Link Newsview: Bush's Problems Has GOP Worried By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer 4 minutes ago WASHINGTON - As funny as this may sound, President Bush misses John Kerry. In the 2004 campaign, Bush sought to make the election a referendum on the Democratic senator's character and leadership skills rather than his own record as president. Now that he has nobody to run against, every day is a referendum on Bush. And it's taking a toll. ADVERTISEMENT Bush's approval ratings are among the lowest of his presidency. Voters are growing increasingly uneasy over the war in Iraq and the economy. His signature domestic issue, Social Security reform, was received coolly by Congress and the public. Some Republicans are raising the prospect that Bush could cost them control of Congress. What happened in seven months? One explanation is that he lost his punching bag — a political rival who, once pummeled, helped make Bush look good by comparison. On Election Day, a majority of voters were concerned about the war in Iraq and the economy. But the president and his bare-knuckles political team — with some help from Kerry — convinced enough voters that the Democrat was an indecisive, flip-flopper who might do more harm than good. Voters might not agree with his policies, Bush said, but at least they knew where he stood. Now, with nobody else to blame, Bush stands alone. He can't deflect voter concerns about the economy and other pressing domestic matters. With the death toll in Iraq pushed above 1,700, more than double the number of a year ago, it's no longer a choice between Bush and Kerry. It's Bush's war. Period. "There's just a general angst right now," said Rep. Tom Cole (news, bio, voting record), R-Okla. "He's paying for his Iraq policy more now than he was before the election. People know we have to win, but they're not very happy about it. So he has a lot of problems and, frankly, nobody to blame them on. "And the Democrats are in the unique position of not having to propose anything," Cole said. Bush, like other second-term presidents trying to delay lame-duck status, is up against his own record, in a sense, and that's seldom a welcome situation. "In a vacuum, all the dissatisfaction is put on the White House," said GOP consultant Charles Black, who argued that Bush should steer more attention to upbeat economic numbers. "When you're in a campaign, people have to make a choice. It's either A or B. Easy enough," said Ken Khachigian, who served as a strategist for President Reagan. "It gets more complicated after the campaign." Khachigian said Bush could seize the initiative by delivering a speech to Congress on Iraq. Black and Khachigian said Bush may have an easier time as the 2006 congressional elections approach, because he can contrast his record with Democrats in Congress. Bush seems to be warming to the idea of finding a new punching bag. Addressing GOP donors on Tuesday night, the president said of Democratic lawmakers: "On issue after issue, they stand for nothing except obstruction, and this is not leadership. It is the philosophy of the stop sign, the agenda of the roadblock, and our country and our children deserve better." Some Republicans say they fear that Bush and his advisers are ignoring the signs of voter discontent, moving too slowly to adjust their strategies. They also blame GOP congressional leaders for focusing on legislation that seems to help a select few while making no progress on issues that matter to many. These Republicans include lawmakers and consultants who are allies of the White House. Most spoke only privately, fearing reprisal from the administration. "They might not realize what a challenge we face here," said Joe Gaylord, a Republican consultant close to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. "The challenge is they're in campaign mode. Americans can be patient for a while, but when they see nothing going on, they get to wondering, 'What's going on here?'" Khachigian said Bush is being worn down by stiff Democratic opposition and by his bullish agenda. "In a campaign, you're less likely to put up provocative ideas, you use much more global messaging and fewer specifics," he said. "What he's paying the price for now is being specific and provocative, especially on Social Security." Cole compared Bush to President Truman. "He was pretty farseeing. What you liked about Truman is what in the short term makes it politically challenging, and I'd say the same thing about Bush," Cole said. "He likes to make tough decisions." Cole's analogy may not be comforting to Republicans. For all his tough stands and history's opinion, Truman left office with low poll ratings after the 1952 elections. And his Democrats lost control of Congress and the White House. ___ EDITOR'S NOTE — Ron Fournier has covered national politics for The Associated Press since 1992.
Good article, but I wouldn't compare Dubya to Harry Truman. To me he is a combination of Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter...arrogant as hell, and completely overwhelmed by the job.
The next punching bag will be Howard Dean. What's the over/under on how many times Faux News shows the famous "Dean Scream" video from now until the midterm elections?
