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.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I laugh every time I watch it!

Fits right in on this thread.

[gatorbait]

Goldstate, I do remember that, but don't you recall the Perot lovers attacking him ,too? He was speaking of that on his program a week or so ago.

[Johnny_Cipher]

I am convinced that Dean will not go quietly. He is sitting on a ton of money and a core of supporters that would make a run as an independent almost irresistible.

I agree, but have to note that Clinton didn't take Iowa either. Bush's dream scenario is that Dean continues to melt down and go third party in a snit, while Nader does the same thing.

[Texasforever]

BINGO! This is not about policy this is about the name "Bush". It started when Reagan chose Bush 1 for his VP. That is when the far right turned on Reagan like a pitbull on a baby. It has been going on ever since,

[BigSkyFreeper]

I made the observation on another board earlier today that Bush basically has all the Republican and left of center as his playing field, which is how he's been governing as of late (left of center). The longer he has the Republican nod to himself and the Democrats are stuck way over on the far left, it will only ensure a landslide in November.

[onyx]

WHAT? Bush is not a bit like Nixon. Not his policies, not his personality, not his take on the role of government.

Yall think Bush let you down. You haven't paid attention to him all along. He's a man of his word and he's not capitulated nor stuck his finger in the political wind. He's made good on his campaign 2000 promises.

[gatorbait]

Neither man is conservative...they are simply angry, petty old men.

Worse, megalomaniacs, populists wannbees with seriously deep socialist leanings.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I lost it when the Kerry Rover come on.... Stuck on a little rock, middle wheel spinning. LOL

[onyx]

Well, I'll be checking you out tomorrow morning! :)

[leadpenny]

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.

All due respect to the author, I don't believe that is what snatched defeat from the jaws of victory for GHWB. It was when he looked at his watch during one of the debates with Perot and Clinton. In his case I think it was deliberate. I don't believe he wanted another term but he did not want to pull and LBJ, "I will not accept my party's nomination . . ." thing.

There could be something in the Bush family genes; "Been there done that," short attention span, or something else. George HW Bush watched as Ronald Reagan got into trouble in his second term and may have just said to himself, "I'm going fishing and skydiving, but I'm not quitting." LBJ will be remembered for many things but the way he quit will be near the top of the list.

The defining moment for GHWB came on a stage in Richmond in 1992. There is a long, hot summer to get through and Crawford may look very inviting by Fall.

[MEG33]

I really don't.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Heck yeah! Bush is a man of his word!

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From the DrudgeReport:

BUSH STAKES CLAIM ON WHITE HOUSE!

[BigSkyFreeper]

That a promise or a threat? LOL :)

[onyx]

Exactly right, but I'll give Perot this much. In 2000 he endorsed GWB.

[Texasforever]

If Dean does not get the nod then there will be a far-left 3rd party. With the exception of the pitiful "Constitution Party" I see nothing happening on the right and the time is growing very short for anyone else to jump in. Dean has driven the other democratic contenders so far to the left that Rove is going to be hard pressed to spend that 200 million because the democrats have written enough Republican ads for 3 elections.

[gatorbait]

I really don't.

12 years is a long time back,true; but I remember some of those hits as exceptionally vicious.

[onyx]

That is a neat post, Ernie. And Drudge has it? Wow.

[Johnny_Cipher]

Dean has driven the other democratic contenders so far to the left that Rove is going to be hard pressed to spend that 200 million because the democrats have written enough Republican ads for 3 elections.

Dean should stay well away from Fort Marcy Park.

[onyx]

Threat or promise? Your choice. :)