What Bush Must Do
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:51:28 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
  2004 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
  What Bush Must Do
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: What Bush Must Do  (Read 5328 times)
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 19, 2004, 05:59:42 PM »

A lot of things are out of Bush's control: jobs, Hunt for bin Laden, etc...  And his decisions of the last 6 weeks (immigration, moon & mars, increased funding for arts, etc) have torque the GOP base as well as swing voters.

Without any huge geopolitical/economic event (meaning if things stay basically the way they are), Bush could very well loose in Nov.

Bush must go on the offensive.  Obviously Bush must use his $150M to define Kerry (still relatively unknown) before Kerry has a chance to define himself.  Aside from that, the number one thing he must do is regain the confidence and strong support of the GOP base.

In order to regain that support, Bush MUST push for an Amendment banning gay marriage.  Not only will it rally the GOP base, it will also form a wedge issue between Kerry and majority of voters.  (Not to mention it will keep Moore on the sidelines.)

Pushing for an Amendment probably nets Bush 2-3% in the general election, huge considering that translates into a 4-6% swing.  Failing to push for an Amendment could cost Bush 2% in the other direction due to lack of support from the GOP base.  And if Moore enters the race, that 2% turns into 4-5%!

Barring the capture of bin Laden, Bush has a good chance to lose if he does not push this amendment.

---

The second thing Bush could do is have Rhenq retire from the SCOTUS and nominate Estrada.

Not only does this rally the GOP base and drive a wedge between the Dem Senators (including Kerry) and Hispanics, it also is of little risk due to the outrage of the American public towards liberal courts pushing gay marriage.

This would add 2-3% to Bush’s totals in NV, NM, AR, & FL…plus whatever bump from energizing the GOP base.

All other things remaining basically the same, pushing an Amendment and nominating Estrada takes Bush’s chances from 55/45 to 80/20.  
Logged
JohnFKennedy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,448


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2004, 06:03:35 PM »

would you agree with a ban on homosexual marriages then?
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2004, 06:05:51 PM »

would you agree with a ban on homosexual marriages then?
I'm pretty sure he would.

thanks for registereing at my board Smiley
Logged
JohnFKennedy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,448


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2004, 06:07:10 PM »

np Wink
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2004, 06:12:58 PM »

would you agree with a ban on homosexual marriages then?

I would rather not have to bother with the issue, much like I wouldn't want to bother cross-examining Clinton's remarks regarding the definition of the word "is".

There is not a lot of glory in lowering yourself into a sewer in order to fight the good fight.

But, yes, I would support the amendment.
Logged
JohnFKennedy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,448


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2004, 06:14:20 PM »

ok, I am not going to argue, I just wanted your opinion.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2004, 06:17:26 PM »

ok, I am not going to argue, I just wanted your opinion.

thanks, this thread wasn't intended to debate the merits of the issue.  Differring opinions as to how the issues would impact the race is what I was looking for.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2004, 06:20:41 PM »

I am not sure, I don't really feel up to the task of gauging the general American opinion...my spontaneous reaction is that people who care a lot about this issue won't be swing voters if you know what I mean? It might turn off some socially liberal independents, but energize the GOP base. It would also energize the Dem base, but they shouldn't really need it by now. It very much depends on the spin, who looks more extremist. I think it could hurt Bush, but only if Kerry managed to spin it right, which he might well fail at.
Logged
Beefalow and the Consumer
Beef
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,123
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.77, S: -8.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2004, 06:30:00 PM »

A lot of things are out of Bush's control: jobs,

So Bush has no control over monetary policy and economic stimulus?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So Bush has no control over the CIA?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quit listening to Michael Savage.  No conservative is going to vote to thow out an incumbent Republican unless he's REALLY screwed things up.  Yeah, I can see that a less enthused conservative base may stay home on Nov. 2, but that's not going to make a bit of difference in Flyover Country.  It MAY cost him Florida, I'll grant you, but going on a social crusade WILL cost him Ohio and Missouri.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The last thing Bush needs is to start looking like a hardline radical rightist.  Yes, most Americans are against gay marriage, but such a push by Bush will make him look like a reactionary with a out-of-control social agenda.  Americans don't want to hear about social agendas (left or right) when jobs, national security, and education are all much more pressing issues.

