If you consider the end of the Dot.Com bust, I agree.

But since February '03, you have to admit we've had solid growth. According to Democrats, that wasn't going to happen. In fact, Democrats said the exact opposite would happen in the years following February '03. I haven't heard the Democrats move from that prediction.

In fact, they keep pushing how bad the economy has gotten since February '03 and has said that Bush is lying when he says the economy has been growing since the Iraq War and ensuing Terror-Insurgency began.

Dutch: Show me one prominent Dem that has said Bush is lying that the economy is growing. You're just making that up. Now there have been plenty of critiques of who is benefitting from the current growth and as far as I'm concerned some of that is justified. Real wages for average Americans have declined until the past quarter.

I recently read what I think is a good explanation to the disconnect between economic numbers and the public's perception of the economy. The country is really separated between those that live paycheck to paycheck and those that don't. If you live paycheck to paycheck, regardless how much you make or how many possesionsyou have, this economy feels dangerous. Its very hard to find a long-term stable job and if you lose your job you lose your healthcare as well. Add to that rising gas costs that most people just have to absorb somehow and things feel more precarious for the individuals living paycheck to paycheck than the overall numbers might suggest.

I agree, I have never been a fan of Bush and his administration in general. Neocons do not mesh well with libertarians. But the greater enemy of libertarianism is socialism and I would rather run further away from that. I do not want people to have expectations of the govt to do something, because that always cost more money and get less results. This is esp. true when any president has "bi-partisan" support or high popularity, they feel they have a mandate of some sort. As far as foreign affairs, I believe that they alternate history would not have been any better, just a little different. Iraq would have been a major thorn one way or another; same for Iran. If not them, then it would be some other places. I want us to get back to doing more ourselves and taking more personal responsibilities and not ceeding more of our liberties to those taking our money and using it to bribe and extort.

I wonder if the Dems/liberals/libertarians are in for a bit of a sad suprise when this all plays out. Bush's approval ratings are in the toilet, I propose, not because the country has suddenly moved to the left. Bush's ratings are in the toilet because he is HORRIBLE at his job.

The disapproval is not with the neocon agenda--but with Bush's execution of that agenda. If/when the GOP/neocons put someone in charge who can execute the GOP/neocon agenda well, I think that we may revert right back to 80%+ approval ratings for that president.

I just don't see how Bush screwing up makes people change their views on abortion, the environment, the judiciary, etc.

That is what the neocons are attempting to do, to paint it as the fault of Bush not being a real conservative (a couple of prominent radical righters have called Bush 'liberal' in the past couple of days). It's the Dem's job to show that it was a combination of incompetance and terrible policy. The nation loves the nationalistic part of the Bush presidency, but I don't think they like the domestic policy at all. Public opinion of foreign policy used to be the only thing holding Bush up back when he had respectable poll numbers.

Well a majority of the country already favors abortion and favors environmentalism (the latter is why the GOP needs to name bills that pollute the sky 'Clean Air Initiatives' and bills that cut down trees 'Healthy Forest'). I'm not sure of the public's opinion on the judiciary, but I would imagine that a population that is in favor of abortion in some form would want the same from their judges.

In some ways I'm with Albion on this one. I really think the Dems are counting on Bush's approval ratings, or disapproval as we stand now, too much. I think they really have to change their agenda to make it more popular. Bush didn't win the second time around because people thought he was doing a great job. His approval ratings were lower than 50%, when he was elected by more than 50% of the electorate. Clearly this should tell the Democrats that there was something wrong with their agenda in the 2004 election, at least wrong in the public's eyes.

I just think the Dems will be in for a disappointment if they are counting on Bush's appeal, or lack thereof, winning the day for them in the upcoming mid-terms. They need to address their message as well.

IIRC, Bush's approval numbers jumped just above 50% during the election. In any case, if he had 48% approval and got 51% of the vote, then if he has 30% approval he wouldn't get more than 35% of the vote, and there is practically no difference, electorally speaking, in the two. I'm sure the GOP is worried about it, several members will be dragged down by it. Hell, it looks like even a Dem (Lieberman) will be dragged down by it.

And the Dems do need a clearer message, but they don't need to change their agenda to make it more popular. On the big issues they seem to side with the majority of the American people according to opinion polls.

I don't know about that. What I mean by that is that I think Republicans can pull out different polls that show that they hold the majority opinion on abortion and the like. Polls on subjects like that vary based on the language used in the questioning, the specific categories offered, and more. II think a lot of folks don't want abortion banned, but do believe that there should be reasonable constraints applied to the practice. So they agree with part of the Dem party line on the subject in saying that "abortion should be legal and available", but differ on the Dem party line that defends abortion constraint with the ferocity of the NRA using the same "slippery slope" argument.

