September 02, 2004
A Simple Game Plan
Posted by Chuck Todd | 09:53 PM
If you weren't sure what one issue the White House thought they were most vulnerable on, then you should be sure now after watching all four days of the GOP convo. The Bush campaign fears one issue: Iraq.
And to fix their problem issue, the campaign used this convention to do two things with every single speech: make the case Iraq is part of the war on terror and that John Kerry is not ready to be president.
What's interesting about this strategy is that it's something that would make more sense if Bush were the challenger and Kerry were the incumbent. Sure, there are parts of the presidency Bush wants to emphasize: the 30 days after 9/11 (as evidenced by the intimate details of how Bush spent that time in his introductory video). The video left out some 900 other days.
What's interesting about this decision to run a "challenger" convention (which is likely to lead to a "challenger" campaign in the fall) is that it tacitly acknowledges that Bush can't win if he's not perceived as the agent of change. Incumbents are rarely thought of as "change" agents. Harry Truman pulled this off in '48 but there have been a lot of incumbents who have gone down in the years since.
This is a gamble but it may be the only strategy Bush can pursue if, indeed, he wants that second term.
 |
I wish Bush the best luck in pulling off the "agent for change" strategy. 2004 is a good time to assess where we are and what's been accomplished in the past four years.
Are YOU better off than you were four years ago?
The answer would probably depend on where you are on the socio-economic ladder. If you have money, investments, and extra property, then you're probably MUCH better off than you were four years ago thanks to changes in the tax laws related to capital gains and business. If you're like most Americans, scratching to get by with limited healthcare and no pension to fall back on when you retire, then you're probably worse off than before. The most amazing aspect of the present popularity of the Republican Party (RP) is that much of its support comes from the latter group.
This is an extraordinary sleight of hand on the part of the RP. While tremendous advantages are provided to the corporations and privledged who invest and receive the benefits of the corporate tax breaks, the workers in those companies, who continue to watch their jobs going overseas, continue to support a president who has not been shy or unclear about his agenda. How in the world can the RP have it both ways?
The simple answer is, appeal to values on the part of the "less fortunate" that are guaranteed to evoke a strong, emotional response - God and country. If the RP is the party of "God and country", then obviously, the Democratic Party obviously is not. "Either you're for us, or against us." That's quite a choice, isn't it.
Last night, I saw plenty of "God and country" at the RP convention. No surprise there. At this point, with the tax laws changed (and a promise from Bush that they'll change further in the next four years), there's no need to appeal to the "more fortunate" any longer. Bush has kept his promise and provided their reward. All the more fortunate need do at this point in time is sit back and cash the dividend checks. No, the big push has to be for the second group, who have received blessed little from the RP and our incumbent president. The color theme at the convention last night was definitely red, white and blue, with a little bit of olive drab thrown in for good measure.
We are in frightening times at this juncture in American history. I have never seen the populace of this country so deeply divided and so strongly entrenched ideaologically. I lay blame for this division squarely at the feet of the RP, and the people who turned the word "liberal" into a dirty word. They probably did a great service to the party, but have done a magnificent injustice to our country. The last time this country was so deeply divided was in 1850 just prior to the Civil War.
At this difficult point in time in our country's history, we should ALL be pulling together to meet our world challenges, not continue to drive a wedge between two virtually evenly-sized groups of American voters. Terrorism is a global issue, we should be actively seeking global support and working with our allies to meet the challenge everywhere, all the time, and together, not alone. Our incumbent President's record on this issue isn't just bad, it's pathetic and completely lacking in reality. We >CAN NOT< defeat terrorists alone. I can't be done. It can never be done that way.
As I look back on the past four years, I find myself worse off then I was before. My job supporting an active military acquisition program has been cut substantially in funding to support the war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq. Housing prices have reached stratospheric levels, and now that I am preparing to start a family, wonder whether I'll be able to afford a home. Our country is deeper in debt than it's ever been in its entire history, making me wonder whether Social Security and Medicare will be there to support me when I leave the work force. And a large part of my income goes into a 401K plan, but the stock market hasn't done much to increase my fortunes. (If only our company invested in Halliburton.....).
No, I don't think I can do the Republican thing this time around. I didn't see anything last night that convinced me MY life will improve with "four more years". Candidly, I can't afford to lose any more than I've lost already.
Now maybe other Joe Sixpacks out there are doing better than I am, I don't know. I'd like to know how, but every time I ask, I seem to get the "God and country" thing from these folks. Well that aint putting food on my table, and it's certainly not going to keep me warm and secure in my old age. I think it's time to consider a different option. If all the RP has to offer me is religion (which I already got) and patriotic symbolism (does this require a party affiliation?), then I think I'll cast my vote on the other side of the fence.
Posted by: Hondo at September 3, 2004 08:51 AMYours is a very interesting fallacy. GOP's strategic theme is not about Iraq, but the
media's un-appreciated tagline of Senator Miller's speech: putting family over party. Voters are starting to pay attention, and they get it if the media does not, i.e., illustrated in Frank Luntz's very un-reported polling
results last night which reveals a higher than expected swing from Kerry to Bush among "un-decideds." Measured by our
government's response to terrorism; a changing
world economy; social and civic concerns; voters feel safer under Bush than Kerry. We like and trust George W. Bush whom we trust on the mound.
Senators Kerry and Edwards are great talkers.
Since Boston, though, most of us have come to realize you have to discount 20 to 30 percent of anything the Senators say. And it's not always easy to tell when they will start becoming disingenuous. Truly works in progress.