Logged
ncjake
Rookie
**
Posts: 125


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2004, 06:43:01 PM »

A lot of things are out of Bush's control: jobs,

So Bush has no control over monetary policy and economic stimulus?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So Bush has no control over the CIA?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quit listening to Michael Savage.  No conservative is going to vote to thow out an incumbent Republican unless he's REALLY screwed things up.  Yeah, I can see that a less enthused conservative base may stay home on Nov. 2, but that's not going to make a bit of difference in Flyover Country.  It MAY cost him Florida, I'll grant you, but going on a social crusade WILL cost him Ohio and Missouri.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The last thing Bush needs is to start looking like a hardline radical rightist.  Yes, most Americans are against gay marriage, but such a push by Bush will make him look like a reactionary with a out-of-control social agenda.  Americans don't want to hear about social agendas (left or right) when jobs, national security, and education are all much more pressing issues.



55% favor the constitutional amendement banning gay marriage. http://www.stats.org/record.jsp?type=logentry&ID=158. It would help him if he pulls the gay marriage card. I would hardly call somebodya hardline radical for supporting something the majority of americans support
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 19, 2004, 06:51:01 PM »
« Edited: February 19, 2004, 06:54:31 PM by jmfcst »

So Bush has no control over monetary policy and economic stimulus?...So Bush has no control over the CIA?

Monetary policy?  Absolutely not, that's the job of the independent Federal Reserve.

Economic stimulus?  Yes, and the second wave is about to hit in the form of rebate checks of taxes paid during the first 6 months of 2003 due to the fact the tax cut passed in the summer of 2003 was retroactive to the beginning of 2003....but Bush can't force companies to hire workers, even though US corporate profits are at record highs.

Control over the CIA?  The capture of bin Ladin will require hard work along with a bit of luck, the latter of which is out of Bush's hands.

---

Quit listening to Michael Savage.

Why do you idiots proclaim to know what I listen to?  FYI, I have two news stations programmed into my radio:  NPR and Pacifica Radio.

---

The last thing Bush needs is to start looking like a hardline radical rightist.  

Defining marriage as between one man and one woman is far from radical.  In fact, it is the law of all 50 states.  A law, BTW, that 2/3 of Americans agree with.

---

Is there something about having a green state moniker that makes people think they know the news sources that everyone else listens to?
Logged
JNB
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 395


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2004, 06:57:25 PM »



  MO and OH are actually quite conservative on social issues, it is social issues that have swung both of these states congressional delgations and state legislatures from being solidly Democratic in the 80s to GOP majority today.
Logged
JNB
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 395


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 19, 2004, 07:03:19 PM »


   Bush is no Reagan, the actions of the last couple of months makes this quite clear. Where Reagan knew how to communicate with the average voter, had a solid hard core base of support and took his message to the people, Bush seems to be in a bubble informed by the WSJ editorial pages and a few like minded publications. Bush also seems to be clueless at reaching outside of his geographical base, while Reagan was constantly on the stump in many different regions, such as Boston to Dallas, Baltimore to Chicago when he took his case to the people.

   The actions of Bush in the last 2 months has severely damaged him in the GOP base. Die hard conservatives I know are disgusted with his spending and immigration plan, all say they will still vote for him in Nov, but a very lax kind of support. Bush has to repair the damage he has done to the conservative base first, and that is somthing Reagan never had to deal with.
Logged
California Dreamer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 19, 2004, 08:41:25 PM »

the premise of this thread is: Bush is failing so use gay bashing to change the subject

...nice


However, unlike 1988 when his father used Willy Horton to scare white america that Dukakis is going to send convicted black men to their subburbs to rape their daughters, I dont think the middle can get all that riled up one way or the other over gay marraige. Gay marraige just isnt that much of a threat to the 'middle' (this is why many of them support civil unions but dont support gay marraige).

...but by all means I hope he does this, because it will show how much of a 'uniter not a divider' he is.
Logged
Beefalow and the Consumer
Beef
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,123
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.77, S: -8.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: February 19, 2004, 08:43:09 PM »


Why do you idiots proclaim to know what I listen to?  