The point I'm making is that while 30 something percent of the public approve of Bush's performance, probably a much higher percentage of people would still vote for him over Kerry or another Democrat candidate. I'm saying that I don't think Bush was elected because people believed in him, they just believed that he was the lesser of two evils. The Dems haven't really modified their version of "evil" since then, and I think they need to if they want to really take advantage of Bush's poll numbers.


On the other thing you touched on.
I hope Lieberman isn't "pulled down". He's one of the few good Dems left, in my opinion. Of course I consider McCain to be just about the best thing about Republicans too, so apparently my opinion doesn't mean too much to hardened partisans in either party.

That's fuzzy math.

:)

Actually, you can't can't count on it being that cut-and-dried. There are many people who will vote against the dems no matter what Bush's approval rating might be.

I agree with you. There is something about the system that has made it tough for the best candidate to get the nomination, IMO.

I don't see how you can get that Bush would have anything near to 50% of the vote now that is approval is 20% lower than when he actually got 50% of the vote, but we could probably argue about that all day.

Well yeah, that makes sense to me, since Lieberman and McCain are both conservatives of one sort or another, especially on foreign policy. I used to like McCain, but the most incorrect meme ever is that he is some straight talking moderate. He is actually to the RIGHT of Bush on foreign policy: for example, he wants to send MORE troops to Iraq, and is a huge hawk. Being against torture does not make one a moderate, that used to be the accepted position of 95% of the country.

It is so odd to see clear thinking in a political thread on the fofc. I'm a little flabbergasted.

I really dislike the linear political spectrum concept and think it gets way overused in American politics. Wanting to have more troops in Iraq didn't mean McCain was "to the right of" Bush, it means he was not an idiot. We clearly were unable to maintain basic law and order. You either need to get enough troops in there to do the job or get the fuck out. I don't see how that has anything to do with left and right. At this point I don't know that more troops are going to make a difference, but McCain was right when it mattered..

Along similar lines it bothers me to see McCain and Lieberman lumped together here (as they often are). They probably occupy a similar space on a linear political spectrum, but are otherwise night and day. McCain is a fiscal conservative and a social moderate (or least he has been so far, we'll see how this speech at Liberty U. comes off). Lieberman is a fiscal liberal and a social conservative (IMHO the worst of both worlds), and stupid most of the time to boot...

I'm not sure I agree with this. First of all, you're assuming that a significant proportion of Americans actually understand the neocon agenda. Secondly, you're assuming that a majority of Americans actually agree with that agenda.

Thirdly, I don't think the GOP and neocon agendas are the same thing, unless you're saying that they are because the neocons have hijacked the current GOP to their own aims. I rather doubt GOP faithful of the Reagan stripe are wholeheartedly behind the neocon agenda, to say nothing who agree with even older GOP ideals.

The neocon agenda preaches an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy that strives to achieve American hegemony throughout the world (I'm generalizing). Given the current context (an apparent failure of this policy in Iraq - apparent to the majority of the American electorate that is), I'm not sure that a continued execution of this policy would result in 80%+ approval ratings. Especially when your average American voter is going to say "What, invade X like we did Iraq? Cousin Jim Bob went to Iraq and came back with no legs. Fuck that!"


Approval ratings are a reflection of the public's perception of the actions of the President. Those actions may be objectively good, objectively bad, or objectively irrelevant to the success of the nation as a whole. When asked to rate the President, the pollee is going to ask themselves a multitude of questions, amongst which might be: "Do I agree with his goals?" "Do I agree with the methods he uses to achieve these goals?" "Are his results good for me?"

Given that context, it's difficult for me to see how a vast majority of the populace (the 80% you indicate) would answer in the affirmative if a GOP/neocon strategy was executed, even executed well. Especially when that strategy isn't anything close to Reagan or Clinton saying "Let it ride" and getting lucky with the stock market. That strategy pushes a specific worldview, specific mechanisms to make it come about, and works for specific results, all of which I doubt 80% of Americans agree.

This is a well thought out post, and I agree with it. My only real point above is that I don't see that the social dynamics in this country that gave the GOP a majority of the popular vote in the last major election have changed much. And that the Democrats should understand that disaproval of Bush does not necessarily equate to people getting on board with the Democratic plan or jumping ship on the GOP plan. It may simply mean that people have picked up on the fact that if Bush flipped burgers as well as he ran a country he would probably get laid off from Hardees.

