special interests will be hard-pressed to match that performance and even less likely to exceed it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The United States of America was forever changed on that day in September when all of us were so violently ripped from of our mirage of security. Never again will peace be thought of as a given in American life. We are a nation at war. It is a war that will continue for a long time against a ruthless, unprincipled adversary bent on the merciless taking of civiflian life. They have stated their desire to kill us, each and every one, simply because we are Americans. In such times, we are instinctively drawn to leaders who show the determination to proactively confront and conquer the threats we face. Most of us understand that a co-existent relationship with these enemies cannot be negotiated; they must be subdued through absolute victory in the theater of war. Bush understands this, and Americans know it. I hesitate to bring politics into the War on Terror, but the facts are obvious. Our President and his party in general have shown themselves much more willing to implement the iron-fisted policies necessary to vanquish this insidious foe. Speaking loudly, while leaving the big stick in the closet, is not the trademark of this administration when it comes to terrorism. There can be no denying that George W. Bush is serious about actively protecting our people and our nation. The vast majority of voters, even those who may disagree with the path down which that action is taking us, take comfort, consiously or not, in the protection our military provides under the firm hand of our Commander-in-Chief. This sense of protection through vigilance will be a huge factor this November in polling booths across the country.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The recession of 2000 started very early in Bush's presidency. So early, in fact, that it is absurd to suggest Bush's policies had anything to do with it. The downturn was compounded by the disastrous economic effects of September 11. Bush understood that America needed to pour on the fuel to keep our economic engine from stalling. His tax cuts and immediate tax rebates provided a boost that helped avert a deeper, longer recession. The economy has since turned the corner and is picking up steam. If the current trends continue, and they should, by November the economic outlook held by the electorate should be much improved. And Bush will benefit considerably at the ballot box.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is an excellent point brought up by PoliPundit last November. Here's the meat of those thoughts (I paraphrase just a little): "The Democrats made a major blunder in the 2004 presidential race by choosing to hold their national convention on July 26 in Boston. The GOP will be holding its convention in the first week of September. I could go on endlessly about why this helps the GOP, but here are four concise reasons: 1. Bush will be able to continue spending his Primary money until September and use his general election money from September to November. The Democratic candidate, however, will be out of money by July, because of a tough Primary, and then have to make his general election funds last from July to November. This exaggerates Bush's already crushing money advantage. 2. 9/11 will be a few days after the GOP convention. 3. By holding the Democratic convention on July 26, the Democrats risk losing the post-convention bounce in the polls by election day. 4. The summer Olympics are between the two conventions and will suck the air out of the DNC message."

The two months between September's Republican National Convention and Election Day will be a great time to be Republican. I can't wait!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The weakness of this crop of Democratic contenders has been well documented. Suffice it to say that whoever emerges with the opporunity to face Bush will be no Al Gore, as if that were a boast.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the rulings handed down by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts and a law in Ohio banning gay marriage, we are on a collision course with this issue that will force it into the political spotlight this year. The country is largely opposed to gay marriage, generally ambivalent toward civil unions, and mostly against a Constitutional amendment defining marriage as a joining of one man with one woman. That is the national consensus. However, if we look deeper into the intensity of each group on these issues, we see a much different picture. A few supporters of gay marriage are adamant in their views. They will mostly vote against Bush regardless of his stance, notwithstanding log cabin Republicans. However, most people who support gay marriages and civil unions, and thus oppose an amendment, do not hold that position with a great degree of fervor. By and large, they will not be motivated to take their votes away from Bush or to make sure they get out and vote against him when they would otherwise stay home. It's simply not that big an issue with them. It is an entirely different thing for a large portion of those who support the amendment. Their opposition to changing the traditional definition of marriage runs deep and strong. It is a big deal to them. Bush's stand on this issue will directly create votes for him among those whose intense feelings on this issue will overwhelm their general indifference to the political process.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Possibly the most significant development in the American election process since 2000 is the unbelievable strides the GOP has made in terms of volunteerism and organization. Once a domain dominated by Democratic special interests, get-out-the-vote is now practically a wash, and GOP operatives are frenetically working to increase the breadth and depth of grass-roots support structures all over the country. This is an amazing turnaround from 2000. It, alone, will turn many a close state into a comfortable Bush victory, while moving some comfortable Gore states within striking distance for the President.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A startling event took place in 2002. It was startling both in its circumstances and in the lack of focus it received. That event was the Florida gubernatorial election. What happened there, when taken in the context of the voting debacle two years earlier, was truly phenomenal. I'll recap it for you:

