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.
At least spell your insults correctly. Better yet, get some new material. Y'all are reduced to spouting bumper stickers.
More like the cogitation of the minute...
Yeah, I have read several factual errors in his "reporting" in his print magazine. I remember coming across one article where there were 2 major factual errors shortly after I bought his book, Taking America Back, and I realized I had no interest in reading a book written by someone who puts his name on such shoddy "journalism" so I Took The Book Back instead...
But , they've got principles and true conservatism on their side. Much more important than stopping Jihadi/Jacobian murderers.
That would be La Raza and Aztlan, paisano
When you get off that "my Conservatism is better than yours" kick, I'll debate with you.
Tonight I also ask you to reform our immigration laws, so they reflect our values and benefit our economy. I propose a new temporary worker program to match willing foreign workers with willing employers, when no Americans can be found to fill the job. This reform will be good for our economy -- because employers will find needed workers in an honest and orderly system. A temporary worker program will help protect our homeland -- allowing border patrol and law enforcement to focus on true threats to our national security.
I oppose amnesty, because it would encourage further illegal immigration, and unfairly reward those who break our laws. My temporary worker program will preserve the citizenship path for those who respect the law, while bringing millions of hardworking men and women out from the shadows of American life.
Well, y'all, that's that, isn't it? I'm convinced .
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.