Posted on 08/18/2003 1:01:20 PM PDT by quidnunc
As strong as President Bush seems today, he's not invincible. But there's only one way any Democratic candidate can defeat him in 2004. That's by asserting a clear sense of national purpose — by getting the big things right and by convincing Americans that he can provide our country better leadership than Bush can.
But there are any number of strategies that won't work for Democrats.
Democrats won't win a fund-raising contest with Bush. The president is likely to break all fund-raising records — and no Democrat will be able to come even close. The Democratic candidate needs to raise enough money to get his message across, but to try to match the president is to pursue a fool's errand.
Democrats won't win by polarizing the debate. Bush is a staunch conservative, not the moderate he claimed to be in the 2000 campaign. But Democrats who believe the way to counter his conservatism is by moving left to sharpen the contrast — to offer, in the words of failed presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, "a choice, not an echo" — are wrong.
A recent Gallup poll revealed that on social issues, 37 percent of Americans identify themselves as conservatives, 23 percent as liberals. On economic issues, it's 43 percent conservatives, 15 percent liberals. Running to the short side of the field is not a winning strategy.
Democrats won't win by pandering to narrow interest or constituency groups. Resisting the demands of such groups is hard. That's why Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe was right to try to put the kibosh on candidate forums sponsored by organized pressure groups before they cause more damage than they already have.
Democrats won't win if they tolerate nonreal candidates throughout the nominating process. Although Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun have no chance of winning the nomination, every time they appear on stage with the legitimate candidates, they diminish the stature of the whole field. So far, the damage is negligible because most voters aren't paying attention. But, as the campaign heats up, the Democrats' chances of defeating Bush will be damaged significantly if these candidates stay in the race.
Finally, Democrats won't win without strengthening their appeal to what President Clinton called the "forgotten middle class." In the 2000 and 2002 elections, Democrats won only the votes of high-school dropouts and the educational elite (voters with postgraduate degrees). They lost the huge mass of voters of educational levels in between. Over the long haul, that's an unsustainable alliance, because high-school drop-outs and postgraduates have very different demographics and very different views on cultural issues.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
To win, the GOP must earn the trust of the independent middle and to do this they have to convince the voters that Republicans are not the gimlet-eyed zealots which Democrats portray them as.
In other words, all we need are independent candidates with independent principles and independent platforms who simply wear the disguises of their respective parties...all for the sake of appealing to that band of voters who determines every election: The independents. Yeah, right.
So, in other words, the GOP shouldn't have to run very far to the left to win elections. So why are so many of them in favor of such nonsense as the child-tax credit for nontaxpayers and a Medicare prescription drug benefit?
"Wingnuts" and "zealots" are only dirty words in the media vocabulary...or in the minds of "respectable" folks who don't want their reputation soiled should they hang around with passionate folks who have decided that talking about something isn't enough.
Anti-zealots are the type of folks who think Jesus leaving his godhood behind in heaven for 33 years was a bit extremist. Anti-zealots are the type of folks who think dying on the cross for your cause was a bit over the top. Anti-zealots are also the type who think you can't begin to start any kind of grassroots movement if you stand on absolutes and principles, challenge the authorities of the day, or associate with fellow radicals (we all know Jesus picked folks like Simon the Zealot; zealots were known for picking off Roman soldiers).
According to their Book of Political Prescriptions, the anti-zealots would have you believe you could never start a grassroots populous movement had ya done what Jesus did. What % of the world now claims to be Christian, again?
Reagan didn't run as a movement conservative.
His campaign theme was "It's morning in America" and he named the moderate GHW Buish as his running mate.
At that, Reagan only won because John Anderson siphoned more votes away from Carter than from Reagan.
To win, what things should the Republicans go left on and how far?
I WISH people would stop lumping ALL hardworking parents who are just starting out but PAY taxes into some kind of Welfare-type, givaway group.
Well, maybe the Dems won't win by polarizing the debate, but that's only because the Dems won't win by trying anything at all.
But now & then, there are folks who can come along & polarize others and "win." William Wilberforce was one example. As an evangelical Christian, he and his Clapham Sect polarized England by becoming a "one-issue" candidate who tirelessly focused on voiding slavery from the scene...and was finally successful, despite making many economic enemies.
Like:
national recognition of gay marriage
Raise income taxes
Expand medicare to include illegal aliens
Expand Social Security benefits to lower animals and illegal aliens
Total amnesty for illegals
total ban on civilian ownership of firearms
Recognize UN authority over Constitutional provisions
Cut defense budget in order to create more social welfare programs
Lower the age for sexual consent to 10
Redefine sex so that NAMBLA members will no longer have to hide
Remove the ceiling on social security "donations" so that SS taxes can be raised ad infinitum
Elevate a flaming commie nut-cake to the House minority leadership, like that looney-tune Nancy Pelosi.
Uh, since he got the child tax credit, it means he paid taxes, so what is your beef with what I said? But giving a child tax credit to someone who doesn't pay taxes is welfare.
“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”—Thomas Jefferson
Jesus did not "leave his godhood behind in heaven" for 33 years. He was and is God and Man, all the time.
The same Bush that let Teddy Kennedy write the education bill and the same Bush that has not vetoed one big-spending social program that the likes of Tom Daschle and Co. have signed off on.
Yeah, Bush is a staunch conservative ... puhhleeze.
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.