In 2002, Terry McAuliffe pledged that Jeb Bush, the president's own brother, would be defeated in his re-election bid. In fact, the DNC made the Florida governor's race their number one priority of the 2002 election cycle. Moreover, only two years removed from the spectacle of 2000, emotions and energy should have been be running extremely high among Democrats. Did we see massive Democratic turnout? Did Terry's threats come true, for once? Nope! What transpired was not a humiliating GOP defeat, but a Bush-brother victory by a count that exceeded Jeb's first election margin. He won by an amazing 13 points! It was a complete and utter repudiation of the revenge factor and clearly showed the strength of the GOP in that state. Without Florida as an obvious pickup target, the Democrats' options to gain ground shrink considerably.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Bush has gained a small yet concrete advantage heading into the elections this year. Red states in 2000 netted Bush 271 electoral votes. This year those same states would give him 278. In other words, he could lose a state like New Hampshire, Nevada or West Virginia and win anyway. Even losing a larger state such as Louisiana or Colorado would produce a 269-269 tie.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite his forays into fiscal liberalism - Medicare, immigration, education - the President maintains phenomenal support among Republicans. A poll in late January by the American Research Group found only 10% of GOPers disapprove of the job he is doing. Eighty-six percent approve. In addition, the vocal displeasure at his aforementioned transgressions has apparently not fallen on deaf ears. Recently he has offered peace offerings to the GOP faithful, such as a spending freeze on non-defense spending. Finally, his rock-solid conservative stands on abortion, judicial appointments, taxes, gay marriage, and National Security are sure to bring out a sizeable elephant stampede in November.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can we trust a privileged businessman who has served but 6 years in elected office to handle the affairs of the most powerful nation on earth? In 2000, voters put their faith in an untested George W Bush. Four years later, his courageous, principled, and steadfast leadership have led this country through some of its most trying times. Even those who dislike and disagree with President Bush would be hard-pressed to deny the resolve of his leadership. He provided and continues to provide a steady hand when we need it most. Voters will feel eminently more confident to put their trust in him again this year.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florida and New Hampshire were the two states that Ralph Nader's candidacy lost for Al Gore. I've already addressed the current situation in Florida. New Hampshires is not much different. Voters there have now elected two Republican senators, a Republican governor, and two Republican representatives. The GOP has a 3 to 1 advantage in the state senate and better than a 2 to 1 advantage in the state house. A Democratic victory here will be quite a feat, indeed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pew research conducted a nationwide poll last summer to measure changes in party affiliation since the tragedy of September 11. Minnesota and Iowa have been trending Republican of late, and these shifts were quantified in that poll. They present yet another headache for McAuliffe's bunch. Now they have to row against the current in states that Al Gore won.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

California's fiscal health is the inevitable result of a steady diet of liberal policies. Last year, voters in this very blue state decided to switch chefs between meals. They settled on a Republican. In fact, over 60% of them voted for a GOP candidate. Does this mean 60% will vote for Bush? Not a chance. However, with this clear rejection of liberal economics and with the structural advantage that comes with control of the Governor's mansion, Republicans have a shot at competing for the biggest electoral prize in the nation. Regardless of the eventual winner, a competitive GOP in California would require Democrats to funnel precious resources to protect their most valuable bastion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since Florida and New Hampshire are no longer the targets they once were for the DNC, Ohio becomes the challenge of choice. On the surface, Bush's narrow victory there in 2000 would give Democrats hope of taking it from the GOP in 2004. However, the political winds are blowing in the GOP's favor this year. Ohio's recent passage of a ban on gay marriage highlights their socially conservative lean. The impending battle in the gay marriage debate will solidify and motivate social conservatives in this crucial state, resulting in a more difficult obstacle for the Democrats to overcome.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Former Vermont governor Howard Dean has been a veritable political highlight reel. Never before in my memory has a candidate followed a path similar to the one of this eccentric politician. In the race for the Democratic nomination, it has been thoroughly entertaining to see this man so flamboyantly hurtle himself to the front of the pack only to relegate himself to also-ran status through clumsy mis-steps and childish outbursts, all in a period of a few months. But, even though he's finished as a viable choice, his candidacy will have far-reaching effects on the election in November. What Dean did was to identify and add fuel to a smoldering fire within a segment of the Democratic party. These liberal Bush-haters haven't broken their engagement with him. They understand that he "feels their anger" - the same anger that will now compel them vote for a third party candidate rather than betray their man by voting for the victorious Democratic foe. This group won't be huge, but it will be enough to give Bush another advantage.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I had to add this one. Bush has made a career out of having his opponents "misunderestimate" him. They show no signs of realizing that they really aren't dealing with a moron. How many more times will the Democrats ponder, "How did he do that?"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I've mentioned above, national security will be paramount in voters' minds this election season. After Bush, no one personifies the triumph of American resolve in the aftermath of September 11 more than Rudy Giuliani. In the time since, he has shown himself to be a willing advocate for Bush and other Republicans on the campaign trail. His active presence can only help Bush's standing in November.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An issue that, if used wisely, can be very effective in wooing conservatives and moderates alike, is the heavy-handed, partisan tactics of Democratic senators. Never before have a president's judicial nominees been subjected to filibusters with the reckless abandon employed by this group of liberal lawmakers. Democrats have charted virgin territory in their quest to stall Bush's vision for a balanced, non-activist federal judiciary. The GOP has an opportunity to wield this obstructionist track record to attract more moderate voters and win a larger portion of the hispanic vote - read this.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure there are more reasons for optimism. I'm also sure my counterparts on the left could come up with their own list of reasons for them to be hopeful. But the point has been made: President Bush is going to be one tough hombre to dislodge from that thar White House. When you Bushies out there are discouraged by the spin and disappointed by the polls, just read this list again and stop your fretting. But don't stop donating and volunteering. That will play a most critical part in making this view become a reality. He is certainly not assured of re-election, but, with our continued support and hard work, all signs point to a second term for George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States.

