How best to attack Bush now?

[dsm]

With the presidential election coming up next year, there are many things that the Democrats (and others) could bash Bush on in an attempt to win the White House. What do you think would be the most advantageous to begin the attack with now?

[Tricky]

How could you have left out "the environment"?

[Upchurch]

I'd have to say that if you were going to focus only on one of these topics, I'd recommend the Iraqi War. Of them, its really the only one that is directly the responsibility of the president and can't be blamed on previous administrations, factors the president can't control, etc. Even if he had all the best intentions in attacking Iraq, he's still responsible for the consequences of it.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Tricky
How could you have left out "the environment"?

Oooo, yeah! How could've I have... :(

Wonder if you can modify a poll...

[Tmy]

All of the reasons!! A good shotgun affect.

The demos had to bite there tonges during the war (ride out pres wartime patriotism) now that the wartime surge is gone Bush can be attacked wh/o an automatic backlash.

The right controled media likes to pretend that Bush is still untouchable but the truth is hes pissed off alot of americans.

[Crossbow]

Well that is a good list you wrote up.

However, I think the one that will give him more trouble than anything else will be that business about who leaked the name of that CIA field officer.

A rather embarassing thing to happen to the son of a former CIA Director.

[Andonyx]

How 'bout with a stick?

In the meantime I blame Bush for the following:

1. My weight.
2. Marlins winning game 1.
3. Carrott Top's comeback.
4. Germany annexing the sudatenland.
5. Hurricane Isabel.
6. The Pharoahs.
7. Infomercials.
8. Tofu.

Any one of these things is good enough for me not to vote for him.

[fishbob]

You forgot the Planet X option, but I have to agree with Upchurch. The idea for war with Iraq came from the Bush administration.

[arcticpenguin]

Bush will be traveling to Indonesia (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,7505576%255E1702,00.html) soon. The best way to attack him might be to have the Yellow Bamboo guys knock him over without even touching him.

[c0rbin]

3. Carrott Top's comeback.

Hush your mouth!

[Landis]

I voted other because I think you have to combine all of them.

When combined the message says "Throw the Bum out!"

My fellow Californian's, against my better judgment, just fired the Governor of California. It seems there is a strong feeling surging across this nation to just throw all of the Bums out. Tap into that feeling, it's time to fire Bush and all of the entrenched politicians. They've been too busy listening to special interest and they have forgot to tend to the needs of the people.

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by c0rbin


Hush your mouth!

What?

You're not him are you?

Or like his brother or something?

Are you?

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Tricky
How could you have left out "the environment"?
I don't think the environment would be the top card to play. In tough times, the environment takes a back seat to the economy in most voters' minds.

[c0rbin]

Just dial down the center to find out.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

I don't think the environment would be the top card to play. In tough times, the environment takes a back seat to the economy in most voters' minds.
Maybe so, but it is the issue where he has been an unqualified and an unmitigated disaster. Also, it's one of those issues like "motherhood" that everybody is "for", so I think it is potentially a top card. Anything to do with "the war" is going to elicit partisan response, and most people recognize that the economy is cyclic.

[arcticpenguin]

How about his odd combination of a penchant for secrecy and disdain for civil liberties?

The church|state issue is a big one for me, but not for most voters.

Maybe he's not resonsible for the downturn in the economy, but you could argue that his strategy to deal with it is 1) ineffective and 2) a sellout to rich special interests.

[DavidJames]

I don't think concentrating on the war will work. I think many American's believe the good guys won, bad guy is gone (yeah I know we don't know where). It's not another Vietnam, at least at this point and it's pretty much out of sight out of mind.

The environment will never work. It's to easy for the Repubs to paint anyone concerned about the environment as a wacko. Even many of the conservative "skeptics" on this board feel that way.

Terrorism - That's exactly what Bush will use. He will try to scare everyone into thinking we need to stay the course, we're rooting out the bad guys, raise the alert level at strategic times, etc. and unless another strikes hit's us here at home, he will claim his efforts have been successful and whether it's true or not, there is no way to dispute that claim.

