And so on. Fill in boilerplate remarks by party operatives about the other party not having any better, or even other, ideas.
I don’t see how that’s going to work - that public debate has already been held, and the public’s verdict is increasingly against Bush as the body bags keep coming in (off-camera). But can that tide reverse? Will the Iraq/terrorism situation change enough to change public opinion back in his favor? If this is the approach Bush’s handlers have chosen for him, only the capture of Osama and Saddam will do it. It’s also noteworthy that the GOP national campaign will not be based on the economy and their claims of competence and responsibility in fiscal matters.
I don’t think the Bushiviks are trying to win converts so much as to shore up thier rock-bottom support, the “Kill a Dixie Chick for Jesus” crowd. Witness the grand opera that went into the “partial-birth” legislation, legislation that they knew wouldn’t pass constitutional muster. Why go to all that trouble to pass legislation of minor impact that cannot be enforced anyway? Why indeed. So, “Democrats hate the unborn!”
Expect a further thrust regarding the Pledge or the Ten Commandments: “Democrats hate America and God, too!”
But they are bleeding in a vital area: the military and military dependents. Any military “brat” or parent or spouse can tell you there is an unwritten code of silent support. You don’t criticize, at the very least not publicly. In return, you get lachrymose speeches lauding your patriotism and honor. As thier discontent grows, those people will begin to talk. Not publicly, not in demonstrations, but one to one: in the beauty parlor, the diner, the workplace. It is not reported as news, there is no news to report when Madge tells Peggy that she has her doubts, that perhaps her son’s honorable service is being misused. But it erodes the very substance of what was previously an utterly dependable, rock-solid demographic.
Now, if they actually break the unwritten law, and go public with thier discontent…well, Katie bar the door, 'cause all hell will break loose. They don’t want to hear speeches about thier nobility and sacrifice, they don’t give a shit about geopolitical strategy. They want thier loved ones home, now.
You won’t hear much about it, there’s nothing to report. But there is a crack in the dike, and the water presssure is rising.
Its politics. Both sides attempt to portray the other as bad for the country, evil, deranged, etc. Whats new? You figure that the left has some kind of high ground here? And you participating in the “Bush is stupid” thread?? lol.
How will the public see things? Damned if I know at this point to be honest. I would think the economy would be much more important to the average American than the war is…at least right now. In a year or so that could change, depending on continued conditions there.
Looking at the Steel Tarrifs thread, I’d say that THAT issue could hurt Bush immensely. It was definite pandering to the steel industry IMO, and it will bite him in the ass no matter what now…if he backs down he looks stupid. If he doesn’t, it will hurt the economies of those states being targetted by counter tarrifs (which just happen to be swing vote states…right or wrong, all you folks always yammering about America interfering in other countries politics should maybe take a good hard look).
To this point, I still don’t see a groundswell of negative opinion about Iraq from the bulk of our citizens. Are they uneasy? Definitely. Are they watchful? Increasingly so. However, you don’t really see them marching in the streets yet, and the vocal element is the element that was ALWAYS vocal against the war. That might change by next year, but I won’t hold my breath. I think the election hinges on the economy, and the Republicans would be better advised to play down Iraq and focus on that until after the election…IMO at least.
XT got it right. Look at how Soros got things started-- By comparing Bush to Hitler. “I’ll see your traitor and raise you one Hitler”.
This polling site is a good bookmark– it’s updated pretty regularly and lets you see trends easily over time. It’s kind of interesting how a (very slim) majority don’t think Bush should be the next president, but that he beats out every Decoractic candidate so far. The real game begins once the Dems narrow the field, though.
Then again it would seem that the Limbaugh/O’Reilly/Coulter crowd would need little convincing on voting for Bush. If we assume that to be true, then this strategy, if true, would be designed to appeal to those outside the Limbaugh/O’Reilly/Coulter crowd, the undecided and the Democrats. And once assumes such a strategy would only be undertaken if a reasonable success rate was expected.