We were apparently losing WWII when Pearl Harbor was bombed and we were defeated in the Phillipines and Europe was apparently losing when Nazi Germany was 20 km from Moscow. But the reality was quite a bit different than the perception, wasn't it? The fight isn't done. I don't like the thought of defeat while our troops are still in Iraq. We will win this fight and the Iraqi government survives. The question is, when we do win the fight and Iraq stands on it's own legs backed by a democracy, will you give the US credit for a job well done? I think we should give the US a lot of credit, but I'm skeptical that we will.

Also, If I may object, the average American voter does not know somebody who lost his legs in Iraq. Vietnam maybe, WWII definately, but not Iraq.


I do agree. I don't think the GOP stands a chance in hell in the next election and it's because the President has not done a good job of getting his agenda out to the people. On the other hand, the liberals have done an outstanding job of getting people to understand their agenda. The middle 33% (read: fence sitters) won't be aware enough to do anything other than vote for Hillary or abstain. The end result; Democrats really don't have to change their approach at all to win in 2008. 2006 elections should be pro-liberal as well.

I almost choked on my desert when I saw that trio. While I believe certain Dems (mostly those in the past) can be libertarian-minded, liberals (by definition) cannot be. There is no one prominent for the Dems that carried on the works of Proxmire for whenever there is a hint of budget reductions or cuts or slowing increases, it seems like there is a solid block coming out in opposition. I've seen this not only at the federal level, but in several states as well. Just take a look at those opposing state-wide initiatives/amendments to restrict taxation or other reductions in revenues.

I am not sold on that a true "neocon" agenda would be libertarian-minded because what they want to achieve costs money, a lot of it. One could argue that a true "liberal" agenda would cost far, far more but I think once it reaches a certain point, the effect of inefficiencies, wastefulness, recklessness and corruption, not mention the power obtained through extortions and briberies, becomes mind-numbing.

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly, and I'll expand on that when I reply to Dutch in a sec.

I disagree with this completely. I still think the main Democrat message is "We're not Bush." If Democrats can make their views understood and they resonate reasonably well with the people, they should do well in 2006 and 2008. They way they are going currently, I don't see them gaining a large number of seats. They still seem bent on destroying Bush's political capital rather than trying to generate their own.

I have said this before, but I really think the democrats should embrace and run on the concept of accountability. The current combination of the Bush administration and congress has really slipped away from "the buck stops here" philosophy and I think that is something that the democrats could really use to their advantage.

Realistically, something like accountability could stick with swing voters, much like morality did with them in 2000 and 2002, and decisiveness did in 2004.

With that said, i do not see them doing that yet, and it may well be too late to pound that concept into voters' minds.

I wish you'd stop comparing Iraq to WWII. We've been over and over this and they're two completely separate things.


Fair enough. A point I wanted to make with this, though, was that I've met a fair number of Republicans who plan to sit out 2006 because either a) they're Reserve/Guard and got screwed over by Iraq or b) they have family in the Armed Forces and have suffered a loss. This isn't by any means an overwhelming majority of the electorate, but it's part of the GOP "base" they're losing this time around, due to this issue.

And yes, there are probably still plenty who think we're doing the right thing (as you do) and will vote to keep it that way.


I think there's a difference between 2006 and 2008. The 2006 election will be, for better or worse, a referendum on the GOP in general and the Congressional scandals and Bush's performance in specific. While the odd compelling GOP candidate may be able to overcome this (and obviously those in safe seats don't have to worry), a good number of Reps and Senators in hotly-contested seats are going to pay for this, largely through the function of Republicans staying home from the polls. This particular dynamic has played itself out many times before, so I don't see why it wouldn't happen again.

Given this, the correct strategy for the Dems in 2006 is to continue to push the "GOP Reps & Senators are crooks, and Bush is an incompetent" message. It fires up the base, and as the message heads out into the mainstream, it will probably keep enough moderate Republicans home.

Having said that, I think 2006 will be a little underwhelming for the Dems. If you look closely at the numbers in the races, it's very unlikely the Dems will pick up enough seats to control either chamber in Congress, so they'll be in much the same position (though they can probably cause even more trouble in the Senate, with some pick-ups).

For 2008, however, this won't be a winning message. Maybe if the GOP candidate was Bush, or maybe if the GOP is stupid enough to nominate someone with close ties to Bush. If the Dems want to win in 2008, their candidate needs to show up with a positive message. At that point the electorate will have had roughly 6-7 years of trouble, from terrorism to the economy, and want to hear that someone has a plan to lead the country to better times. I think, frankly, that's the message that will win in 2008. Sadly (as a Democrat), I'm pretty certain it's a message that Hillary won't be able to deliver, or at least deliver convincingly.

