Bush's reelection liabilities mount

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/09/03/bushs_reelection_liabilities_mount/

<snip>
An ordinary president would be reeling from these setbacks. But while Bush's stratospheric popularity ratings have returned to the normal range, he is no ordinary president.

For starters, he will have almost limitless amounts of money and will massively outspend his opposition thanks to unprecedented business investment in Republican politics and a half-baked campaign finance "reform" that backfired. He also has an incomparable team of political strategists, speechwriters, and spinners. And the press is still cutting him a lot of slack.

Second, the administration retains the capacity to time another "war of choice," as it did with the Iraq war drums on the eve of the 2002 midterm election. Another terrorist attack on American soil would rally patriotic support that Bush could willingly exploit. (At the same time, terrorist attacks overseas do not stir the same outrage and seem to demonstrate the overextension of Bush's policy.) Third, it remains to be seen whether Democrats will have a strong candidate.

Yet this election will rouse the base constituencies of both parties like no election in recent memory. Democrats are in a state of rage about the stolen election of 2000, the gutting of public services, the assault of liberties, the economic damage, the environmental pillaging, and the foreign policy calamity. Republican conservatives, meanwhile, view Bush as Reagan redux, only better.

Recent conventional political wisdom has it that elections are won by appealing to swing voters. But in the great defining elections of American history -- 1932, 1964, 1980 -- the winner rallied his base and then persuaded independent voters that he could be trusted to do the right thing for the country. The 2004 contest, I suspect, will be one of those elections. And here is Bush's greatest potential liability. His actual administration has been so unlike his moderate, conciliatory campaign of 2000 that even with the best campaign machinery, independent voters will be skeptical.

[Fovea]

1. Parts of his assesment are completely off

This paragraph, for example.

"Second, the administration retains the capacity to time another "war of choice," as it did with the Iraq war drums on the eve of the 2002 midterm election. Another terrorist attack on American soil would rally patriotic support that Bush could willingly exploit. (At the same time, terrorist attacks overseas do not stir the same outrage and seem to demonstrate the overextension of Bush's policy.) Third, it remains to be seen whether Democrats will have a strong candidate."


Bush does not have the capibility for another invasion. We would be unable to sustain another theatre of engagement.

Another terrorist act on American soil of any magnatude would bring about an impeachment, for wasting collossal amounts of money and only managing to reduce the freedom of Americans, not increase their safety.

Lastly, it doesn't matter if the Dems have a strong candidate or not, 2004 will be about nullifying Bush, and a ham sandwich could beat him.

[FloridaPat]

2. I think a ham sandwich has a better chance than some of the

Dems running.

Want to bet he can start another war? For the last 3 years he has been going forward with small nuclear weapons. He is getting rid of anyone in charge in the Pentagon that doesn't like to use these weaspons. The American public is so dumb, that if there was another 9-11 and Bush said to use the nucler arms, I bet over half the people in this country would go along with it. And like Iraq, all he really needs is the run-up. That stole 2 months of real debate during the 2002 election. The sniper took the rest.

[Stuckinthebush]

5. Really?

Do you believe that none of the Dems running now can energize the base? That none of these Dems can get a sufficient number of swing voters to go with them? That none of these Dems have fresh ideas for our country?

I beg to differ.

Regardless of who one supports, I like Dean's, Kerry's, and/or Gephardts chances in this thing. Don't buy into the GOP hype that they are lightweights because they are anything but. Look at Dean, for instance. Here is a guy who went from virtual unknown to frontrunner in a matter of months. He has raised gobs of cash and created a dynamic election machine. He has rallied the base like I have never seen. Lightweight? Hardly.

Then there is Kerry. He is an intelligent, seasoned politician. He knows gobs about both foriegn and domestic policies. He has a massive fund raising potential, and can appeal to the base as well as corporations. He has received good press for the most part, and can take on the Bushies head on when it comes to policies. Kerry has a great chance to beat Bush.

Remember, we have the GOP press (Fox, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.) hammering anyone who says he or she is a dem. The mainstream press has hardly looked at the race yet, so we will see if they pick up the GOP press tactics. But, the point is that you hear a din of negativity for all Dem candidates right now. Quite frankly, the silliness we see on DU with candidate bashing feeds right into that. But, these negative comments from the usual suspects probabaly won't take hold. You have an angry Dem base, you have an angry swing group, you have a fearful public, a beat up country, a depressed GOP base (I believe this is true), and a president that has re-elect numbers in the 40s. All of these will spell doom for Mr. Bush in his re-election prospects.

I'm excited by our candidates and can't wait for the real fight against Bush to begin.

[dfong63]

3. note the distinction

Bush does not have the capibility for another invasion.

Bush does have the capability to start another war. it doesn't have to be a full-fledged invasion. the Pentagon has enormous baseline capabilities, even without additional special appropriations. and in a real emergency (such as Bush's re-elect numbers falling below 30%), you can bet that a way would be found to juggle our forces so that an
invasion would be possible too.

[dawg]

4. Such a move would backfire.

Americans are waking up to the fact that they were tricked into war with Iraq. I don't think they will tolerate another such adventure.

And if we were to be legitimately attacked, that would only demonstrate the failure of Bush administration policies to make the world a safer place.

I think Bush's entire hope rests with the economy. A strong recovery between now and election day would propel him to a second term. I don't think that will happen, but you can be sure that they will do everything in their power to spin the numbers their way, especially after the conventions in 2004.