Post #71,755
12/31/02 1:26:00 PM
|
Can Dubya's Campaign Strategy Work?
It might, but I suspect not for the reasons intended.
As has been widely reported, Dubya's Numbers 1 and 2 campaign focuses are "The War on Terror" and "Homeland Security". Several polls say that most Muricans believe Republicans are better suited to the "War on Terror(tm)" than are Democrats. I find this all very amusing and I am wondering if the irony is going to be lost on the Democrats trying to win the next Presidential election by a wide enough margin that the Rehnquist Five won't be allowed to select Dubya's successor.
Consider that in 1999 (during the much more dangerous Clinton years) an attempt was made by Middle Eastern terrorists to hijack 747's out of LAX (Los Angeles International) and, presumeably, fly those aircraft into buildings. That attempt was thwarted and not leaked out all over the press so as, presumeably, not to disclose sources of information on terrorist plans. Then along comes the Oil Gang from Texas (yeah, I know Cheney changed his residency at the last minute to avoid a Consitutional Crisis). At any rate, after these clowns took over and admonished the FBI Anti-Terrorism force to "back off the Saudis" (see O'Neil's resignation letter), once again Middle Eastern terrorists planned to hijack aircraft and fly them into buildings. This time, with Republicans in charge, it worked. And the Bill of Rights has been suffering ever since.
After considering the above facts, only the most feeble of minds could conclude that Republicans are better suited to protecting us than Democrats. And there is the well from which Dubya draws his > 60% approval. "He's just as dumb as we are" you can almost here people who support him say. During the last (S)election, it was often said by people who voted for him that "he's the kind of guy you could go have a beer with and enjoy it." This in stark contrast to Al Gore whose vocabulary includes far too many multi-syllabled words for most Muricans.
It will be interesting to see if the Murican people (or at least a majority of them) are as dumb as I suspect they are. The proof will be if Dubya actually gets elected the next time around.
bcnu,
Mikem
|
Post #71,760
12/31/02 1:48:11 PM
|
Confidence Men....
It's a matter of appearance...
The Bushies also excel at the atmospherics and trappings of competence. Meetings start punctually. Everyone stays on message. Staffers don't leak. Everyone wears suits. The early Clinton administration's relative openness and extreme leakiness made the White House like a body with translucent skin. Not just every goof and foul-up, but every normal but unappetizing political process was on perfect and oftentimes excruciating display. Even successful legislative battles like the 1993 budget reconciliation bill--the measure that set the stage for declining deficits and the groundwork for sustained growth- -were drawn out with an almost masochistic relish and always left within a hairsbreadth of failure. Many of the president's key advisers mixed cockiness with subtle hints that they weren't sure they belonged there. Particularly in a wartime setting, the Bushies' buttoned- down, all-business approach contrasted favorably with the on-the-edge atmosphere of the Clinton years.
[link|http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0209.marshall.html| Source ] Unforuately, I now believe that most Americans are more interested in appearance rather than substance.
|
Post #71,768
12/31/02 4:26:18 PM
|
Matter of timing
The whole war for election strategy depends on timing. But the White House faces a complex balancing act.
On one hand, they want to get in their and get the war over with in the hopes of reaping economic benefit afterwards. Lower oil prices and large contracts funneled to American companies may prop up the economy for a while.
On the other hand, they will reap the greatest support boost during the war itself. In the stages prior to and during the war, there is a natural tendency for Americans to back the president.
They also face the problem that if they wait too long and then suddenly start a war, it will be too obvious that they are starting it to garner support. This risk is greatly compounded if the inspectors come back from Iraq saying the country is fairly clean.
This is compounded by the problem of not knowing how long the war will take, nor the casulties it will cause. Saddam can't win in the face of a full scale attack, but the question of how long he can hold out is an open issue.
From the looks of things now, I think the war is on, and soon. I think the White House planners is afraid that if they wait too long the will run out of grounds to declare war. The inspectors operating in Iraq haven't found anything significant yet, and if the inspectors come back and declare Iraq relativly clean, their excuse for war goes up in smoke.
In this case, they will try and get a new puppet government in Iraq fast. They will still be able to reap some benefit from 'Homeland Security' while pumping Iraqi money into our economy. This tactic has a high chance of working, if they can avoid getting too greedy and giving Democrates a major issue with Social Security, taxes or such.
The sadly funny, but improbable, case is that the White House is going to wait for hard evidence of WMDs. The thing is, Saddam may actually not have any right now. Saddam is, above all else, concerned with staying alive and in power. He may have ordered all the WMDs destroyed before the inspectors got to Iraq, since the inspectors finding anything could be deadly to him.