Thus, the 2008 election will be all about the candidates and their own charisma.

Japan was apparently losing WWII when Hiroshima was bombed. Nazi Germany was apparently losing when the Russians were 20 km from Moscow. The South was apparently losing when Sherman burned Atlanta. Saddam was apparently losing when American tanks rolled into Baghdad. The reality was pretty much in line with those perceptions, wasn't it?

Yes, things can be turned around. But that doesn't happen magically, and the odds are against it.

I agree, to a point. I think it depends on how the Democrats go about it. In 2004, it seemed that the message the Dems were saying wasn't "This is what we stand for" and more "We hate Bush", which isn't, and won't work, despite the negative opinion of the President right now. Too many people in the grass roots of the country have a tendency to support a sitting President, regardless of who that person is.

So, yes, the Dems have a great chance to taking back not only the Presidency, but alot of Congress, but only if they go on issues, and not on a hatred of the opposition.

The big difference is that the US military is under no threat of surrendering Iraq to the terrorists. Politically, I agree, it's a little up in the air. I hope GWB stays the course.

No, McCain is in favor of sending more troops to Iraq RIGHT NOW, not when it would have mattered during the invasion. Only in retrospect does he feel that more troops should have been used in the beginning, he didn't say it at the time. The 'rogue state rollback' foreign policy that we have right now was actually stolen from McCain back during the 2000 election, before 9/11. Attacking countries pre-emptively only with huge armies is not be the 'moderate' position of foreign policy. It is very much to the right.

Why would you hope that George would stay in the same losing course?

You seem to be taking a position that going on hatred of the opposition is just a losing strategy. But it works very well for the Right, so maybe the Left just isn't as good at it as they are.

Well, we're gonna disagree with your contention that the Right ran on hatred. They ran on the idea of core family values, which appeals to a large number of people from rural areas.

So, yes running based on the hatred for the other side, specifically against a sitting President, doesn't work. The Republicans tried it during Clinton's second term, and it didn't work for them either.

I actually liked Dole's campaign, I think 9 times out of 10 it would win - he was just up against a machine.

I think if Dole would have shown the personallity he did after he lost the race during it, he would have done better.

Still would have lost, but would have done better.

I wouldn't.

I dunno - there's something like 25% of this country which believes the greatest threat facing them (as per the last election) is "family values", which too often translates to "I hate gayz they're icky" - I think the worst thing that core can do for the GOP is potentially stay home, and I don't think they're likely to do that given what's at stake.

But you just said...whaaaa?

I would gather that the number is greater than 25%.

And, FWIW, I think it's less "gays are icky" than "gays shouldn't marry" and a religious belief that condemns it. Say what you will about that opinion, and religion/politics, but the idea strikes a chord with a good number of people. Democrats have a tendency to stay away from that, and side away from Christians and stricter Christian beliefs, and that's why people, especially in rural areas, side more with Republicans.

"Family values" = "hate the gay" and "hate the sex"

The Right attacks every single detractor, not on the basis of their arguments, but their character. Swift boating, Richard Clarke, the retired generals, Casey Sheehan, etc. For a couple years you couldn't say a bad word about the Iraq War without being called a traitor. The Radical Right books out there, best sellers not obscure titles, include: "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life", "Deliver Us from Evil : Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism", "Liberal Facism", "Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism", and "Unholy Alliance : Radical Islam and the American Left".

And now they are using the hatred for immigration. Just look at Bubba Wheels' thread, that's not motivated by rational thought of the plusses and minuses. I read once that the GOP election time strategy, since the southern strategy was implemented, could be summed up as: "scare white folks".

The immigration issue does not break down left/right lines cleanly.

To counter:
Lapdogs : How the Press Rolled Over for Bush
Cruel and Unusual: Bush/Cheney's New World Order
Stupid White Men
449 Stupid Things Republicans Have Said

And that was just browsing through Amazon for a couple of minutes. My point is both sides do it. Both sides, and more recently the Dems have done alot of the badgering.

Concerning the "Swiftboat" thing, the Dems put false documents in Dan Rather's hands in the closing weeks of the election. Again, while both sides are guilty, perception is that the Dems are overly negative, and it bit them come election time.


I'm not sure what you mean by "plusses and minuses". I mean, I personally think the GOP is bending over backwards in their immigration bill -- much more than I would, in that they're allowing illegals to stay here. I'm not sure what more the GOP can do.

