Bush loses in Iowa

WND ^ | 1-21-04 | Joseph Farah

[JustPiper]

The big loser in the Democratic presidential caucuses in Iowa wasn't Howard Dean. It wasn't Dick Gephardt. It wasn't even Al Sharpton who managed to attract about .5 percent of the vote.

The big loser was George W. Bush.

Only one thing can explain the bizarre positions taken by the White House before this week – an overconfidence that President Bush would be facing Howard Dean in his re-election bid this November. Karl Rove's polling must have made the president's political advisers so cocky about the race that they felt invulnerable.

What else could explain the president doing the following:

proposing a politically unpopular amnesty program for illegal aliens;

raising spending on domestic programs by bigger percentages than any of his predecessors, including Democrats;

proposing a vague manned mission to Mars without providing even the least compelling reasons, goals and objectives?

Bush has made many other mistakes in his term, but these whoppers are very recent gaffes made leading up to an election year.

Iowa should provide a wakeup call.

Instead of facing an angry Democrat out of touch with mainstream American values and temperament, Bush may well be facing a seasoned, smooth, mature political pro in John Kerry.

I wonder if he is up to that challenge.

How about a Kerry-Edwards ticket?

I believe if the election took place today, that ticket would have an excellent chance of beating Bush.

I say this as a dispassionate observer, a political analyst. I will not vote for either Bush or Kerry, or any other Democrat seeking the nomination.

But I think it's worth noting we are witnessing the self-destruction of a president – much like his own father self-destructed politically when he broke his "read my lips" pledge.

The latest polls show Bush in a tight race for re-election even before it's clear who his opponent might be.

As a result, Bush finds himself in a statistical dead heat with the opposition nine months before the election. When matched against an unknown Democratic presidential candidate, Bush squeaks out a 48 percent to 46 percent victory. On the question of who is most trusted to handle the nation's major problems, Bush is virtually even with Democrats, ahead 45 percent to 44 percent – down from an 18-point advantage Bush enjoyed nine months ago.

Americans think the Democrats would do a better job on domestic issues – the economy, prescription drugs for the elderly, health insurance, Medicare, the budget deficit, immigration, even taxes.

And why shouldn't they?

Here's the way this presidential race is shaping up: Bush will propose spending $18 billion fighting AIDS in other countries. The Democrat will up the ante to $25 billion.

Bush will propose spending 10 percent more on domestic giveaway programs. The Democrat will up the ante to 20 percent.

If it is conceded that more spending is good, a Republican will lose every single time.

And that's just what Bush has conceded with his phony, so-called "compassionate conservatism," that is really no more than old-fashioned tax-and-spend liberalism.

Bush gained no advantage with the public for his prescription-drug plan. He gained no ground with his bid to legalize millions of illegal aliens. He gained nothing from his attempt at inspiring Americans to join a new space program with a goal of a manned Mars landing. And his domestic spending increases, under attack by his own Republican base, have not served to win new independent or Democrat voters.

In fact, a CBS News poll showed similar drops for Bush support – notably over his plans on immigration.

If Bush were deliberately throwing this election, he couldn't do a more masterful job of losing votes, breaking bonds with his constituency and losing touch with his base.

If ever there was a time for a third party to emerge with some alternative ideas, 2004 is it.

[dts32041]

Damn a virtual perpetual motion machine

[onyx]

Put it on your page.

[BigSkyFreeper]

You must be about 30-something. First time I voted in the General Election was in 1988.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Yes indeedy, which is why I didn't make the mistake of lumping my faith into his basket in 1996.

[onyx]

LOL. Yeah that's the number: a virtual perpetual motion machine.

[k2blader]

Yep. When Perot entered the fray, it forced the GOP to go far right, and we got 8 years of Clinton.

Oh, is that the spin on why we got Clinton. *LOL*

[Texasforever]

Perot is just like any 3rd party candidate. He looks for the anger and then exploits it. They have no intention of wining they just want to play power politics and in most cases, Perot excluded, make a comfortable living doing it.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Command and ye shall be done. LOL

[BigSkyFreeper]

I call those kinds, "spoilers"

[Mo1]

I say this as a dispassionate observer, a political analyst. I will not vote for either Bush or Kerry, or any other Democrat seeking the nomination.

Ahhhhhhhhh another stay home protest vote .. how original

[gatorbait]

Good for you.Perot was in it to damage Bush41, did a fine job of it too.I've had no use for him since.

[BigSkyFreeper]

If you want to refer to it as spin, so be it.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..it would be irresponsible for the GOP to continue to try to lure them back into the fold when doing that would lose more center right and independent votes than it would gain...

Good theory, but I doubt whether enough centre right and independent votes will be picked up (via the amnesty initiative) to replace the red meaters lost. Cheers, PTDW Byron

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Well, thanks, I kind of borrowed it!!!!

Check out this funny TOON:

ROVERS

Let me know if it doesn't work!

[The_Eaglet]

Campaign Finance Regulation-Campaign Finance Reform thread-day 40

[gatorbait]

They have no intention of wining

Winning by losing,kamikaze politics.

[Texasforever]

It is a way for "little men" to appear to be "big men". The only thing a 3rd party from he "right" has ever done is to elect a democrat. That is what I call an opposition, not a "base".

[k2blader]

I think the former Prez Bush could've won had he not committed that unfortunate "Read my lips" gaffe.

[EGPWS]

The only answer..if you can call it that..was more retraining money. For what? Why should Americans sacrifice and train for years for jobs they can't compete for? How can they spend hundreds of thousands on an education and then have to compete with low wage third worlders for every position? It's insane!

What's the sense in even trying to go on. We're doomed, and if we're not doomed, we're insane.

Sounds like "The The Ballad of Dwight Frye"

[BigSkyFreeper]

I'm just waiting for some loon to go off the deep end and say we're going to the moon or Mars to drill for oil so Halliburton can get what they were promised from "Bush, Inc.". I may have to don camouflage and lurk around DU to find that sorta tripe.