Speaking of juvenille and transparently manipulative, where the hell does ElvisL1ves get , "GOP 2004 election strategy - “Anti-war Democrats are traitors” from?
bayonet1976 they don’t need this rhetoric to vote for Bush, but they need it to fuel their rhetorical machines. And don’t forget that even though this sort of fecal-quality argument doesn’t convince anyone logically, when it gets repeated enough by people who sound sure of themselves, it can sometimes become incorporated into the connotation of the debate. Popular understanding, so to speak. Which is what the O’Rushoulter crowd is all about.
Thanks rjung…second best laugh today. The best of course was in the “Should America adopt my (totatalitarian and insane) government” thread, but you are running a close second. I love you man (or woman whatever the case may be). I simply don’t know what this board would be without you, and thats the honest truth.
From rjung
Have you taken a good look at the Democrats positions lately? lol. But then, I’m forgetting…you AGREE with THEIR juvenile, petty, oversimplistic positions that are transparently manipulative to anyone with a critical eye, no? We call this happy state of affairs ‘politics’ and its what makes America the interesting country we all know and love so much.
Whatever you say, but the point, again, is that the O’Rushoulter crowd does not need swaying. So this campaign, again-if true, would seem to be aimed at someone other that the O’Rushoulter crowd.
Brutus, it’s called “abbreviating”. What the hell else do you think Gillespie’s “The president’s critics are adopting a policy that will make us more vulnerable in a dangerous world” and so forth is really intended to insinuate? You know how often their trained pitbulls use the T-word already. Now, do you have anything to contribute here?
Yes, this seems like shoring up the base, not reaching out to the convinceable middle. That is a strategy used by candidates and parties who see their own base as insecure, and are giving up appealing to independents. But that’s planning to lose, not to win.
elucidator, you don’t have to wait much longer. Even the Army Times, of all publications, has taken to tearing into their Commander in Chief for not supporting the troops.
For just a touch of irony on the idea that the people who send their children, siblings, neighbors and spouses off to national service may not suffer this imperial adventure quietly, the chairman of the Iowa Republican Party is a member of my old reserve unit–in fact he may have my old job. The unit has now gotten mobilization orders and told to anticipate 18 months active duty, first at Fort Lost in the Woods and then God know where. It’s not hard to guess where the Army may need to send a corps level engineer command and control headquarters unit. They are to report before Christmas.
When the hot shot young neo-con party chairman is off building runways at Baghdad International he may find the endless war against terrorism or whatever to be less attractive and beneficial than he imagined. Personally I look for him to find a cushy job in DC. He’s too important a guy to have blown up on some back road along the Tigris.
Unless the Army Times has changed it’s ways in the last 30 years or so, it is not an establishment rag and spends a fair amount of time criticizing the high command. Since their readership is no longer made up of draftees who want nothing more than to go home and forget that they ever were soldiers, maybe the paper has become more friendly with the Green Machine.
As someone who generally votes Republican, I would be happy to admit that the Pubbies are the party of nasty, juvenile, petty, mean spirited campaign tactics, if we could just get past arguing about that and stick to:
What are the key issues, and which party has the best stance on those issues?
I’m not aware of the Democratic Party’s equivalents to “the terrorists hate us for our freedoms,” “you’re either with us or against us,” and “if you disagree with the Administration, you must be anti-American.” Care to fill me in here?
The strategy of saying that the times are too perilous to vote Democrat is one that is obvious and likely to work. As Chris Matthews says the Republicans are the Daddy party and the Democrats are the Mommy party and when you feel threatened you want the Daddy party. The GOP would be nuts not to play to this, especially with the Democrats ready to nominate that peacenik. We conservatives like to say that we have to choose between the evil party and the stupid party, but not even the GOP is stupid enough to let an opportunity like this go by, especially when it worked so well in 2002. As for the wishful thinking of the military turning on Bush, they well know that leave Iraq with our tail between our legs would be defeat and defeat is not a nice word in the military.