The first book is critical of the press. The second book was written by someone that I have never heard of. The third one's insult is "stupid", not really up to par with 'traitor', 'evil', 'death', etc, in terms of inspring hatred. And none of those first three generalizes the opposition at all like the ones I mentioned (liberals, Democrats, etc). The last one has a Democratic counterpart, hardly an example of a partisan author with hatred of the opposition.

I don't remember it being a Dem that put the false documents in Dan Rather's hands. I also don't remember it being presented as fact on prime time cable news shows long after it was discredited.

Plusses and minuses refers to the good and the bad things that come from illegal immigration. The GOP is bending over backwards because their corporate business donor base is very much opposed to restricting illegal immigration.

george W is my homeboy

I'm not a big "Family Values" voter, but I'll tell you what. "Family Values" isn't code for anything. It doesn't translate to we hate gays. It means a lot of specific things, but I think it is more of a general resistance to the decay of values in society. A good number of people feel that some elements of society are committing crimes and investing their life and time in self gratification(drugs and other pursuits contrary to responsibility) because they didn't grow up in a functional healthy family. Family Values is about focusing or investing in the core principle of "family" and the benefits conveyed to both individuals and society as a whole.

When those on the left attack "family values, and reduce it down to homophobia, it doesn't win them friends on the right or the middle.

Also you have all of this bullshit about how the Republicans push hate. The left ran a campaign of demogoguery against Bush in 2004, and it didn't work. I love the cartoon from the day after the election that had the donkey waking up in bed with Michael Moore with a caption saying "How did we end up here?" You throw out the Swift boat guys, but Bush distanced himself from them..he didn't embrace their message. The freaking DNC ran ads attacking Bush on the essentially baseless AWOL business, along with the favored son bit. They ran those on their own website. The Dems certainly can't hold their heads up high and say they don't campaign on hate.

I didn't reduce it to homophobia, I reduced it to homophobia and sexophobia. Glen I must have missed when the GOP was talking about a Constitutional Amendment to ban drugs, or pushing for Supreme Court justices that wanted to outlaw self-gratification. I remember the big issues being gays marrying and abortion. I'm sure a lot of people feel the way you are portraying them as feeling, but that is not what is bringing them to the polls.

I love how you throw out the swift boat stuff because Bush distances himself from it, then use DNC ads to say all the left is bad (essentially baseless? I missed where Bush provided evidence of where he was). Is Bush the entire Right spin machine? Talk about a straw man. The Swift Boat guys were paraded around on Hannity, O'Reilly, and FoxNews for months.

Can you please cite examples of demogoguery against Bush in 2004? Keep in mind that the GOP spent the entire year of 2004 calling most liberals traitors, I want to see something of that nature from a major source, i.e., not Ward Churchill or some other podunk professor from the midwest.

http://www.factcheck.org/article254.html
"Essentially baseless"? Those were just the revelations from one day.

We aren't losing.

You're kidding me? Dole's campaign was one of the worse in the past 35 years. We're talking Mondale bad.

Glen, I'm no fan of the Dems - hell, a GOP without the religious right is more along the lines of my party - those people scare me. Yet they proposed a frigging amendment to the constitution that would ban "gay marriage" - more than any other issue, that was the brainchild of the religous right. I certainly agree with you that "cultual decay" may be a larger part of the problem, but its manifestation in politics appears to be primarily on the gay marriage issue - as Bigglesworth pointed out, compare the political steps taken against the other issues you cited, compared to gay marriage.

Worse than Kerry's in 2004?

I don't know why I'm asking, since I know what the answer will be, but what is "surrendering Iraq to the terrorists"?

Hey Kerry was in the running. Of course he wasn't up against Clinton, so maybe the comparison is lacking.

The proposed amendment on Gay Marriage...How hard has that been pushed? The Amendment to ban abortion, that was also one of the GOP "Planks" in 2004. How far has that been pushed? There have been more bills proposed to encourage families to stay together than there has been to ban marriage and abortion(partial extraction excluded).

The people who equate "family values" to homophobia are just participating in a smear campaign.

Again for those who blame homophobia for bringing voters to the polls and winning Bush the election in 2004. I think you need to reexamine the facts with less than the rose colored glasses that you wore during your previous analysis. The left arrived at the conclusion that the gay marriage question won the day for the right by bringing out the base. I'm saying that John Kerry was enough to bring out the base, and that the gay marriage bit is convenient because it allows the left to believe that there was nothing wrong with their positions. They can claim it was those "damn dumb predjudiced blue staters that cost us the election." I would submit that they and you are wrong.

Was there a substantial or coinciding change as the political capital got better or worsefor the admin & Right?


If Im not mistaken I believe some memos have come out wherein the political planners admitted prior to the vote that the issue could be one to motivate the base and should be exploited. How many only came out to vote because of this? who knows, but it cant be swept under the rug either.

