The New and Improved Democratic Candidate Poll

Reelect Bush/ Cheney

Bomb Syria and Libya a couple days before election day. GOP picks up 10 more senate seats.

 

I believe the chink in Bush's armor is his failure to handle domestic affairs and address fiscal responsibility. Tax cuts and upbeat speeches at manufacturing plants doesnt quite cut it. Remember the tax rebate ($300-$600) we had in 2001 that was supposed to inject enthusiam and encourage consumer spending and confidence in the economy? That was nearly 2 years and 1 military encounter ago. Economy is still stagnant at best. In my area of the country manufacturing jobs are being eliminated at a frightening pace (some 1500 in the last year in a county of 60K).
People who have built a lifestyle on earnings of $15-20/hr and kept the economy moving ahead are now coping with $7-10/hr and just making ends meet. No new cars, refrigerators, carpeting or book club memberships or health club memberships and on and on. So what is the one action that must take place to turn around the economy? Employers hiring just to create a consumer public that has disposable income to purchase more goods and services or consumers buying to create a demand for products and services that will create jobs? Its all supply and demand.

 

Check-out the cover story on the latest issue of Time Magazine (Dated May 19, 2003, I believe). A great commentary on why Democrates have lost recent elections, by Joe Klein.

 

I've read the article, and have to admit it's right-on; the biggest problem facing Democrats right now is that they're placing themselves in the position of arguing for pessimism and austerity, and that's no way to win an election. Very few people outside of the extreme liberal wing actually hate Bush; I'm a liberal, and I certainly don't.

I've always straddled the fence on Gulf War II because I can see a strong "pro" case, enough to create at least an element of reasonable doubt: the sanctions under Hussein's "guns not butter" leadership claimed hundreds of times more civilian casualties than the war did, Clinton sent a substantial number of lower-precision cruise missiles to Iraq during the 90s which no doubt contributed to that figure, and if that's not enough, they're finding mass graves and torture chambers now. As for the corporate greed issue, I remember Clinton signing the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the single most influential piece of corporate-merger legislation I've ever seen. As for the Patriot Act, that's also par for the course; I see no reason to believe that a Democratic president wouldn't have been just as likely to sign it. And on top of everything else, Bush comes across as a sincerely nice guy who believes he's doing the right thing--and nobody can fault the credentials of his cabinet.

But there are areas where Bush is vulnerable. His Reaganesque tax cut plans are creating Reaganesque deficits; even his own administration won't argue with that. Contrary to campaign promises, he has not really done much to guarantee social security and medicare. Contrary to campaign promises, he has not really done much to improve the health insurance situation. There are criticisms that can be made about the way he has handled specific foreign policy problems--like his decision to sign a budget that grants exactly $0 to rebuild Afghanistan. (I can see a "we shouldn't have to pay for it" argument, but our troops are there, and so is the heart of whatever's left of al-Qaeda.) Incidentally, "support the troops" clashes with Bush's $15 billion cut in veteran's benefits, used to fund a small percentage of the tax cut. And when all that's done with, we also have a president who will be stuffing the Supreme Court bench and sees nothing wrong with Charles Pickering's uhm-sixties-activism, or Rick Santorum's bedroom inquisitions. And that's assuming no major scandals crop up, though there's strong evidence that at least a few will by November 2004. So Bush is certainly vulnerable on some issues, and probably less competent than many of his opponents--but that doesn't make him evil or stupid, and campaigns that run on the assumption that it does will not appeal to moderate voters.

No candidate is going to win on a "Bush is Bad" platform alone; it's going to have to be "Bush is Good But Making Mistakes, and I Can Do Better." Clinton had this base covered in 1992 by just plain being nice to Bush 90% of the time, and subtly suggesting how he'd do better the other 10% of the time. Democratic candidates will be equally well-served with an assertive and optimistic campaign this time around--and a candidate who brings in positive ideas that people can weigh against Bush's positive ideas, rather than a slew of jittery criticisms. It's time to crank up the Fleetwood Mac again, fellas.

Fortunately (from a liberal perspective, anyway), there are indications that the DLC is already taking that route:
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/05/16/bush_war/index.html


Cheers,

 

Speaking of Bush's goodness...