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.

[Fledermaus]

That's possible. Those states that Nader threw towards Bush would probably stay Dem. On the other hand, Buchanan took enough votes in other states that it allowed Gore to squeak by Bush.

Buchanan's votes in Iowa (7 electoral votes), New Mexico (5 electoral votes), Oregon (7 electoral votes), and Wisconsin (11 electoral votes) cost Bush those states.

[Conservative til I die]

I'll vote for the President, but man are you one serious droid.

Is there *any* criticism of the President that you'd accept? And why do you guard him so jealously, with talk of 'loyalty'

[Conservative til I die]

Just like he did in Texas and then won with 70% of the vote his second term. Yes he could have won big in 200 had the "base" 2 million strong had not sat at home or voted for PJB. That is not a "base" that is an opposition party.

Buchanan received a grand total of 449,120 votes and 0.43% of the vote. Get off the drugs, if you think Buchanan was the reason the President lost the popular vote.

[Texasforever]

Get off the drugs, if you think Buchanan was the reason the President lost the popular vote.

I said "either sat at home or voted for PJB". Now who is on drugs again?

[Texasforever]

Is there *any* criticism of the President that you'd accept? And why do you guard him so jealously, with talk of 'loyalty'

Hey genius, this is called debate. You do understand the concept don't you? One side takes the affirmative and one side takes the negative. See how that works?

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Barf alert???

[Antoninus]

Before people get all worried and bent out of shape over a ticket with Kerry or Edwards at the top, sit down, get out a piece of paper, and write down the last U.S. senator to be elected president....

[Porterville]

Psst... Liberals are racist... if you don't believe me listen to Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, or even Phil Hendry.... or better yet, look at any of the race bating Democratic "candidates" (except for Liberman)... They are hard core cold blooded racist.

[Conservative til I die]

Hey genius, this is called debate. You do understand the concept don't you? One side takes the affirmative and one side takes the negative. See how that works?

What are you talking about? Are you saying you always defend the President just for the sake of a good debate? So you don't always agree with what you're defending? Clarify for me, please.

[Conservative til I die]

I said "either sat at home or voted for PJB". Now who is on drugs again?

So you're an excuse-maker. "The President would have gotten 100% of the vote, but for Al Gore having the nerve to run, but for people not being energized enough that they sat home, but for the cold weather that kept some people from the polls, but for Pat Buchanan, but for the Natural Law Party, the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, et al., but for America not being conservative enough, etc."

Excuses excuses. Look, I voted for the President and will happily do so again. I like him and support him. But let's face facts, he squeaked by in the 2000 election, and third party votes don't automatically belong to him or the GOP. America just wasn't that enthused over his platform, and many people thought Gore would be good enough. There's no shame in that. He still won, fair and square.

[Conservative til I die]

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".

If the President and the GOP wouldn't betray it's true base and treat it as an afterthought, then they would not have to look for a new base. Our votes don't automatically belong to the GOP. They're supposed to work for us, not us for them.

The GOP's solution is not to move to the left and act like wannabe-Democrats. This is ignoring the fact that it won't work anyway, since if the President proposes X dollars for a program, the Democrats will just propose X+1 for it.

[Conservative til I die]

Buchanan and every other third party candidate has a right to run for office and take as many votes as they want. It's not their fault for having the gall to run and steal the mighty GOP's votes. Those votes never belonged to the GOP in the first place. It's the GOP's obligation to earn those votes. If the GOP offered those voters what they wanted to hear, then they wouldn't have gone to Buchanan, Browne, Hagelin, etc. Not saying the GOP should kowtow to each and every one of those voters or that it's even possible for them to, but the point is, that the GOP never owned those votes in the first place.

[massadvj]

I don't know about a third party. I do know that I cannot vote for GWB this time around. I was absorbed in my hatred of Clinton last time, plus I live Pennsylvania, a battleground state, so I went ahead and held my nose and voted for Bush. But, as the saying goes fool me once shame on you...

Had Al Gore been elected with this congress, he would never have succeeded in implementing an agenda anywhere near as blatantly socialist as what we have seen the past three years. Consider the list: federal agents at every airport, campaign finance reform, education, farm subsidies, aids relief for africa, unemployment benefit extensions, steel tariffs, prescription drugs for seniors, immigration. The list is literally mind-boggling.

Obviously, I can't support any of the Demons. But I cannot support Bush, either. I like the guy and wish him the best as a person, but philosophicaly we are on completely different wavelengths. His policies are detrimental to the well-being of America, and I just don't think it's right to put party before country.

[JustPiper]

Alot of food for thought