It's the economy stupid - barring wars or tragedy's like 9/11, people really don't give a damn about much more than their own lot in life (not sure if I disagree either). Do we have jobs, can we afford a house, sending the kids to college, that kind of thing. Forget about the deficit, people don't care about that either and it's way to complex to relate it to their lives. Tax cuts for the rich, nope, that won't work. Here in America, where everyone can hope and expect to be rich some day, we want to have those tax breaks waiting for us when our shop comes in.

It's the economy!

Edit to add comment about civil liberties. Nope, that won't work either. It's cynical, but I think people will only care about this issue if it hits them, they really don't care if some guy with a foriegn sounding name is locked up in jail for month w/o a reason. Sad, but, I'm afraid, true

[ssibal]

The best reasons to attack Bush are:

1. Faith based innitiatives.
2. Human cloning.
3. Stem cell research.

[Segnosaur]

Just out of curiosity, why do you feel a need to attack him?

I can understand you having different policies and beliefs, but shouldn't you just wait and let the facts speak for themselves?

Or better yet, wait and see who the democratic challenger is before making a decision. (Would you really want to get rid of Bush if the Democrats selected, oh, the reanimated corpse of Stalin to be their presidential nominee?)

[dsm]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Just out of curiosity, why do you feel a need to attack him?


"Attack", as I've used it, is a word open to interpretation. Politics, being what it is, is always going to be "attack" based. Bush's opponents for the presidency cannot simply point out his mistakes, they will have to push those points to ensure they stick in the voter's mind. It's just the way it works...

:(


Or better yet, wait and see who the democratic challenger is before making a decision. (Would you really want to get rid of Bush if the Democrats selected, oh, the reanimated corpse of Stalin to be their presidential nominee?)


Ahh. You make the mistake of believing the Democratic challenger would be the only one in the race. ;)

Besides, framing the reasons why Bush is not liked now will help in deciding what type of alternative is wanted.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by dsm
With the presidential election coming up next year, there are many things that the Democrats (and others) could bash Bush on in an attempt to win the White House. What do you think would be the most advantageous to begin the attack with now?

For completeness, you should have the options:

Don't attack Bush.

Send him to Planet X. <<== This one is especially important. :p

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by fishbob
The idea for war with Iraq came from the Bush administration.

I'll agree with this, provided it's understood that we're talking about the Bush who was elected in 1988.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

I'll agree with this, provided it's understood that we're talking about the Bush who was elected in 1988.

1988... 2000...

What's the difference? Many of the players appear to be the same...

:wink8:

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by dsm
With the presidential election coming up next year, there are many things that the Democrats (and others) could bash Bush on in an attempt to win the White House. What do you think would be the most advantageous to begin the attack with now?

Seriously, the best possible way to beat Bush is to come up with a Democrat candidate who is any damn good.

The 'attack' strategy hasn't been working so well lately, now has it?

[TwoShanks]

The reanimated corpse of Stalin wouldn't be eligible for the presidency, due to foreign nationality.

Zombie Stalin - Gulags and brain-eating, together at last!

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by TwoShanks
The reanimated corpse of Stalin wouldn't be eligible for the presidency, due to foreign nationality.

Zombie Stalin - Gulags and brain-eating, together at last!

Nope. To beat Bush, the Democrat actually has to be good, not merely better than Bush in your low estimation of him.

Remember that nearly half of the American people voted for him, mainly because they couldn't stand Gore.

And Bush is more popular now than then.

If we're going to fantasize about dead people, how about Hubert Humphrey or Adlai Stevenson?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

Remember that nearly half of the American people voted for him, mainly because they couldn't stand Gore.Perhaps, but 500,000+ more people voted for Gore (http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/results/restable.html) because they liked Gore better than Bush.
And Bush is more popular now than then.
True, but approval rating is dropping (http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm).

[corplinx]

I think the whole "selected chimp moron in chief warmonger murderer" stuff still has some freshness left.

[Zep]

With any luck, Jamaa Islamia (Indonesian wing of Al Quaeda) will blow up something or other while he is in Indonesia, and that will make him realise that all he has done so far is stir up a big angry hornet's nest with a VERY short stick.