"... social programs like "No Child Left Behind" and a Medicare drug benefit for our most affluent demographic."

NCLB is not a social program. It is an accountability program that demands that teachers teach, show results and be tested for competency themselves before any Federal monies are dispersed to them.

The Bush Administration has sued the NEA. In several states the teachers unions have been investigated and embezzlers have gone to jail.

This is why the Dems and the trolls writing to the single-issue boards and calling the talk shows are furious. They are being deprived of their constituencies. This is known as *punking* the conservatives.

The prescription drug benefit is available as an entitlement on a means-tested basis to a small fraction of the *affluent* demographic. I know some of these elders and they have next to nothing. For the rest, they can choose to keep Medicare as it is (since they paid into it) or they can elect to pay more out of pocket for a more privatized version that will eventually privatize Medicare. Every senior pays something per month for any form of Medicare and all but the poorest of the poor pay some co-pay.

GWB has preempted the Dems by passing this bill and they are furious. They do not even want the administration to be able to pay a measly $12M to advertise the truth about the Medicare changes. The Dems want to scare everyone into single-payer, which will bankrupt us as a nation while providing 3rd world health care. The Dems responded by getting their base to withdraw from AARP. Luckily, it was a fraction of a percentage of AARPs members. This almost-senior is now pondering finally joining AARP just because they for once acted rationally instead of being in lockstep w/the DNC. And just this morning, I unsubscribed to NewsMax's email updates when they once again beat on the drum of divisiveness among Republicans.

I hear this anger against the elderly all the time. It is part of the divide & conquer tactics promulgated by Gramscians. Even though many elderly do have the accumulated assets and earned pensions hard won over 70+ plus years of hard work and paying of high taxes for all that time, not all or even a majority have nearly as much as is claimed. If they have a house that appreciated, even if they sell it, they have to live somewhere and only realize a portion as a retirement nest egg. They are usually not earning income. They are liquidating those assets monthly in order to live.
They could not afford a health insurance policy at today's rates for their age group, even if they are in perfect health. Most take several medications/day in order to remain independent. Since most people have elderly relatives still living, I cannot see the source for this resentment. We will all be elderly someday unless we die young.

Personally, I have seen, in former times, the really indigent elderly who were only 65-70, which is the young old by todays standards. It is precisely because I lived thru those times that I have saved for my own retirement. Still, I will have to sell my property at some point if I live long enough and I am glad my country offers some safety net to those who paid for our schools all their lives, who paid into the programs of Medicare and SS and who did their part in working, building those industries that made this nation strong and paying taxes while they were younger.

It is GWB who has lowered our taxes, allowing us to save more for retirement. It is GWB who has lowered and will eliminate the dividend tax which allows us to save more for our retirement and allows seniors to have the benefit of their investment income while allowing those corporations who employ the younger citizens to concentrate on more than appreciation, which is what helped Clinton's bubble economy to bankrupt more than a few Americans.

This administration is doing more to undo 70 years of social engineering brought on since FDR than even Reagan did. The Dems are fighting for their political lives. If GWB wins reelection, the Democrats as we know them will be banished to the wilderness for a generation. I won't live to see the final result, but those of you who are younger should realize that the only way you are ever going get your pure conservative Messiah is to first marginalize the Democrats. Withholding your vote from the present administration is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

You need to hang out w/a more intelligent group of hardcore conservatives. They are among the 80% or so who will vote for GWB and the Republicans.

