snip
The previous day, President George Bush delivered a similar message to a global audience. Addressing the UN General Assembly in New York, he said it was “clear that the world is engaged in a great ideological struggle” between “the enemies of humanity” and “moderate people who work for peace”.
The same day, his deputy, Dick Cheney, told an audience of carmakers that the terrorists plan to seize control of a country in the Middle East, use it as a base from which to overthrow other governments and eventually set up “a totalitarian empire” stretching from Spain to Indonesia. He added that although the terrorists “cannot hope to beat us in a stand-up fight”, they are “convinced they can break the will of the American people.”
The common theme is no coincidence. Republican strategists think the best way to minimise their losses on November 7th is to talk non-stop about terrorism. If the latest Gallup/USA Today poll is to be believed, the plan is working. Mr Bush's approval rating has lifted to 44%, up from a trough of 31% in May. More important, likely voters were evenly divided (48%-48%) between those who favoured Republican candidates for Congress and those who favoured Democrats.
If accurate—a big if—this is awful news for the Democrats. Conventional wisdom in Washington says they will win control of the House of Representatives, where all seats are up for election. The Senate, where only a third of the seats are to be contested, will be tougher, but some Democrats think they have a chance. Their problem is that although they enjoy a comfortable lead among registered voters (51%-42% in the Gallup poll, for example), they do far less well among those who say they will probably vote. And only the votes of those who actually vote are counted.
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7946091The interesting question is of course how to handle this. I have previously argued that I believe the democrats should ride the WOT horse for all its worth, it would be lethal to leave the security space to GOP to define, a gang who have no moral restraints in using the victims of 9/11 for partisan politics. After watching fmr President Clinton on Faux I am even more convinced. He really did not refute the war on the noun. Rather he refuted the "path to blablabla"-crap on the merit that he and the democrats where the ones who that laid the ground work not the cretins in charge now.
Sure the democrats could take the high ground and be the "positive" party, focus on jobs, social security etc. but seriously look around, outside of DU and your immediate surroundings (friends and family), do you honestly believe there is another issue that will matter in november with the level of bombardment of propaganda that will be hosed on the poor voters.
In my home country, the incumbent party the Social Democrats failed to adress the issue attracting the attention of the voters - jobs. They let their opponents, the conservative alliance define both the problem and the solutions. The conservatives ended up as the party with the ideas and the Social Democrats as the "satisfied and tired" party. The Social Democrats lost the election.
Ok, I know the Swedish conservative alliance used triangulation tactics and that it worked well for them and that many frown on the concept at DU, but the strategy is even more important in a country so polarised as the US consisting of only two alternatives (we had around 10 political parties to choose from).
Now, many like me grew tired of our party's dilution of ideals and their never ending slide to the right. What served them well for three elections finally came back to bite them in the rear - big time. I guess it all comes down to how important a win for the democrats are in november. Is idealogical purity more important than winning this election?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