It was the conservatives that did this. "Family values" and "morals" came down to two issues and two issues only: gay marriage and abortion. That's it. Conservatives basically highjacked the concept of "morals" and boiled it down to these two issues and it worked. It worked beautifully.

Calling things as they are/were is not a smear campaign. Well, then again, given reality's known liberal bias, perhaps it is.

I think you and WVUFAN are talking about two different things (and then got all tangential and stuff).

On one hand, there's running a Presidential campaign solely (or largely) on an opposition stance, i.e. "at least I'm not him". See Kerry in 2004, Dole in 1996, Dukakis in 1988, and Mondale in 1984 (although argubly no one was going to beat Reagan in 1984 anyway). Let's call this the Opposition Campaign, or OC for short.

On the other hand, there's running a Presidential campaign (or supporting a general election) by spreading fear. The basis of this strategy is to convince the electorate that if Person/Party A gets elected, bad things X, Y, and Z will happen. Let's call this the Fear Campaign, or FC for short.

Running an OC has been shown, generally, not to work. The times it does work are more in local elections where the incumbent is obviously a crook. The reason this strategy doesn't work is largely one of inertia. Americans (like most people) are averse to change, and tend to want to stick with "the devil they know". Thus, by the way, the resonance of this "stay the course" meme. Bear in mind, too, that as a target of the OC, the candidate only needs to be the benefit of a portion of the electorate sticking with inertia, since he can count on his base anyway.

I'd postulate that for an OC to work, a candidate would need to not only disparage the incumbent, but also present a compelling vision of what he'd accomplish in the role, how this would benefit Americans and, critically back it up with relevant work experience. For instance, if the candidate was a governor, and he had successfully turned around his state, this would be a viable platform. However, at this point you no longer have just an OC going on, you have something more. You do, however, have a good explanation as to why Kerry wasn't going to win in 2004 - no vision, no charisma, and no narrative work experience to show he could execute a vision that he didn't articulate anyways.


The FC, on the other hand, is a winner, for many of the same reasons, but this time for the incumbent (and this definitely extends to Congressional campaigns). Again, what the FC is trying to accomplish is getting the electorate to believe that if Person/Party A is elected, bad things X, Y and Z will happen. The electorate have already seen what the incumbent has done. As far as they're concerned, that's as bad as it's going to get (they can be wrong here, but that's not the point). What the FC seeks to accomplish is to convince the electorate that it could be so much worse if the other guy gets in. Faced with this, many Americans will choose to stick with the guy they know and hope for the best.

Note that a lot is made about the FC getting people fired up and whatnot. For instance, you can get the Religious Right fired up and out to the polls by convincing them that the Democrats will take away their rights. I think the effect of this can be overstated. Yes, it's important to get your base fired up, and yes it's important to get them out to vote, and yes this is a good method of doing so. Elections, however, aren't generally won by bases, but by a successful manipulation of the whole spectrum of people inclined to vote for you (or against your opponent). The FC speaks to this at least as much as it speaks to energizing its base.

Anyway, enough rambling for now.

I'm not sure of that. I think that Bush won the last election because he wasn't Kerry. Or more generally, he wasn't a "liberal."

The GOP's propoganda machine is just much much better than the Dems'. The GOP and its supporters have turned the word "liberal" into an insult and most people voted for Bush just because they couldn't bear to have a liberal democrat in power - not because of Bush's performance or message.

There's one more campaign I see both sides running, and that's an "HC," or Hate Campaign. The Republicans stir up prejudice and hate against gay people, and the Democrats stir up class warfare.

Me? I hate both sides equally.

Nah, HC is merely a facet of FC. Fact is, very few people really want to be known as people who "hate" others. On the other hand, they're happy to engage in the same activity under the guise of protecting their own rights.

It's the difference between saying "I hate gays" and saying "I don't want to lessen the sanctity of marriage". Or (to be bipartisan) the difference between saying "The Republicans will give tax breaks to the rich while taking away your social services" and "I believe in an equitable distribution of wealth".

I think both sides are giving far too much weight to ideas and policies. At the end of the day the presidential election is about charisma and personability. The ideas are secondary in a presidential race.

The Dems will be fine if they find a likable candidate and they'll get whipped if they don't.

Keep in mind that one of my all-time favorite NFL players is Jeff George.

I honestly don't believe this is the case. I think that it is the Dems who have boiled down the concept to those two points, and the motivation to do so was to dismiss the concept as one of prejudice and to marginalize the phrase, because it hurt them.