Any opposition candidates should have a field day with that if they are half smart...

[Huzington]

Option: Terrorism (remember Osama)

He should be attacked for his use of terrorism.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Perhaps, but 500,000+ more people voted for Gore because they liked Gore better than Bush.

Including dead people in Chicago?

I think that in 2000, pretty much everybody was voting against one or the other, except for Nader voters and fringe candidates.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that Bush lost the popular vote. So did Clinton, twice. The last time a presidential candidate got a clear majority of the popular vote, it was Reagan.

Perhaps I ought to mention that the first time I voted for a president, it was Jimmy Carter and I have never voted for a Republican presidential candidate, although I have occasionally voted Republican.

This time is different. If you want a real win for the Democrats, and not another squeaker and maybe a civil war, come up with someone good. It's not enough to prove that Bush is bad.

Hell, bring back Norman Thomas or even old commie Henry Wallace, but spare me the current lefty hysteria that even blames bad weather on the right wing.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Zep
With any luck, Jamaa Islamia (Indonesian wing of Al Quaeda) will blow up something or other while he is in Indonesia, and that will make him realise that all he has done so far is stir up a big angry hornet's nest with a VERY short stick.

Absurd. This is praying for catastrophe. It's like saying Bush is so bad someone should nuke Houston to make him look bad.

And your reasoning is wrong, such a thing will "harden resolve".

I know life long liberals in New York City who are pro-war, if not quite pro-Bush due to the 9-11 massacre. I know no one who has gone the other way, though many "anti-war" types have "hardened resolve" also.

What exactly is wrong with my suggestion of the Democrats coming up with someone really good? It's certainly possible in principle. Is it maybe not possible in practise?

Has the Democratic party become the party of Kool-Aid drinkers? I certainly hope not. I really would like to vote for one.

How about it, fellas? Give me a candidate who offers something beyond being the un-Bush.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

How about it, fellas? Give me a candidate who offers something beyond being the un-Bush.

Hmmm. If the shoe was on the other foot, could you name a candidate who was something beyond being the un-Clinton? Was Bush anything more than being an un-Clinton?

:confused:

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by dsm


Hmmm. If the shoe was on the other foot, could you name a candidate who was something beyond being the un-Clinton? Was Bush anything more than being an un-Clinton?

:confused:

You are right. More precisely Bush was the un-Gore. And although his election was completely constitutional and legal, it was nasty and he didn't win the popular vote, though he came close.

But tempers are higher now due to the closeness of the last election and most especially the war. In 2004 the Democrats had better come up with something better than an un-Bush or there will be real big trouble, no matter who wins.

[dsm]

I think, though, my point stands and it applies to all political races. This is why political races go "negative" so quickly -- the "un-incumbent" message is just far easier to present than the "hey, look at me" message.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by dsm
I think, though, my point stands and it applies to all political races. This is why political races go "negative" so quickly -- the "un-incumbent" message is just far easier to present than the "hey, look at me" message.

Easier to present, sure. But not always a winner. Look at the 2002 congressional races or the California recall.

Hey Democrats! I want to vote for you, really!

Please O please O please, someone good this time.

Please! :mad:

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
[B]
(snip)
I'm perfectly willing to admit that Bush lost the popular vote. So did Clinton, twice. The last time a presidential candidate got a clear majority of the popular vote, it was Reagan.
(snip)


Clinton, IIRC, won a plurality in both of his elections.

Bush did not.

At any rate, not "winning the popular vote" does not affect the legitimacy of the President. Unless this is changed, it only has bearing on how much "political capital" the President needs to spend to do what he wants.

So, written new passages in the Necronomicon recently?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


Clinton, IIRC, won a plurality in both of his elections.

Bush did not.

At any rate, not "winning the popular vote" does not affect the legitimacy of the President. Unless this is changed, it only has bearing on how much "political capital" the President needs to spend to do what he wants.

So, written new passages in the Necronomicon recently?

To your last question, of course not. See my profile, if you haven't already.

Otherwise, yeah, OK. Any thoughts on my suggestion that the Democrats come up with someone any good?

