Posted on 01/20/2004 10:41:23 PM PST by 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.
Bush is doing a fine job of that with Rove, he doesn't need our support
That's true. It does not spend money on the campaigns of pro-abortion candidates.
Landslide? Not even close. Nader only kept a few states away from Gore and he would have only gotten another 35-45 electoral votes...hardly a landslide.
We as Americans want to do this too shrinker. I mean we are the world police. We feed the world. I have empathy for the plight of wanting to escape such an oppressive country such as Mexico, but when do we say enough is enough? When do we say do it without breaking the law? When do we stop rewarding lawbreakers including, corporate bigwigs, criminals etc? We need to feed our families also and we are struggling. We are struggling because our economic status is all over like caca and why is that? What is the ratio of export vs import? We're going downhill baby and we're going deep.
Hell it doesn't spend its money on anything other than fund raising. Look, these 3rd party "organizations" have created a cottage industry of looking for pissed off voters and convincing them to send in the dough to send a message. They have no intention of being a serious alternative, why would they? They make a pretty good living without ever facing the prospect of actually having to put their money where their mouths are by actually wining anything
If these issues don't motivate American voters to replace Bush, we may not be able recover from them for at least another 4 years.
I stand corrected. Still Bush needed Nader to win in 2000. In 2004 he still might need Nader, especially if Democrats do not help him by putting Dean or Clark on the ticket. Kerry/Edwards minus Nader will be a disaster.
Bush leads in every poll against every Democrat. You folks, on the other hand, give every appearance of being perpetual losers.
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.