If that does happen, all the money spent on military build up and movement is wasted. The economy goes into the crapper, and Bush sets himself up for a defeat worse then his fathers.
Jay
|
Post #72,197
1/3/03 9:30:51 AM
|
Reagan Residue.
"Image over substance" became the norm under Reagan.
One quick example is illustrative: Cowboy Reagan publicly, harshly stating, "We will not negotiate with terrorists." Privately, of course, he did and illegally sent the profits from arms sales to other terrorists in Nicaragua. Interesting aside: Admiral Pointheader IS BACK! God, if nothing else, Dubya is perhaps the best President we've ever had at rehabilitating criminals, (Reich, Kissinger, Poindexter, Abrahms, etc. ad plenty nauseum).
|
Post #72,205
1/3/03 9:48:34 AM
|
Can Ollie North be far behind?
Perhaps a nomination the USSC to take the pending Rehnquist vacancy?
I can't hardly wait!
:-\ufffd
jb4
"They lead. They don't manage. The carrot always wins over the stick. Ask your horse. You can lead your horse to water, but you can't manage him to drink."
Richard Kerr, United Technologies Corporation, 1990
|
Post #72,287
1/3/03 3:47:04 PM
|
Beatcha to That one...
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=68852| [chortle]]
Prediction:
Commie Pinko shall soon be replaced by scurrilous oblique refs to,
..those {Sevens..} around here..
(Hmmm - some places a [-] beats out a [+] !!)
Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle.. Cackle..
|
Post #72,288
1/3/03 3:47:13 PM
|
Yes, but.
"Image over substance" became the norm under Reagan. Not of course that Reagan invented the idea, but he did take it to new levels. But, as Bush Sr. found out, it really doesn't work for the economy as a whole. If the economy tanks as a whole, there is nothing that Bush can do to cover it up. And the only thing that would have a chance of keeping him in office is an active war. Jay
|
Post #72,361
1/3/03 8:13:27 PM
|
Re: Active war.
Gee, I wonder if Rove's thought of that yet. Hmmmmmm.....
|
Post #72,049
1/2/03 12:55:25 PM
|
Coupla things:
I am wondering if the irony is going to be lost on the Democrats trying to win the next Presidential election by a wide enough margin that the Rehnquist Five won't be allowed to select Dubya's successor. According to news reports, Rehnquist is going to retire this year, probably in June. So it won't be the Rehnquist 5, it will be the Scalia 5 (all his dreams will be fulfilled). Expect another lapdog (ref. C. Thomas) as Rehn's replacement, all nicely confirmed by the Republican Senate. It will be interesting to see if the Murican people (or at least a majority of them) are as dumb as I suspect they are. The proof will be if Dubya actually gets elected the next time around. I tend to disagree. The majority of Murican people didn't vote, and I suspect will not vote this time :-(. So a Duh victory in 2004 won't prove anything, except that the Repo precinct captains are more adept at getting out the limited vote than their Democratic counterparts. And a Bush victory in 2008 will prove what we've been saying all along.... jb4
"They lead. They don't manage. The carrot always wins over the stick. Ask your horse. You can lead your horse to water, but you can't manage him to drink."
Richard Kerr, United Technologies Corporation, 1990
|
Post #72,169
1/3/03 4:49:21 AM
|
A 2008 victory will mean:
Repeal of Article XXII of the tattered US Constitution
But then, most of the other articles are already sorta moot; what's one more?
:-\ufffd
|
Post #72,194
1/3/03 9:27:48 AM
|
Wrong verb
"Repeal" (from Webster.com): to rescind or annul by authoritative act; especially : to revoke or abrogate by legislative enactment Although it may just be me, "repeal" seems to imply a postivie action, using informed consent, done with forethought after conscious (and conscientious) debate. Article XXII will not be repealed in that way; it will simply be "suspended" by executive fiat. jb4
"They lead. They don't manage. The carrot always wins over the stick. Ask your horse. You can lead your horse to water, but you can't manage him to drink."
Richard Kerr, United Technologies Corporation, 1990
|
Post #72,220
1/3/03 10:59:10 AM
|
Naw.
Cheney will run, with Shrub as his running mate. Then he'll resign, seek nomination as V.P., and bizness as usual will continue.
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the wise cannot see all ends." - J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring.
|
Post #72,286
1/3/03 3:42:31 PM
|
Already covered
Repeal of Article XXII of the tattered US Constitution There is no need to go to that kind of extreme. I've already heard mention of plans to bring the other Bush brother in to replace the current one. So no need of repeal till 2012. Jay
|