Well, the whole "Bush must energize his ultra-conservative base with lots of ultra-conservative things or the nation will be destroyed by President Kerry" idea is something that Savage has been crying about for weeks now.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeesh.  That's enough to drive anyone to the Far Right.  *I* do listen to Savage.  I think he's a raving looney, but he's an entertaining raving looney.  I have to mix in some Savage, Reagan, and O'Reilly with my NPR or I'll lose my grip on reality.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I didn't say it *would* be radical.  I said it would make him *look* radical.  Because the propaganda war over this issue has been won.

Just as a side note, to let you know my personal feelings here... doesn't it strike anyone as supreme arrogance that we, in the 21st Century, can redefine marriage to mean something that it never was in the thousands of years that it's existed?  Are we smarter than the many generations before us, to whom it never occurred to define as marriage the union between two men or two women?

Just some food for thought...
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: February 19, 2004, 09:01:35 PM »

Beef--

Did you (or if you are too young to have been politically cognizant then, would you have) made the same argument in the 1960's about civil rights? It's always been done that way, people in the past had no problem with it, so let's not rock the boat? What about interracial marriage, which was also illegal in many places until the 1960s? One could argue that this was changing the traditional definition of marriage that had existed for a long time, too.

Society progresses. People keep thinking of things that they never thought of before. That's why new products keep getting invented. Would you argue that we shouldn't use new technology, because since no one thought of it before, we shouldn't use it now? It was good enough in the old days, so let it be? No. That's not how society works. People always keep thinking of new things to do, new things to try, new concepts. Nothing is constant except change. That's not to say that change is always good, by any means. Change can be bad, for sure. However, it is wrong to take a biased view against change, one must debate the merits of the change itself.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: February 19, 2004, 09:06:00 PM »

Beef--

Did you (or if you are too young to have been politically cognizant then, would you have) made the same argument in the 1960's about civil rights? It's always been done that way, people in the past had no problem with it, so let's not rock the boat? What about interracial marriage, which was also illegal in many places until the 1960s? One could argue that this was changing the traditional definition of marriage that had existed for a long time, too.

Huh?  Christianity has spoken for racial equality and even interracial marriage for 2000 years.  Where have you been?
Logged
aburr
Rookie
**
Posts: 23


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: February 19, 2004, 09:34:56 PM »

What happens if Democrats also start hitting below the belt?

They could attach an amendment that could outlaw divorce, another requiring the government to provide healthcare to all uninsured married individuals, or to propose a war tax and a national debt tax for all unmarried individuals to pay.

Then we can have a real debate.

If Bush really wants to win over a solid majority of the popular vote he would support John Breaux's healthcare proposal. Increasing numbers of babyboomers and blue collar workers must survive without basic medical coverage. But by embracing such a plan Bush could allow workers to move more easily from job to job without going broke by paying for COBRA. The plan would give these people a huge hand up rather than a hand out, and it would eliminate healthcare and economy completely as issues for Democrats to use against the Republicans! Even more importantly, such a move could win over 5-10% of the votes that Bush lost in 2000.

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=103&subid=111&contentid=251186

Finally Bush could take the Iraq issue of the table by using these forces to go after al-Qaeda, and removing the danger of our troops being used as walking targets for radical political factions in Iraq. This could bring in an additional 5-10% of the vote. Finally outlawing the practice of outsourcing, along with cracking down on corporations and employers that hire illegal immigrants over unemployed American workers..this could bring in another 5% of the vote on top of what he won last time.

I suppose the real question is..how much does he want those votes?
Logged
Beefalow and the Consumer
Beef
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,123
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.77, S: -8.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: February 19, 2004, 09:42:11 PM »

Beef--

Did you (or if you are too young to have been politically cognizant then, would you have) made the same argument in the 1960's about civil rights? It's always been done that way, people in the past had no problem with it, so let's not rock the boat?

I can understand people trying to link civil rights with the public acceptance of homosexuality - the gay rights movement has been very successful in framing the public discourse in terms of "homosexuals are a type of people who are born a certain way, and it's wrong to punish people for what they are."  I don't believe "homosexuals" are a type of person.  Homosexuality isn't some new thing, and people who prefer homosexual sex are not a class of people deserving protection.  People have had homosexual urges for all of recorded history, but the idea that having those leanings makes you something different is a cover up for a deeper agenda.  