>>Regardless of what you think of yourself and your opinions, you (and I) are not on the same level as Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams when it comes to Economics.

This may be the case, but the dignity of the human is not an economic issue. It's a philisophical and moral issue which many economists do not have any credibility on.

>>They have both described workers as commodities.

And they are wrong. They, like you and I, are fallible beings.

>>Stop taking a philosophical view

Start taking one. People are not commodities, regardless of what economic gurus say.

>>you can be laid off at any point because it is no longer financially viable to keep you.

That is true, but that does not mean you are a commodity. That idea is disrespectful and irreverant to the human being.

>>Farm subsidizes go way beyond your description. You need to wake up. They are not subsidizing tobacco so I can have cigars (which I like). Look at the farm bill! So you are on record in favor of the Government forcing companies to not lay you off. Didn't work real well in Communist China, they have since backed off from that rule, failed in the USSR and in Socialist India. It cost the governments too much (read: your tax dollars) You should read "Applied Economics" by Thomas Sowell.

I admint I'm out of my league on farm subsidies.

However, I am well within my league on the issue of the dignity of the person. I'd glady debate Sowell or any other economist on this issue. (Not that I have a name which would carry any weight!)

People, economics is not a religion. Economists aren't exactly the most credible people to speak on the dignity of the person.

>>Tell us how Kerry will bring back any jobs?

This is a ridiculous question. It's a number which can only be discovered in hindsight, not with forsight.

>>Exactly what actions by GWB led to these people losing their jobs?

Failing to ask for Congress to create legislation to stop the practice. It's called a lack of leadership.

>>If the answer is that Kerry has no answer and that it

I'm not saying Kerry is right or will bring them back, what I believe is that people have the perception that he'll do a better job on this issue.

>> wasn't the fault of the POTUS that the jobs went overseas,

Through the lack of ledership, he has guilt in this issue.

>> what factors will influence these people voting against Bush besides job loses? Can you explain how these are former GOP votes that have been lost?

I think for many people, a job loss and long term unemployment overrides other issues. I'm not saying that is a good position to take.

It is not in the adminstration's best interest to do their fighting right now. Sean and the others who are all over the airwaves are their surrogates.

Rove advises and plans strategy, mainly, IMO, for down ticket races. We do not need him out there as a target, like Carville and Begala. Let him remain the grey eminence. He is much more effective that way. Also, we have no real idea who he manages to get out there in front of the mics and cameras to do the fighting for the administration. GWB is a political animal. He grew up in politics and has worked in politics all his life. I personally think he does most of his own strategizing. I heard Laura respond to someone who said that Rove is the power behind the throne. She laughed and said he would think that was amusing.

Laura is not the Stepford Wife she is painted to be by the elites, either. She recently said that there was a bittersweet aspect to this being the last campaign. I think politics is a strong part of their marriage and family life and the strategizing goes on 24/7 in private. She is a strong campaigner for W.

Cheney works within the party. He is not delegated to be a front man to the nation as a whole. He is effective speaking directly to his peers and working w/the think tanks.

This President is very visible, IMO. He has a job to do and only part of it is visibly campaigning. That said, he is out there campaigning and from what I see, is out there every week at one place or another. The man is up at 5, goes to bed at 9, works out, does the briefings, the meetings, the receptions and private discussions w/allies, works the phones, does speeches, works w/Congress. He has done his own fundraising all the past 2 years. He doesn't need to take the gloves all the way off until after the convention. He has one glove off at the moment, IMO and the Russert interview and 2 appearances in key states today are part of that.

You and I all the rest of us who present the administration's positions from our personal POV on FR and in one-on-one situations IRL are also fighting for him.

I remember just biting my nails on the run up to Afghanistan, the 2002 elections and Iraq. At every juncture, we all were moaning that Bush was waiting too long, it was FUBAR, we were going to lose, etc. None of that was accurate.

Personally, I have always had a tough time w/irresolution. I joined FR as soon as I came back from an overseas trip in 2000, during the challenge to the election. I was so distraught I could not stand it and I gained great comfort and insight from reading FR.

I have come to regard this administration as geniuses for their political savvy. I have said so in various ways over the past 4 years here on this board. I have come to love and respect most of them. I grew up under Truman and Eisenhower
and came to love Reagan as the 80s progressed. He was the 1st Republican I ever voted for and that was the 2nd term. I woke up on the morning of his election to his 1st term convinced we had just experienced the counter revolution and I was right. I was just wrong about what that meant.

