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.

>>>"Tancredo is supporting the POTUS. GWB has signaled by his own proposals and directly stated that he will sign a guest worker provision that is close to Tancredo's and which can get thru Congress."

If so, then he should publicly say so. At present all I hear is how much he loves Vicente, how much Vicente loves him, and how any company that wants to offer jobs to 3rd world people can do so and bring them over here with ease.

I've heard NO MENTION from his lips about supporting Tancredo's much stiffer program. Had he done so, he would not have the furor that he has today. Tancredo supports him because Bush whips the troops in line. But as recent stories have pointed out, Bush is not delivering the conservative goods.

Thus, you might as well have any other liberal Republican, or just slightly worse, a Democrat... with an intransigent Republican Congress.

>>>"I have read tons of angry posts and articles concerning the President's immigration proposals. This is not an amnesty. GWB has specifically stated this is not an amnesty and the Dems are promising an amnesty and open borders."

Its true that the Dems programs are worse on this immigration issue. But Bush truly wants these "temporary" workers to become citizens. Everything that he has said leads to this conclusion that these "temporary" workers will become permanent (read uneducated, liberal Democrat) voters.

Hoppy

I don't have a lot of time this morning, but I want to make a couple of replies to your points.

The President made it clear he will sign a tough guest worker bill. I suggest Tancredo be contacted as to what support he has in the WH. These things are done in Congress and if the bill's writer has WH support, he knows it. That should clear it up. That said, Tancredo must put together a coalition and then get the bill passed before W has a thing to do with it. There are Democrats and liberal Republicans involved as well.

The citizenship part of W's proposal (which is all it is) requires the worker to return to their home country and apply. They are then subject to all the requirements. I don't think this is so awful. We are a nation of immigrants and it is all that is keeping us at replacement rate while Europe becomes a nation of old Europeans and young Muslims.

In the House, it is DeLay and Nickles who whip the caucus into line. Contact them and let them know your thoughts and get theirs. If your personal representative is on your side, ask them what you can do to support the bill you want. If they aren't, work to elect someone who is. Also, you can ask DeLay about the budget cutting. That is DeLay's job and as far as I can tell from reading, he is doing it.

While I do not doubt your sincerity, I hope you will investigate your fears more fully. Too much rides on this election, including American sovereignty.

One more thing. People whose issue is Mexico keep repeating that Bush *asked* Fox for approval before the SOTU speech. I doubt it. What we have to realize is that Fox is the 1st democratically elected President in the history of Mexico. It is important to keep his profile high inside Mexico or it could go back to the fascists. It is just as likely that Bush informed him at their summit of what he would offer, while telling him that it isn't a slam dunk & detailing what is expected of Mexico. If GWB was in the habit of asking permission from any other country, do you think they would hate him as much as they do? I think he plays hardball with them all. Immediately afterwards, I recall reading that Mexican officials attempted a good will tour in America and it was not a success. I am just asking that those who think we are being sold out recall what a tough negotiation entails and try to see things as they are.

I also recall (and I am only aware of this issue, not an expert) that while some of the water debt is supposed to be paid, Fox is facing the possibility of revolution in Mexico
over every issue where he appears to give in to any American demands, even those defined by treaties. If Fox goes down, Mexico will again be ruled by the corrupt fascists. I doubt he's clean, given Mexico's history, but elections that aren't a sham are a baby step for 3rd world nations.

I do not believe GWB would or has ever betrayed this country. I am convinced Kerry will sell us out. Every issue is between one or more other countries, as well as competing interests in our own. Negotiation is the only tool we have. We cannot dictate to other nations and we have to deal with the world as it is.

Not one President but GWB ever has so effectively defended America in my long lifetime. Please consider the future of our country in a multinational world when you vote. Kerry is not just a Democrat. Kerry is a self-admitted internationalist and if you don't like what is going down now, you will be getting a foretaste of hell, as will we all, if Kerry is elected.

Presidents present broad proposals. Only Congress can draft a bill and pass it.

I heard/read:
Some sort of database where jobs are listed. The employer must make the job available to American workers at prevailing wages. Employer must prove no American wanted the job. Worker in home country can also apply, but not be hired until proof no American applied/accepted. Worker gets 3 years. No family at this time. Money that would go into Social Security/Medicare to be deposited to retirement account in worker's home country which can only be accessed there. After timelimit (I don't recall), foreign worker can apply for citizenship. I think W and Tancredo differ on place of residence for worker from which to apply.

I think they key would be setting up the job board and having a way to monitor that the job was wanted by Americans.

And then, there are always the differences between law and implementation, which is the real place where the administration could put in stiffer rules.

But if this was one of my main issues, I would try and have some contact w/the critters involved.

>>>"The employer must make the job available to American workers at prevailing wages. Employer must prove no American wanted the job. Worker in home country can also apply, but not be hired until proof no American applied/accepted."

I'm very familiar with this setup. Its pretty much how it currently is for sponsoring foreign workers.

Did you know that many immigration lawyers specialize in beating this system? They charge around $3,000 to help beat it.

Still, this would be better than un-documented. But brother-in-law employers that are here already will certainly game the system -- much more than those H1 and L1 employers have done so far.

The new part is the database. But even today, the employer is required to run advertisements in the local paper. That's probably just as public.

How do they beat the system? Very careful wording of job requirements. I guess one of the new requirements would be: "Must be bi-lingual" or "I, the employer, can only speak Spanish, so the worker must speak Spanish well."

So, all German or Chinese or English speaking workers would be excluded. Another great benefit of bi-lingualism at work. Welcome to Yugoslavia.

Hoppy

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.