What Bush Must Do

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.  

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

In order to regain that support, Bush MUST push for an Amendment banning gay marriage....The second thing Bush could do is have Rhenq retire from the SCOTUS and nominate Estrada.

from Drudge 3/8/2004: <<SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE: 'CAN'T HELP BUT THINK ABOUT RETIREMENT'>>

...Rove should send me a dollar.