Why is this a show-stopper? Why am I regarded as some rightist theocrat for suggesting it? So far I have mentioned Norman Thomas, Henry Wallace, Adlai Stevenson, and Hubert Humphrey as role models. Were these right-wingers? Or maybe they are by modern lefty hysteric standards?

I've seen a lot of denunciation of Bush on this thread, quite a bit of it justified.

Going negative hasn't been working lately, and praying for catastrophe is despicable.

How about a decent candidate for a change? Is that too much to ask?

[dsm]

What's wrong with the current crop of Democratic hopefuls?

[dsm]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

Easier to present, sure. But not always a winner. Look at the 2002 congressional races or the California recall.


I'm not sure which congressional races you mean, but Arnold's message was rather negative in the California recall (he still hasn't presented any real plan for dealing with the California economy). In fact, the whole California recall was a simple negative attack against Gray Davis.

[Stig]

I voted "Other". A clusterbomb or Cruise missile seems more appropriate.

And for the FBI, I don't actually have either of these things, so don't come hose my house down with machine guns at 5 in the morning.

Stig

(oh I thought the thread said "what should we attack Bush with )

[Tricky]

There is quite a wide variety in the Democratic field, from enraged liberal (Dean) to soldier-diplomat (Clark) to damn-nearly-Republican (Lieberman). Certainly you can find things to complain about for each of these and certainly people will, but you cannot argue that they are no good.

Besides, Shrub has shown that Repbulicans really do not care about qualifications anyway. Maybe it is the Democrats fault that they seem to be hung up on qualifications.

[shemp]

How could you leave out "All of the above"?

But please don't ship him to Planet X, we don't want him.

Maybe we'll get lucky and Gov. Schwarznegger will stage a coup d'etat.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by DavidJames

Edit to add comment about civil liberties. Nope, that won't work either. It's cynical, but I think people will only care about this issue if it hits them, they really don't care if some guy with a foriegn sounding name is locked up in jail for month w/o a reason. Sad, but, I'm afraid, true
Don't discount the civil liberties issue jsut yet. The mayof of Philadelphia does not have a foreign-sounding name. True, he was not actually locked up in jail, but the FBI has admitted bugging his office phone.

Legislation intended to handle terrorism is being used against non-terrorists.

[rikzilla]

You forgot the old "Dig up some bimbos from his past" option.

Find a nice lady who's; "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty." from GWB's past....find his Anita Hill. Or hey, check out his drinking buddies, one of 'em's sure to remember that GWB said something nice about Hitler's dog or something!!!

Absent any of that juicy stuff you guys could just practise striking a loser's dignified pose...like your hero ex-Gov. Davis.

-z

[Random]

Originally posted by rikzilla
You forgot the old "Dig up some bimbos from his past" option.

Find a nice lady who's; "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty." from GWB's past....find his Anita Hill. Or hey, check out his drinking buddies, one of 'em's sure to remember that GWB said something nice about Hitler's dog or something!!!

Absent any of that juicy stuff you guys could just practise striking a loser's dignified pose...like your hero ex-Gov. Davis.

-z

There is more than enough material out there to go after him, but the so-called “Liberal Media” fought tooth and nail to keep any mention of it away from the public during the 2000 election. I don’t see why they would change their behavior now. Try this site:

Bush Jr.'s Skeleton Closet (http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm)

Some of the stuff is left-wing puffery, but there is still a lot more here than in some failed Arkansas land deal.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by rikzilla
You forgot the old "Dig up some bimbos from his past" option.

Find a nice lady who's; "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty." from GWB's past....find his Anita Hill. Or hey, check out his drinking buddies, one of 'em's sure to remember that GWB said something nice about Hitler's dog or something!!!

Absent any of that juicy stuff you guys could just practise striking a loser's dignified pose...like your hero ex-Gov. Davis.

-z

A little comment: Wasn't Davis disliked even by other Democrats? He's certainly not my "hero". Using harsh partisan language like this is unbecoming for you, Rik, because I know you can do better.

