I'm proud to be a Bush-Bot --- we're his base.
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.
Somewhat more sane, too.
If you insist on wasting your time up to you, I normally don't read taglines.
Who cares if the Dems get back into the WH and control of Congress? There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties (or Bush and Dean).
Given that you don't want to support a presidential candidate who would roll back the unconstitutional spending of the Bush and Clinton administrations, it doesn't sound like there is much difference among the Hon Party, the Democrat Party, and the Republican Party other than the distribution of beer (although I'm sure the Democrats would try to get away with it if they could). ;)
As to your point, the GOP has been forced to expand the “base” beyond the traditional red meat conservatives precisely because of that contingent’s historic penchant for staying at home or voting 3rd party in every presidential election since 1992. It would be irresponsible for the GOP to continue to try to lure them back into the fold when doing that would lose more center right and independent votes than it would gain. Just like all extremists the extreme right always overplays its hand. The Democrats are now where the GOP was in 1992, they have let their far left “base” become the driving force behind their policies and it is diving a lot of democrats into the “independent” column.
Hahahahahahahahaha!!! Stop, this is killing me, I can't breathe! Hahahahahahaha!!
A high risk strategy, EW.
People seem to vote Dem even when it's not in their best interests. Remember Hillary's Jewish support, in New York?
Ironically,Perot himself did not run a conservative campaign.Do you recall his statement giving a defacto endorsement to the Democrats when he dropped out the first time?
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.