Forgot that one. I agree. I really don't think teh Dean issue has enough legs. Wouldn't it be great if they shot their load going after Dean as a punching bag, or Hiliary or gay marriage, or evolution or prayer in the school or affirmative action or whatever and finally the electorate paid no attention? It would be a new day in America. The problem is that their focus groups are pretty good and they always go after some hot button issue that keeps the yahoos engaged for awhile.
The Federal Judge confirmation hearings if all else fails. That supposedly got the disgruntled moderates to back him last year.
The GOP doesn't have to worry about sh*t. They've got everything going their way right now, including a pretty united party, with strong positions on tough issues. Meanwhile, the Dems are led by a overly animated Howard Dean, who doesn't speak for a lot of the high ranking guys in the party. Until the Democrats can find a common voice that can win them some Southern states, the GOP will squeak by in every election. The 2000 and 2004 elections proved that you can't get swept in the South and still win.
Sadly, I have to agree. As long as the South keeps voting for the GOP, they've got the White House. The only hope for the Dems to win the White House is to have a candidate from a Southern or Western state run for the presidency. Any Dem candidate from the Northeast is DOA, like Kerry. I voted for Kerry, but predicted that he wouldn't win. Listen up Dems, avoid the Northeast in 2008. The Northeast will still vote Dem if you go with a Southern/Western candidate.
I think you are partly right...The "Solid South" is going to be swayed by Gays, Guns and God for the foreseeable future as hot-button voting tendencies confirm. However, the Democrats have real opportunities in the "tweener" states that are more interested in domestic policy issues: Kentucky, Arkansas, Tennessee and of course Florida. If gains can be made in these states in 2006, then secured in 2008 along with Ohio--the Republican dominance can be severely turned back. I know Dean is a popular punching bag right now, but party leaders at the local level are very impressed with his commitment and agenda. He has been meeting them on a "grass roots" level like how he moved his base in a bid for the Democratic Nomination in 2004. If Democrats start small in the south and middle America then they can pyramid local elected officials into Sate followed by National representation. I think he is far more savvy on building a broad consensus at the local level than he is getting credit for.
The problem with negative campaigning is that once you achieve power you have to do something or you set yourself up to be negativly campaigned against. Rove and his minions will claim that they are being obstructed by the evil democrats, but that's a hard claim to swallow when they control The House, The Senate, The Executive and more of the Judiciary than they will admit (IE the recent medical mar1juana decision). As much as the Repubs should be an easy target, the dems still look as inept as monkey with typewriters to me. Howard Dean should have been used as the fringe hatchet man, where he could say provocative and challenging things while leaving the main vein of the party looking thoughtful and statesman like. Where is a democratic leader that people admire?
I totally agree the Dems should be looking at states like CO an AZ for the future of their party. Both those states for a long time have been in the Republican camp but with victories in statewide offices in both states for Dems and a closer than expected showing for Kerry in CO there looks to be a possibility for an opening. Also as those states become more urban, along with NV, the issues there are starting to favor Democrats.
America in enslaved by two evils- Republican party and Democratic party Bow your knees at one end of the table or the other but bow you must. The only difference in party is which side of the mouth the Global Rulers speak from. So vote, pay your taxes and whatever they are going to require of you, and don't do anything else except complain and harp on each other. You will one day soon be under the United Nations and then Rep. and Dem. will seem silly anyway.
Link Link2 Link3 You haven't been keeping up with our Global big brother. Congressman Ron Paul can answer any question you may have on how close we are to being under the influence... Just send him an email, he will personally respond. I suggest you ask him why he opposes the U.N. He is a brilliant statesman, one of the few left in our government.
So is he saying that our national interests were threatened in Iraq? We didn't listen to the U.N. anyway and invaded. So if we withdraw from the U.N. do we lose our Security Council seat and veto powers? Right now the U.S. can veto and block any security council action just like the French. I still think the U.N. is a joke. I don't know much about Ron Paul, but from those three links he seems like a whacko. How about the billions in dollars being wasted in Iraq. Sort of makes the money we spend on the U.N. seem trivial.
He said just the opposite. Please re-read. He is opposed to the war in Iraq. There is no benefit whatsoever for being on the U.N. security council. Just ignore the U.N.- do what is right. Do what is right for America. The U.N. is no joke it is a socialist tyranny waiting to happen.