The concept of "family values" has never meant homophobia and abortion. I'm not a social conservative by any measure, but even I know that there is more to it than that.

When Dan Quayle stood up and said that single parent households were a problem, and cited Murphy Brown as an example, THAT was the family values campain, albeit a very bad example on Quayle's part.

The campaigns against Gay Marriage and for family values intersect when you have school curriculum teaching that two mommy and two daddy households are "normal". <-- Note that I don't have a problem with this, as I know that there are children in those situations, and I wouldn't want them ostracized.

Well, I reckon we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I honestly do believe that "family values" and "moral issues" have been boiled down, specifically by the Republicans/Conservatives (see: Rove, Carl) to nothing more than gay marriage and abortion. And it worked beautifully for them and, in all likelihood, will continue to do so. Conservatives have highjacked these concepts and there is nothing the democrats/liberals can do to get them back.

Folk who are anti-gay marriage and pro-life don't see themselves as being prejudice, they seem themselves as being part of the "moral majority" and strong supporters of "family values". That's how it is.

That's the easy answer. We all still have to make them work for our vote, however.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying, and you said it much better than I. My further point is that in each of those examples you listed, they were for Presidential re-elections. There seems to be a strategy on both sides of running a campaign of "We hate the sitting President", and it really doesn't work, because people have a tendency to defend the President when attacked.

You'll note that the exception was Clinton, who never ran on "We hate Bush" and more on issues and personallity. We all know how that turned out. Despite my loathing of Clinton, I'll give him props for that. The Republicans (and the Democrats)could really learn from how he campaigned.

Yes, definitely. Kerry was more hampered by the incompetance of the party (in managing the strategy and the message). Kerry by himself didn't do too good but he didn't do as bad as Dole in constantly going against advice and acting like a curmudgeon the whole time. Plus Clinton was not a machine, not with less than 50% of the votes and the New York Times given him a lukewarm endorsement. If you want machines, take a look at LBJ in 64, Nixon in 72 and Reagan in 84 (each with about 60% or more of the votes). While it's hard to separate Gore and Kerry, the latter actually did worse because he was more heavily favored and lost a big lead.

Glen, my point is that moral values was in part code for homophobia in order to bring people to the polls, and your rebuttal is that it isn't true because they presented the issues right before the elections then dropped them right afterward?

This seemed like the best place to put this (and this poll was taken BEFORE the NSA phone list news came out):

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/0...proval-ratings


I have no idea how the Republicans are going to be able to rectify this before the November elections. If this continues, I don't see any way to prevent a Democrat led House and Senate.

Gay marriage amendments and ballot initiatives weren't RNC initiatives. Those were individual state by state attempts to ban or accomodate gay marriage. That Rove orchestrated this in order to bring out the "base" is what I'm calling a fabrication of the left in order to blame their loss on uneducated biggots rather than examining the failings of their own message.

I don't know that Bush's approval rating is going to harm Republicans in the Senate and House enough to carry that much of a "swing". While not satisfied with the President, there's a zero percent chance I'm going to let that change my opinion in the election for my local Congressional Rep. In other words, I don't think people are all that unhappy with Republicans in general, but rather they are dissatisfied with the President himself. I think it is too early to be sure, but in the words of Harvey Keitel, it would be too early for the Democrats to start sucking each other's dicks quite yet.

Are you kidding me? Rove says he wants to get evangelical Christians to the polls. Bush comes out in favor of a gay marriage amendment.

Then, according to you, COMPLETELY UNRELATEDLY, ballot initiates show up in state after state about banning gay marriage, an issue that wasn't even on the radar 4 years earlier. These states include swing-states Oregon, Michigan, and Ohio.

C'mon, that's not keeping it real. You can argue that it wasn't the reason that Bush won. But to say that it wasn't part of the RNC campaign strategy is just asinine.

Bush, senators renew fight against gay marriage
Bush: Block 'overreaching judges' with amendment

Monday, June 5, 2006; Posted: 2:09 p.m. EDT (18:09 GMT)



WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush and Senate conservatives renewed their battle Monday to ban same-sex marriage through a constitutional amendment that has a slim chance of passage.

"I call on the Congress to pass this amendment, send it to the states for ratification, so we can take this issue out of the hands of overreaching judges and put it back where it belongs: in the hands of the American people," Bush said at the White House on Monday.

"When judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will on the people, the only alternative left to the people is an amendment to the Constitution: the only law a court cannot overturn," he said.

Many Republicans support the measure because they say traditional marriage strengthens society; others don't, but concede the reality of election-year politics.

