How Bush might win:

[AP]

In 1972, Nixon used hatred towards him to win.

Today, I think it's happening agian.

After talking to voters the last couple days, one thing I hear over and over again: "we just got to get that Bush out of office." They don't want to talk about the issues. They just want to pick someone who's in the lead now.

Ok, I agree with the idea that it's all about getting rid of Bush (or at least mostly about that). However, what does it mean for us to be making this the focus of the primaries?

I've already seen that this has driven people to all jump on the Dean bandwagon without really trying to figure out what Dean was all about first. Now, everyone's jumping on the Kerry bandwagon.

I fear that voters thinking in terms of Bush means that they're not thinking in terms of which candidate is the best. Unless Democrats forget about Bush just for a second, and start thinking about what these candidates actually stand for, we're going to be victims of our narrow focus on Bush.

I don't think I'm explaining this well. Obviously the candidate democrats chose has to compare and contrast well to Bush. However, I've never seen the sort of "bandwagoneerism" I'm seeing now ever before. I just know it's not going to work out in our favor.

[Caution]

1. you answered the question yourself

Any time anyone compares our nom to mcgovern or uses a similar tactic that nixon used we'll just paint bush as another nixon.

[MidwestTransplant]

2. I agree to a point

but I am a lot more comfortable with Kerry as the front runner than I was with Dean.

[AP]

4. Nixon won.

And he was, possibly, more hated than Bush is now, and Nixon was hated by the left and the far right.

Bush is only hated by the left.

[sallyseven]

8. I think bush is driving the right nuts

also. He is losing friends all over the place. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he resigned or got into an accident in Crawford.

[AP]

15. I think they all know he'll really deliver to them in a second term.

He can change society, and really become an object of hatred, and the Republicans will be able to run a different Republican in 2008 who isn't tarnished by anything Bush does, but is a product of the world Bush will create (ie, corporate hegemony in which fear of terror rules).

[lancdem]

9. Actually, I believe more than liberals dislike Bush

When you see polls showing 45 percent strongly want him replaced, that includes a relatively large cross-section.

[AP]

11. The media will be on his side beginning the day after the dem convention.

Remembert 2000-2002?

Ain't nothing changed about Bush. He still wants to make corporations richer and shift the burden on to people who work for a living.

[lancdem]

16. Maybe

But having the media in his pocket thus far hasn't helped Bush stay above 50 percent in the polls.

[AP]

19. My argument is that they're doing this on purpose.

They wave the red meat of Bush in front of us so that we only think about Iraq and beating him. Instead, we should be having a debate about democratic principles.

We haven't done that yet.

[pacifictiger]

21. one little thing you forgot to mention

Nixon, for all his shortcomings, had a far superior brain than the shrub

[anti-NAFTA]

20. Nixon won, and there are plenty of disgruntled

Republicans who wish that the pre-Reagan Republican Party came back from the dead. You wouldn't want them to think that Bush is the second coming of Nixon.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. Nixon was competent

a hell of a lot moreso than Bush.

[AP]

5. Nixon had the Washignton Post against him. It likes Bush.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

10. Bush has a good chunk of America against him

the WP has little influence in the big picture.

[AP]

13. I actually meant that more subtley: Bob Woodward might have been

working for Bush to take down Nixon and clear the way for the Bush family's hyper-fascism.

Bob Woodward works for W. And it's not just Bob Woodward.

Bush will have lots of assets Nixon didn't have, while running a similar strategy.

[lancdem]

6. I'm not sure I see your point

Focusing on getting rid of Bush is not a good thing? I think it is. It doesn't necessarily mean people aren't paying attention to the issues. They aren't mutually exclusive.

[AP]

7. It's more important to focus on getting the best candidate. But so many

people don't even want to have that discussion because they think jumping on a bandwagon is the best way to win.

They think the only disucssion you need to have is "who's winning in the polls today?"

[lancdem]

12. How do you know the front-runner isn't also the "best" candidate?

He might be. I tend to give voters more credit than that. But that's just my opinion.

[AP]

18. I don't know. But I do know we're not having THAT debate. Have you called

people? This is what I'm hearing. Nobody wants to hear the arguments. They just want to jump on the anti-Bush bandwagon.

It could work. But I think it will backfire, as it did in '72.

We could have the debate, and come to the conclusion that Kerry is the best Dem. I'm willing to accept that. However, I'm worried that if we don't have that debate, we're going to be in big trouble.

Dems need to run on what they believe in, not on who they're running against. (Goldwater made this mistake too.)

We really need to be having a debate about democratic principles, which we're not having.

[JFKvsGWB]

14. Bush is blowing his feet off at the moment.

[AP]

17. That's how Nixon played it. And he won.

[Justice]

22. Okay, So Start the Debate About Democratic Principles

Tell us who you think the best candidate is and why.

[themountain]

23. What scares me...

is the possibility, even remote possibility, that Bush will get re-selected again in 04. Now, I realize there is more than a remote possibility of it happening again. In fact, I believe it will happen again. But here is what scares me about the possible re-selection.

Resident Bush has consistently shown a lack of any sort or moral or ethical judgment, from as far back as his college days. He has ruled this country, yes ruled, as though he has a mandate from the people. I'm not sure if he actually believes he has the backing of the people, or if he really doesn't care, but he acts like he has the mandate. During his first term, he has done things that are 180 degrees opposed to the moral and ethical values many of us hold. I won't start a list here, we all have our list of what he's done. Think about this though...Bush has done these things while in office after an election he didn't win, after having the resources to ensure all votes weren't counted and all people weren't given the opportunity to vote...he's done these things while not having even close to a mandate from the people....what will he do if he's re-selected? After the flaunting of power displayed in his first four years, what will happen if this person is put back in the White House again for another four years in a lame duck presidency? If he's done the things he's done in his first four years, knowing he would run again in 04, what is he capable of in the next four years when he knows he doesn't have to run again?

I have been a democrat my entire life and I can honestly say I've never been more disgusted by the actions of the democratic politicians than I have been these last four years. I don't know how I'll vote this year, but I'll be sure that my vote has the best chance of dislodging Bush from office.