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.

[JustPiper]

Yes. Those of us concerned about the sanctity of our borders are just loony tunes

Bump!

[JustPiper]

I see, conservative strategy now? Attack the messenger -g- Ignore the issue hmmmmm...been done by the dims

[JustPiper]

Not if Edwards keeps pushing that youthful Clintonian style and is the nominee

[Texasforever]

He did not win big in 2000 and he had many of us behind him then

And 2 million of "us" sat at home or voted for PJB just like it did in 1992, 1996 and now making threats to do it again in 2004. That has forced the GOP to look elsewhere for its "base". Bush also barely won his first term in Texas and then won his second term with a 70% landslide, he and Rove know how to win.

[JustPiper]

Ah, but see that's where you are wrong we did

[JustPiper]

Dream on...want to hear some irony?

My little sister was a Dem for over 20 years and finally saw the light listening to them speak and watching how they behave. Yep, she finally took the blinders off. I applaud her.

As she came to this revelation, I came to one of my own.
I disagree with the President and I am not declaring myself a democrap, but it doesn't stop me from catching the crap here -g-.

I think I have a unique perspective now. I've insulted the Dems. Defended Freepers. Now I know how my daughter feels being bi-racial. She didn't feel accepted by either race.
I taught her that was ignorance {{prejudice}}.

Well, I have or maybe had alot of friends here that have turned on me because I am passionate about this issue and I do not like feeling ANY candidate has sold me out, particularly if it was someone who I adored like Bush.

So in a sense I am in a small club here now. Many of my true friends accept I can differ, even respect it. But if you think the ones who hurl any insult or disapproval of our President are ignorant. The ones calling them on it and carrying on about it are NO better. Get that NO better!

We ignore the posts about 'bashing' which always far outnumber the non-support of Bush, but no one has any right to 'judge' the other NO ONE! Try to remember that people, with all this childish silliness and pettiness. We are not Democraps! 98% of us here are better than that and always have been.

Do you folks remember the vision of FreeRepublic? I thought it was this...an outspoken public forum where we could agree to disagree. -Ptooie-

[JustPiper]

Attacks but no substantive discussion on the issue at hand.

Its either tons of posts about stanky hilliary

Insulting whoever

It is 'so' many things but never the problem at hand, how can we put credence in a good debate when there is no debate?

[JustPiper]

"I oppose amnesty, placing undocumented workers on the automatic path to citizenship. Granting amnesty encourages violation of our laws and perpetuates illegal immigration."
-President George W. Bush

"This plan is not amnesty," the president said of his plan to match workers with jobs. "I oppose amnesty because it encourages violation of our laws."-President Bush 1/12/04

In his book (1999), GWB wrote, "the most compassionate way to deal with illegals is to stop them at the border."

[Tribune7]

That's what makes no sense --- the employers of illegals only employee them because they work for very cheap and their health care costs will be paid by taxpayers. If the employers have to pay them enough to live on in this country --- without government handouts, which means provide them some kind of insurance plan also --- then they aren't going to be cheaper than Americans --- and those jobs suddenly will become jobs Americans would do.

That's what I'm thinking. All of a sudden these employers have to pay minimum wage and withhold SS -- maybe Dubya knows what he's doing.

Every anti-conservative thing he's done seems to be benefiting us conservatives.

CFR -- which I hate on principle alone -- is screwing up the Dems. The NEA despises "No Child Left Behind." And MSAs are a conservative's dream.

[Kevin Curry]

Maybe Bush thinks it's the right thing to do. Did you ever consider that possibility?

Yeah. He and Rove have outfoxed us all.

Well, then. He'll win in a walk without the votes of many conservatives who supported him in 2000, won't he?

So why do you keep yammering and flapping your gums against those of us who will not support him this time around? You'e getting bent out of shape over nothing.

You can start the victory celebration immediately. Illegal alien amnesty, CFR, and the senior Medicare gravy train are all safe, Bush has essentially been re-elected, and all is well in your world.

And I am pleased because I didn't vote for any of it.

It's a win-win!

[Kevin Curry]

That's what I'm thinking. All of a sudden these employers have to pay minimum wage and withhold SS -- maybe Dubya knows what he's doing.

Or maybe most of them will just blow it off and continue to hire illegals for less money.

If your answer is, "But we'll enforce the law!" I will laugh in your face. If it were a matter of enforcing the law, we'd do it now.

[Tribune7]

Or maybe most of them will just blow it off and continue to hire illegals for less money.

That's the status quo. Are you happy with it?

[rdb3]

...because the numbers of Independents have outgrown both parties, and they're fed up.

I'm an Independent, and belive me, you don't speak for Independents at all.

[KevinDavis]

I would like to point out something to. Reagan made some mistakes. George Washington probaly made some mistakes too, but guess what they are still considered one of the greatest Presidents that have ever lived. We all need to calm down and look at the big picture. We can close the borders, but guess what, the terrorist will find a way to commit an act of terror on our shores. They could just hijack the plane from France and ram into a building again.

[onyx]

In his book (1999), GWB wrote, "the most compassionate way to deal with illegals is to stop them at the border."

He hasn't wavered. The Border Patrol is still trying to stop the illegals from entering our country.

Left to me, I'd station the military on both our Canadian and Mexican borders.

[JustPiper]

On this I agree

[JustPiper]

And all doing a grand show of fillibustering

[JustPiper]

While in Arizona, Bush also made a strong pitch for the immigration policy overhaul he proposed earlier this month. Crafted in part with the politics of border states like Arizona in mind, it would allow illegal immigrants with jobs to temporarily work legally in the United States.

"They're coming to make a living and they're filling jobs that, frankly, others won't do," Bush said. "It seems like to me we ought to have a policy that's open and honest about this phenomenon. It's a policy that, in my judgment, should say where there's a willing worker and a willing employer, those two ought to be matched up together in a legal way."

On Thursday, the president was off to New Mexico, which went to Democrat Al Gore (news - web sites) in 2000 by 366 votes, for a stop focused on the war on terrorism.
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

[JustPiper]

Yeah your not a saboteur nor on a fillibuster -exhaling-

[The_Eaglet]

Yep. And tho' I wasn't yet able to vote in that election, I didn't see much that was "far right" about the GOP platform, as indicated by #95

GHW Bush's performance was far to the left of the GOP platform, though I didn't realize it at the time.