"Marriage between one man and one woman does a better job protecting children better than any other institution humankind has devised," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee. "As such, marriage as an institution should be protected, not redefined."

Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, said he will vote against the amendment on the floor, but allowed it to survive his panel, in part to give the GOP the debate that party leaders believe will pay off on Election Day.

Specter has chosen a different battle with the Bush administration this week -- a hearing Tuesday on how the FBI spies on journalists who publish classified information.

All but one of the Senate Democrats -- the exception is Ben Nelson of Nebraska -- oppose the same-sex marriage measure and, with moderate Republicans, are expected to block an up-or-down vote, killing the measure for the year. (Watch activists head to Capitol Hill for the fight over gay marriage -- 1:47)

Democrats say the amendment is a divisive bow to religious conservatives, and point out that it conflicts with the GOP's opposition to big government interference.

"A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry pure and simple," said Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, where the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriages in 2003.

Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, which in 2004 began issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, on Monday denounced Bush's move as predictable and "stale rhetoric" aimed at rallying conservatives for this year's midterm elections.

"It's politics. It's pandering and it's placating a core constituency, the evangelicals," Newsom said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

The House is also expected to take up the measure this year.

Fueled by election-year politics, the gay marriage issue is the most volatile Congress will consider as it returns from a weeklong Memorial Day recess.
Pentagon funding also on congressional plate

Other legislation has better chances for success, particularly a record-size emergency spending bill to continue U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and provide hurricane relief along the Gulf Coast.

The Pentagon says it needs its money -- about $66 billion -- right away or delays could begin to affect the conduct of the war in Iraq. The Senate added new relief for farmers and other aid to the package, swelling its cost to more than $100 billion. Bush is demanding that the price tag stick within his $92.2 billion request, plus $2.3 billion to combat avian flu.

An agreement could be passed this week.

The House is expected to consider a $32 billion spending bill would give the Homeland Security Department $1.8 billion more in 2007 than this year. It also is likely to send Bush a Senate-approved bill to raise indecency fines tenfold, to $325,000 per violation, for television and radio broadcasters.

An election-year debate on the constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman was never in doubt, however doomed the legislation. As Republicans geared up to defend their majorities in the House and Senate, conservative groups earlier this year let them know that they were dissatisfied with the GOP's efforts on several social issues, including gay marriage.
'Why do we need a constitutional amendment?'

Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Delaware, said Sunday that the amendment is unnecessary. "We already have a law, the Defense of Marriage Act. ... Nobody has violated that law. There's been no challenge to that law. Why do we need a constitutional amendment?" Biden said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Parliamentary maneuvers were likely to sink the amendment for the year. Senate procedure requires two days of debate before the 100-member Senate decides -- 60 votes are required -- whether to consider the amendment on an up-or-down vote.

Even the amendment's proponents don't expect it to survive this first step, let alone Senate passage by the two-thirds majority needed in both houses to send it to states for ratification.

Voters in 19 states have approved amendments to their state constitutions that protect the traditional definition of marriage, Bush said. The president also said 45 of the 50 states have either a state constitutional amendment or statute defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

This November, initiatives banning same-sex marriages are expected to be on the ballot in Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin. In 2004, 13 states approved initiatives prohibiting gay marriage or civil unions, with 11 states casting votes on Election Day.

"When judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will on the people, the only alternative left to the people is an amendment to the Constitution: the only law a court cannot overturn,"

Oh, the irony.


On another note, it's good to know that Bush has his priorities straight. With all of the challenges facing this country, he focuses on this?

Uhh.. he focuses on it every election year. And when the election is over, so is the GMA. Same as every other time... As long as the Christianist voters keep coming back for more.

Wait a second, we loved the last President for focusing on one "thing". :)

Economic growth?

Glen says: "Preposterous! Nobody plays politics in the GOP!"

No, silly, not Al Gore and his invention. The last President. ;)

Oh, sorry: improved foreign relations.

Hey, there is no doubt this is a play to the Cristian far right. It is embarrasing, but it is apparently how the game is played, you have to change the subject. I personally think they are mis-playing their hand in this particular case because, it is such an obvious ploy with a zero chance of getting off the ground.

I personally think it is lame, and may hurt them more than help them. It certainly doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy about the Republican party. Then again, I think of Nancy Pelosi, and well that warms me plenty to the Republican party.

Edit: I'm still predicting that if the Dems take neither the Senate or the House, they will still blame the damned intollerant and ignorant red staters for the result . Anything but question their own message.

The Dem's great failing is that they consider policy and results to be more important than message.

The message that I'm talking about...You know the one that I believe lost them the past election...that has to do with their policies and their desired results. That is their message.

What?