You are posting lunacy.
A) You pinged me to your first post on this thread (with no mention of why) in which you made it clear that you are the Supreme Judge of what makes a good and what makes a bad Campaign Paragraph for the Bush Administration in response to Peggy Noonan's call to action. It particularly irked me that you singled out a list of FReepers to commend who were all using the same old rhetoric, in some cases the very same words, to say that a vote for anyone but Bush is a vote for death and destruction. This does not in any sense pass the "how to make it new" test which the author of the article qualified her request with.
President Bush's insistence, or his administration's insistence, or vapid FReeper My-Bush-Right-Or-Wrong posters' insistence that the War on Terror is the only thing that matters in this election or in life in America in 2004, that this War on Terror is a gun to our head forcing us to vote for President Bush or vote for the terrorists, is the worst sort of campaign message imaginable. That message screams, "Vote for Bush or DIE!" and doesn't sit well with thinking (as opposed to feeling) Americans, whether conservative, liberal, libertarian, or disaffected. I will not vote for any man to save my life. I will, however, cast my vote to save the life of my country. The terrorists can not destroy America, only wound her; it is only the citizens of America that can completely destroy her, especially those citizens voted into positions of power in our government.
If the President in power on 9-11 had been a Democrat, and he had done everything exactly as President Bush has done since then as regards the War on Terror, and funded the NEA, gave the U. N. 1.2 billion tax dollars for redecorating, passed a bloated Education and socialist Medicaid bill, signed Campaign Finance Reform into law with no thought to the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment, threatened to renew the assault on my weapons in disregard of the Second Amendment, and managed to get millions of illegal aliens forgiven and on welfare in his first four years, I would not vote for him...nor would any FReeper.
President Bush needs a new, back-to-our-basis message.
You are posting lunacy.
B) The 'mommies' are the key swing block, you said. You're working with an old playbook in a new century. If there is any comparison in this election to one last century, it is in a President (Bush) turning on his base.
You mention in another post, Conservatives failed to keep Hoover in power. I ask, where in left field did the name Hoover pop up from? And how is it you say that conservatives failed Hoover, not the more apt obverse, Hoover failed conservatives?
Are you intentionally calling up images of depression and tete-a-tete with der Fuhrer? It was Hoover's first election which was won in a landslide, not his second, so there's no comparison to Bush 43 there that I can see you drawing out. Hoover was a Quaker, said to be motivated by humanitarian concerns, arguably similar to Bush, yet Hoover was opposed to government handouts believing that they weakened traditional American individualism, and Bush wants to give a handout to every American and most of Africa. Hoover turned vicious on America's veterans while Bush has led, encouraged, and supported them.
Hoover was beat handily by a candidate promising a New Deal. The liberal democrats have been calling for "regime change" in Washington since Florida, and conservatives who voted Republican in 2000 are now pleading for a new deal of their own after seeing 3 years of Compassionate Conservatism. If President Bush could come up with a new deal - as Peggy Noonan recommends, and as opposed to this old deal of his advisors - this ghost from the past named Hoover would not haunt him...or you.
Good points you make. However, a hypothetical 'rat POTUS running for re-election would presumably be facing a Republican who's at least as good as he is on the anti-terrorism stuff.