It is now important that none of us go wobbly. This is a great President and his team is also great, IMO.

Patience and preseverance must be our watchwords. Just as the POTUS did not 2nd guess his military commanders, we need to not be thinking in terms of micro-managing this election. We need to forcefully and honestly present our reasons for supporting them to whomever we can. We need faith and patience. The President is a good role model for this attitude, IMO.

Well, MY perceptions are the opposite of those. I think this president is a leader, first and foremost.

I am not privy to what goes on when he meets w/the Party leadership. I do know that no one is perfect. I don't agree w/all of this administration's accomplishments, but I cannot ignore the accomplishments detailed over and over here on FR.

I have seen posts on this very thread from those who were outsourced multiple times who will not change their vote because of it. I have been self-employed for 40 years, so I cannot speak to that experience. OTOH, all our income comes from the disposable income of other people and our business have been wonderful this past year and so far this year. They were good in 2000 and in 2001, except for the 1st quarter,and then only for the service business, which was due to unexpectedly high heating costs that took away disposable income. 2002 was the worst year for my manufacturing business in 15 years and it rebounded to a banner year in 2003.

Personally, I think people hear the Dem talking points and fall for the trolls on the Net and then internalize that. I simply do not know anyone unemployed because of any domestic policy.

I pay higher rates than when Bush I took over, and higher even than he raised them to.
________________________________________________

I have no idea of your income sources or your income, but this sounds odd to me. Other than that I cannot comment.

The EPA, TSA, and other federal agencies continut to abuse property rights.

I personally can track my own increase in property rights to the former Republican Governor (McCallum) of Wisconsin. I don't fly at the moment due to the time uncertianties caused by the increased security. I know relatives of airport screeners and from what little they are allowed to discuss, there are very good reasons for their routines.

If we can get a Republican majority in the Senate and keep a Republican President, I think the bills to control the ESA, for example, and to undue the Clintonian fascism of the EPA will be passed and signed. I vote Republican because of this.
______________________

AFAIK, the entire assault weapon ban is still not finalized. It is up to Congress. I think W will sign what Congress passes. All we have to deal w/in my state, AFAIK, is background checks.

And the borders are wide open.

I am unsure of the *wide* part. There seem to me to be a lot of issues that are influenced by the states and the agencies. I do not think it is possible to militarize the borders or deport all the illegals, even if we could find them. I think the privacy issues alone make it moot. It worries me and I think it is a problem. I think the bills in Congress need a Republican majority and a Republican president in order to pass.

Bush is sending our earnings to the UN.
______________________________________________

Some. And w/some caveats. I believe the money to rehab the building is a loan. I have discussed this w/people who are former FSOs and I can understand that we have to be part of the UN if we are to have any leverage. I have no love for them and would love to see them out of existence.

>>America's healthcare system is better than any other in the world.

On the road to financial ruin due to the prescription drug benefit.

We disagree. We are on the road to a privatized system, thanx to this administration.

I have heard these prognostications of gloom since the 60s.
In the long run, none of them have come true. We have a very flexible system and the dynamic nature of our politics and our economy usually serve us well. We are even on the road to undoing a 70-year-long socialist agenda. A long road. Better than not being on it at all, IMO

Forgive my weak formatting skills, please.

Republicans have every right to dream. I'll tell you a story. This Republican has dreamt. I dreamed of another Reagan. I dreamed of republican majorities and smaller government. I dreamed of getting government off my back and out of my wallet a little. 4 years ago I lost all that I owned to a house fire. I worked my butt off to clean up from it, got the job of my dreams after pursuing it for years, got my first real home a year ago and with things finally looking up in my life, I'm notified that my job will be outsourced within 18 months and possibly as soon as May. This is due in large part to Nafta.

Now, My government has largely sold me out on my dream. My own party is doing nothing about it and many of you just flat don't care. My employer obviously doesn't care about anything but how much money they can make by selling me out.
I've been hospitalized twice in the last year and have been unable to save anything as a nest egg because of it. I'll be lucky not to lose everything I have. Now. Look at that and consider that every person who's job is outsourced is dealing with the same thing: Being sold out by Government, Employer and political party - all three. You tell me how I'm supposed to stand up for those who won't stand up for me and I'll pass it along to those who are grumbling around me at work and at play. This is a two way street until, apparently, you guys find someone that doesn't matter. I'm not going anywhere. I believe in Republican principles. But if you think there won't be a price to pay, you're right out of your bleatin mind!

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.