POL - You're doing a heckuva job, Bushie

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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).

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

Originally Posted by Glen

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.

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.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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

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.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

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.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

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.

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.

[Solecismic]

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.

[flere-imsaho]

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".

[JPhillips]

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.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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

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

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

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.
...

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.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

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.

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

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

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.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Worse than Kerry's in 2004?

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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).

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?

[ISiddiqui]

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

Bush Dips Into the 20s

President Bush’s job-approval rating has fallen to its lowest mark of his presidency, according to a new Harris Interactive poll. Of 1,003 U.S. adults surveyed in a telephone poll, 29% think Mr. Bush is doing an “excellent or pretty good” job as president, down from 35% in April and significantly lower than 43% in January. Approval ratings for Congress overall also sank, and now stand at 18%.

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.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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?

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.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

...

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.

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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...

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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.

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. April 8-11, 2006. N=1,357 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. 
.
 
"What is your impression of the Republicans in Congress? As of today, 
is it very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable, very
 unfavorable or haven't you heard enough about them to say?" 
.
 
           Favorable Unfavorable Haven't Heard Unsure
4/8-11/06 37           50             10                 2 

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. March 8-12, 2006. N=1,405 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3. RV = registered voters
 
.
 
"Do you approve or disapprove of the job the 
Republican leaders in Congress are doing?"
 
.
 
          Approve Disapprove Unsure   
3/8-12/06 32         50           18 

[Flasch186]

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.

[flere-imsaho]

"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?

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

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?

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

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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

Economic growth?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

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.

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

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

Economic growth?

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

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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

Oh, sorry: improved foreign relations.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

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.

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

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.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

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?