Listen up White House, here's how to win

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by AAAintheBeltway, Mar 4, 2004.

  1. Say what you will about Dick Morris, but the man knows how to win elections. Here's his take on this one:

    "Punditspeak Dick Morris
    HOW BUSH CAN DESTROY KERRY FAST



    March 4, 2004

    Dick Morris
    The Political Life

    How Bush can destroy Kerry fast

    The Democratic Party chose a nominee Tuesday who probably cannot win the White House in November.

    In opting for Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and turning down Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, Democrats have broken from the pragmatism and moderation that dominated their party’s profile under Bill Clinton and Al Gore in the 1990s.

    Their party has now moved back to the liberal extremism of Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis that characterized the 1980s — with the same predictable result.

    It is now up to President Bush to take advantage of this by implementing a three-part strategy in the coming campaign.

    First, his paid media must attack Kerry’s voting record to define him as an ultraliberal. There are likely those in the White House who are urging Bush to run positive ads. That won’t work. Even if positive ads produce a small, short-term bounce for Bush, events soon will come to dominate, and the impact of those ads likely will evaporate.

    But if Bush uses the next eight months to educate voters on Kerry’s opposition to the death penalty, his vote against the 1991 Iraq war, his poor attendance record in the past year and his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act, he could put this election away by defining Kerry right now.

    Kerry has not been tested. He was nominated by running in the shadow of Howard Dean. Throughout the fall, all eyes were on the former Vermont governor. When he crashed and burned in late January, Kerry, as the liberal heir apparent, inherited his disappointed voters.

    Meanwhile, Edwards never got the money or the momentum to run a decent race against Kerry because Gen. Wesley Clark — remember him? — crowded the field. By the time Edwards got Kerry one on one, the number of primary states stretched his resources to the point where he could not afford it.

    But now, Kerry is a fair and inviting target. Bush has to zero in on him and push him to the left right now. Whether Kerry ever consorted with Jane Fonda is beside the point, but Kerry’s voting record is not.

    Second, while his anti-Kerry ads are running, the president himself needs to make Americans understand that the war on terror is still atop our national agenda. He needs to elevate the sense of threat so that his advantage as a war president begins to count.

    Kerry has also made a big mistake in backing the criminal-justice approach to terrorism, seeking to transform the war on terror into a series of DEA-style busts. Voters recognize that Bush is right when he says that this is a war against nation-states that sponsor terror, not a hunt for criminal bands in the mountains.

    Pundits say that Kerry’s admirable war record makes national security irrelevant as a campaign issue. They couldn’t be more wrong. His efforts to defund the CIA and his opposition to the funding of the Iraq war are all key targets for Bush.

    Some of those who have Bush’s ear may urge him to speak more about the economy and less about terror. This would be a big mistake. Bush must use his profile as president to make Americans understand how crucial staying the course in the war on terror is to our safety. Bush has lost a lot of support among women with the war in Iraq. But he can restore that support by stressing the need to make America safe from terror attacks and to stress how important it is to stick to this task.

    Finally, Bush must begin to pull American troops out of Iraq after the handover in June. He should leave a sufficient number there, in safe, secluded bases, to intervene if the bad guys try to come back in power. But the daily drip of casualties must end.

    President Johnson kept the troops in Vietnam and lost. President Nixon was withdrawing them, and he won.

    If Bush’s ads and surrogates savage Kerry while the president raises the profile of the war on terror and his foreign-policy team brings the troops home, this race could be over long before either Bush or Kerry "
     
  2. sorry, last paragraph got cut off:

    If Bush’s ads and surrogates savage Kerry while the president raises the profile of the war on terror and his foreign-policy team brings the troops home, this race could be over long before either Bush or Kerry is officially designated as the standard bearers of his respective party.
     
  3. Yes lets manipulate troop movement as a means to get elected.

    Anything to win an election, right?

    Do you really see this as leadership and service to America?

    Bush wages an unncessary war against an extremely weak opponent, a war he knows he can win easily with little loss of American life.

    Bush increased government spending that favors the profits of government contractors like Haliburton, etc.

    Bush cuts taxes that benefit the wealthy.

    Bush's chief supporters become wealthier during his term.

    Bush brings the troops home just before the election.

    Bush claims victory.

    Bush lowers the price of oil before the election from the current and most recent peak, while his buddies in Texas have made a killiing selling their oil into these high prices. (look at a chart of the price of oil during Bush's election---during a period where economic growth slowed down, when airlines used less fuel, etc.)

    It wouldn't take a conspiracy theorist to figure out what Bush's real vision and agenda are is.

    Too much coincidence not to be part of a grand plan.



     
  4. "President Johnson kept the troops in Vietnam and lost."

    Not true.

    Johnson did not lose. He never lost a Presidential election after he became President.

     
  5. What is so frighteningly sad is that the answer to your question is "yes" for so many misguided citizens.

    The biggest supporters of Bush seem to be the exact people who's interests Bush could not care less about. (Reminds me of Nixon's flag wearing "love it or leave it" hardhats).

    Is there a big mystery as to why the states that were carried by Bush in 2000 are the states with a lower general level of education?

    No....and now it will be even easier. It is easy to get the uneducated to rally behind a campaign of mock patriotism. If you are not for the President, and everything he says, you are not a "patriot". And Bush (his machine) is very aware of this. His approach is "if you are not with me, you are against me (un-patriotic)". This sold well in Germany in the 30's. Good proven politics I guess.

    This doesn't fly were the level of education is higher. Mass, NY, Ca, Ill, Conn., Pa, Michigan, NJ, Wisconsin, etc.

    No mystery at all.

    A President who prides himself in not reading newspapers is just the kind of guy who appeals to the electorate that casts their votes his way.


    Peace,
    :)RS
     
  6. Bush is making appeals to the Nascar dads now, another group that typically is less educated.

    What next? Bush tells the voters he plans to appoint Vince McMahon to some position in order to appeal to the WWF crowd?

    The dumbing down of America....

     
  7. Little bit of elitism peeking out there, RS. Only dummies vote for Bush?

    I am reminded of the incomparable William F. Buckley's bon mot," I would rather be governed by the first 100 names in the Boston telephone directory than the Harvard faculty."
     
  8. Perhaps guilty as charged to some degree. Certainly this is not a black and white issue. But statistically, do you believe that the more educated vote for Republicans? Or for Democrats?

    Peace,
    :)RS
     
  9. The answers to this and many other similar sociopolitical questions can be found in James Q Wilson's intro to government and politics (Harvard University Press :D )

    But if you don't have the book, the answer is yes -- education does liberalize voters.
     
  10. Maverick74

    Maverick74

    Is there a big mystery as to why the states that were carried by Bush in 2000 are the states with a lower general level of education?

    No....and now it will be even easier. It is easy to get the uneducated to rally behind a campaign of mock patriotism. If you are not for the President, and everything he says, you are not a "patriot". And Bush (his machine) is very aware of this. His approach is "if you are not with me, you are against me (un-patriotic)". This sold well in Germany in the 30's. Good proven politics I guess.

    This doesn't fly were the level of education is higher. Mass, NY, Ca, Ill, Conn., Pa, Michigan, NJ, Wisconsin, etc.


    Wow, this has got to be one of the most arrogant statements I have ever heard on ET. The reason why education is a mess in this country RS is because of your left leaning NEA.

    As far as who the smarter people vote for, well let's see here. Since most CEO's, most successful business people, most successful self employed people, most private business owners vote republican and most poor minorities, union people, dead beats on the welfare rolls, unemployed smucks vote for democrats, I'll let you make that decision. It looks like a no brainer to me.
     
    #10     Mar 4, 2004