Posted on 06/22/2002 11:04:36 AM PDT by codebreaker
Making the rounds at Democratic fundraisers, former President Clinton has begun to articluate a way for the loyal opposition to attack the popular President Bush in the fall elections.
It boils down to this: Terrorists win if they shake up Washington so much that the administration diverts money needed for critical domestic programs to the war.
And guess what? Clinton said Bush was doing just that.
If it sounds familiar, it is.
Clinton made the same charges in 1992 when he beat former President Bush, claiming that the then President was too much of a foreign policy leader and a zero at home.
He laid out his battle plan this week at a Senate Democratic fundraiser hosted by powerhouse Washington lawyer Weldon Latham.
I assume that the Democrats recognize that this is a very high-risk strategy. Should they get themselves on record as the party of, "Never mind that war against terrorism, let's tend to things at home," and then there is another horrible attack, they will have erased themselves from the national agenda for a generation. I don't understand why they want to play with this. Any parallels to the Gulf War and what worked on Bush Sr. are specious at best. This isn't about Kuwait. This is about ordinary Americans wondering every day whether that bridge they drive across on their way to work is going to blow up with them on it. Peddling social programs is for when people are feeling flush and pretty good about the country, and you can make them feel guilty about "the poor being left behind." Well, not even the poor want to get blown up or gassed. That whole pitch is just ill-timed and suitable only for use on the most liberal Manhattan Democrats. I'd also question whether the Democrats really want to be seen with Bill Clinton leading the charge. All that says is that they don't have anybody on their bench. It also allows the Republicans to run against Clinton, who fires up the R's base like no one else alive. If the Democrats want to save the GOP tens of millions in get-out-the-vote money, waving Clinton in our faces is the best way to do it. |
The Clinton team has brought on a new "secret" party consultant but declined to provide further information on how they planned to defeat the GOP in 2002.
And when he fails in 2002, the press will then conveniently ignore that he ever tried, and blame someone, or something, else.
He's not forgetting. It matters not a speck to him whether his proposed "talking points" contain a bit of truth. Just trying to gain some political traction and the country be damned.
He needs to attack the unconstitutionality of the Democratic program, not try to out bid the Democrats in funding it. People will respond favorably to traditional Constitutional values, if they are properly presented. That is the way to win; that is the way to preserve the Union that we believe in; that is the way of duty and honor.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
It won't work this time around! That was before America saw (on live TV) 3000 fellow citizens being murdered by Muslim terrorists! National secruity is the BIG issue and Bush has USA's approval of his handling of it.
It may have worked with Bush Sr. but being attacked on our own land is a different story completely.
If this and the Gore won Fla. crap is their best shot they are sore communist losers.
I don't care how much a master evil politician bull $hitter he is-they are goners.
Bush has definitely earned his domestic stripes, calling for spending (our money) on farm-aid, education, HIV programs, even a few hundred million for Africa (that counts because it shows his generosity to Blacks.)
Clinton's plan ain't gonna work. Bush has "triangulated" in such a way, that he is more liberal than some of the liberals. Whenever they try to pin an issue on him, he can point to some way he has wasted our tax dollars, yielded to environmentalist wackos, or caved in to one liberal group or another.
Brilliant, if not stupid. (The liberals won't vote for him anyway, but he has left them without issues to blame him for.)
The liberals have been able to control the agenda in this country in recent history because they have been able to portray Republicans as being the party of the rich with no compassion. Last time I checked there were more poor people in this country than rich, which seems to have been lost on you. Bush has a long term view to build the GOP beyond that label and has consistently portrayed himself as a compassionate conservative. He is a pragmatist which doesn't mean that he has deserted his principles of less government and more personal responsibility- only that he realizes that getting Republicans elected to office is important to realize that goal. He understands that the GOP is vulnerable on the compassion issue and has thrown a few bones at the poor (encouraging home ownership, immigration, etc). But he has stood firm on his judicial nominations, refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol, and reducing taxes (i.e. the death tax). He understands we are facing a truly evil Democratic party and is doing his best to reach the goals. A philosophical idealist in his place would have buried the GOP by now with no hope of recovery. Lighten up and let the man do his job!
Asbestos boxers in place......fire away!
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.