Posted on 02/19/2004 7:50:28 AM PST by Eala
Many of George W. Bush's natural allies can muster only tepid support for the big-spending president
IF GEORGE W. BUSH HAS A POLITICAL PROBLEM IN this election year, it's that the people who hate him exhibit so much more passion than those who love him. That may be more an appearance than a reality, of course, because we have been so saturated for the last couple of months with the Democratic primary process. The vitriol and venom that have sloshed over the boundaries of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and a dozen other states suggest an energizing of the anti-Bush voter base that few had predicted. Most states enjoyed record turnouts for the Democratic primaries—and sometimes by thumping margins.
All of that might still prove to be misleading. It could still turn out to be another media bubble that will ultimately burst in Mr. Bush's favor.
But I have to say that right now the tone I'm hearing personally is uncharacteristically consistent with what the big media are saying. In this space last week, I summarized a few responses I received when I asked 50 WORLD readers about the depth of their own political commitments. Since writing that, I've now heard from perhaps two dozen more of those folks—and they are notable for all the reservations they hold.
Almost to a person, these folks said they still intend to vote next November for George Bush. But almost to a person, they also suggest that they are half-hearted in that commitment. And half-heartedness doesn't typically win a close election.
Ray Thompson, a businessman from Montana, typified these folks: "Between Democrats, the media, and George W. Bush, the average American has no representative. Big government socialists have them all. True, he's stolen the platform from the Democrats—and they hate him for it. It's the one area in which his integrity is suspect. His sidekick in the campaign, Mark Racicot, did the same thing in Montana. The compassionate neighbor is competing with the big government compassionate conservative."
From an opposite corner of the country, in Charleston, S.C., Will Haynie echoed the same thought: "I don't want a 'moderate' Republican in the White House or for Congress to fund the same programs a liberal Democrat would—but for less money. To me, it's not the amount; it's the principle.... I don't have a high degree of confidence in the Bush administration's commitment to limited federal government."
Former college president Frank Brock said tersely: "He must cut back federal government if he's going to cut taxes. The deficit is not tolerable." WORLD's managing editor Tim Lamer added: "If he would veto a single spending bill, that would make my support for him somewhat more enthusiastic."
One reader stressed that the interest on our national debt this coming year will be a bigger expenditure than will be our national defense—a development that almost certainly will weaken our national defense.
What really surprised me, though, was how few of my correspondents chose to defend Mr. Bush. Attorney Brian Dutton from Pittsburgh pointed out that the president inherited a recession from Bill Clinton, suffered the 9/11 attacks, and then felt forced to fight wars in two countries—"all valid reasons for a deficit." But such arguments were rare indeed—strengthening my own argument that way too many of those who will be voting for Mr. Bush will be doing so with a good bit of reservation.
Most ominous of the responses was from Ross McGee in Nevada, who said he goes to coffee every morning with a large group of retired men. "The sense there is that we need a new person in the White House—if only to get some gridlock up there," he said. "They all went for Bush last time."
Anecdotal evidence is a bad methodology for political forecasting. But neither this, nor last week's very similar collection of vignettes in this same space, is meant to be statistically valid. Both are included here simply to make the point that if a man's natural friends are fainthearted, what can you expect from his foes? Most of these folks (minus the morning coffee bunch) would likely vote for almost any Republican. They like George Bush, and they note especially their concern for electing a president who will make the right judicial selections over the next four years.
So far, though, they're a lot less excited than their political opponents.
That's like someone worrying about a hangnail while their car is being carjacked.
Funny, the numbers I've seen show exactly the opposite, that the turnouts for the Democrat primaries were much below the norms. I wonder if he's lying about other things too? Naah, he wouldn't do that I'm sure...
I don't think this sentence is at all correct. And much of the article strikes me as a lot of wishful thimking.
Whilst it is true that there is a lot of anti-Dubya rancor out there, a prime of example of how this enmity fails to translate into actual votes is the Dean non-campaign.
Dean certainly motivated and mobilized a lot of young pipple, but for them the real joy was the PROCEDURE. Actually voting was a letdown. It was like a giant game to them, a real adrenalin booster. But despite all the buzz about the revolutionary way Deaniacs were organizing, the fact is that there were far too few of them to really make the guy happen.
The Dean movement reminded me a little too much of the Sci-Fi-Convention scene, where participants go - not for the sci-fi, but for the sex. I think when the truth is finally written BY some Deaniacs, we'll find that this youth-for-Dean movement was more about sex than anything else. How better to find and hook up with new partners?
Michael
Really? Since you only have one vote, can you really afford to say that? It always amazes me to see Republicans quickly dismissing other Republicans, only to advocate far-fetched positions to win over more Democrats. We will never be liberal enough for some people. They will pretend long enough to take advantage of us, but when it comes time to vote, they will still vote RAT. You might want to hang onto your friends, even if you have to hold your nose. We have no votes to spare.
Bush and Rove are not trying to win over democrats; they are trying to win over independents. Independent voters are the key to winning presidential elections. Look up Common Tator's posts to see his explanations of presidential electioneering. CT has long experience in political polling and analysis. He has taught me a lot.
These misguided "true conservatives" who think it is better to have gridlock or let the country "go down the tubes by letting the Dems win", then (easily) take it back and "fix" things, are rooted in disillusionment.
After the Dems actually have to present some actual plan of where they intend to lead this country if they win, it will strike such deep fear in the hearts of all conservatives, they will gladly crawl across broken glass to vote "R".
Absolutely.
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.