This agenda is the abolishment of all restrictions on sexual expression, and the encouragement of a hedonistic imparative.  Traditional family, social institutions such as marriage, religion... all these things must either be done away with, or changed to suit the needs of this agenda.  If it feels good, do it!  Everyone's a pervert!  Find your own kink and explore it to your heart's content.  Think I'm imagining things?  Try reading Dan Savage of Savage Love (not to be confused with Michael Savage).  That is what the gay rights movement and homosexual marriage are really about.  Leftist squeamishness about civil rights (which is justifiable - racism and bigotry sucks!) was just something the homosexual agenda found was easily exploitable.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Racial inequality and segragation was an evil thing, but it was not rooted in thousands of years of human history.  I don't recall anywhere outside of the Jim Crow South any stipulation that a marriage had to be between two people of the same skin pigment.  If you know of any instances of this, please point them out to me.  

Bans on "interracial marriage" were a peculiarity.  But marriage between a man and a woman has always always always always been the norm.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, not at all.  But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that just because we have a few new gadgets, that makes us superior to those who came before us.  Society progresses in some ways, but do we really progress in wisdom?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, but there are some things that should never change.  Children knowing they belong to a family with a mother and a father who will keep them safe and love them.  This should not change.  Knowing that there is more to this world than the next paycheck, or the next good feeling, and that no matter what wonders we may create, that it will all pass away, and we must ground ourselves in something that is real, this should not change.  Otherwise, what hope is there for us - just a lot of mortal men and women scrambling after a lot of nothing, living for no one but ourselves.

Sorry, I didn't mean to ramble on like this.  Suddenly I had this thought in my head of Brave New World, where "mother" is a dirty word and children are taught to play sex games... and I thought about how we're really not far off.
Logged
Beefalow and the Consumer
Beef
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,123
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.77, S: -8.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: February 19, 2004, 09:49:17 PM »

Beef--

Did you (or if you are too young to have been politically cognizant then, would you have) made the same argument in the 1960's about civil rights? It's always been done that way, people in the past had no problem with it, so let's not rock the boat? What about interracial marriage, which was also illegal in many places until the 1960s? One could argue that this was changing the traditional definition of marriage that had existed for a long time, too.

Huh?  Christianity has spoken for racial equality and even interracial marriage for 2000 years.  Where have you been?


Where in Nym90's post does he talk about Christianity?
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: February 19, 2004, 09:55:45 PM »

Where in Nym90's post does he talk about Christianity?

He doesn't, but he states that racism was the norm of the past and that interracial marriage changed the traditional definition of marriage, and therefore gay marriage is just another link in the chain of change.....NONE of which is true.
Logged
Nation
of_thisnation
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,555
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: February 19, 2004, 10:25:16 PM »

The problem, as I see it, is that civil unions still do not grant all the same rights as an actual marriage. If you throw social security and all that jazz towards civil unions (remember that gays make up a small percentage of the US population and I doubt all of them will rush to be married), then you can simply drop the term "marriage", and everyone's happy.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: February 20, 2004, 04:21:39 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bribe Roy Moore?
Logged
Ben.
Ben
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,249


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: February 20, 2004, 05:29:27 AM »

I would see the big advantage of a constitutional amendment asserting that marriage is between a man and a woman as being to reassure the Conservative base and dissuade Roy Moore from taking on the “Nader mantel”… however as to such an amendments effect on the general electorate I doubt it will massively boost Bush’s support, while most voters oppose the idea of gay marriage most see no reason to actively legislate against and are uncomfortable with the idea of doing so… the simple fact is barring same sex couples from getting married (as opposed to civil unions) and introducing a constitutional amendment that would ban it are very different issues…both Edwards and Kerry oppose Gay marriage however both oppose an amendment to ban it under the constitution… any attempt to alter the constitution to ban gay marriage could well backfire and give increased credence to the portrayal of Bush as a radical conservative or alternatively such a move could smack of desperation…
Logged
elcorazon
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,402


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: February 20, 2004, 10:12:51 AM »

Except that there are many many gay adoptions already.  Marriage is not a prerequisite for that.  Oddly there has been very little coverage of any opposition to gay adoptions.  I know many gay couples with adopted children.  My daughter's girl scout leader was a gay man with 2 adopted daughters.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.067 seconds with 15 queries.