GWB had lots of negative personal attacks, but he was able to brush them off, because he "was saved" when he was 40. I think that effectively gave him a pass on scandals that may have occured when Bush was a young man.

I don't know much about the candidates, but I think a Dean/Clark ticket might be the way to go. I like the balance of a compassionate liberal with a moderate, epsecially because Clark would address the stereotype that Democrats don't know how to fight wars.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Originally posted by rikzilla
You forgot the old "Dig up some bimbos from his past" option.

Find a nice lady who's; "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty." from GWB's past....find his Anita Hill. Or hey, check out his drinking buddies, one of 'em's sure to remember that GWB said something nice about Hitler's dog or something!!!

Absent any of that juicy stuff you guys could just practise striking a loser's dignified pose...like your hero ex-Gov. Davis.

-z
I have a novel idea, why don't we take Pres.Bush to task for all the factual screwups for which he's responsible?

Let's start with economy

Let's continue with the 2 wars we have fought, thier reasons for being fought and the aftermath..

Let's continue with the policy ( or lack thereof for 2 years ) in re the middle east that has caused what appears to be irreparable harm to a possible peace, and caused a huge loss of life?

Let's examine the "new and improved " environmental policies he has initiated and the promisees he broke.

Shall we examine the make-up of the people that he has surrounded himself with and thier attachment to the industries they are charged with overseeing or the fact that these people sprung forth from the very boardrooms (and or Daddy's cabinet ) that are most involved with both fraud and new commerce ( in the guise of rebuilding Iraq) ?

Oop new wrinkle on the horizon...Pres.Bush may invoke executive privilage in regards to the CIA agent who was outed ...Man I know that music.

Forgot to mention the VP's fight with the congress in Re to the "guest list" of the energy task force who crafted Pres.Bush's energy policy, o but thats the VP and he's not answerable to anyone ,,uhh except the Pres. and the congress

The reason I ask these questions and not given an explanation is because I am reticent to type reams of factual information if the interchange as usual will be the weak rejoinder that somehow Pres.Clinton is responsible (after being out of office for two years) and that all these things are a sour grapes effort to tarnish poor G.Bush's reputation due to partisan politics. The fact is if You believe these things can be explained to be unrelated events, not indicative of the character of the administration, and in thier nature innocuous, I will go forward and argue point by point all the sins I have listed as individual fook ups and not flaws of character.....either way you look at it is an indictment of this presidents competence. He is either a boob or a marionette.

And remember kids....hypocrits come in all political stripes

[American]

Originally posted by dsm
With the presidential election coming up next year, there are many things that the Democrats (and others) could bash Bush on in an attempt to win the White House. What do you think would be the most advantageous to begin the attack with now?


The question you should be asking, and middle America knows you don't care to, is what do liberals have to offer that's better than where Bush has taken us. Nothing but failed policy and flawed principles. Nothing else.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred

Absurd. This is praying for catastrophe. It's like saying Bush is so bad someone should nuke Houston to make him look bad.Perhaps I was over the top, but I still contend that what Bush REALLY needs is a good solid dose of face-to-face personal reality with the results of his and his team's decisions. "Gettin' yer facts lerned" is, I think, the term. It seems incredible to us here that those people in their DC bunker decided the fate of two countries on the other side of the world, sent US troops to do a dirty job they didn't really need to go for, and stirred up a whole potload of trouble right around the globe. On an emotional pretext for no visible gain. They really need to get out more.
Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
And your reasoning is wrong, such a thing will "harden resolve". Yes, but just not where they expected. There have already been two bombings just in Indonesia alone as a result of Bush's actions, with 88 Australians killed and hundreds more others as well. Does he intend to harden his resolve until he is the only one left standing?
Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
I know life long liberals in New York City who are pro-war, if not quite pro-Bush due to the 9-11 massacre. I know no one who has gone the other way, though many "anti-war" types have "hardened resolve" also.I can't quote any specific obverse comments, except to indicate the feeling here that while the Middle Eastern excursion of this year did NOT enjoy popular support, there WAS strong support for our troops and the US troops too. I suppose it is because generally we have a far greater loathing of the results of war, and a strong propensity to rush in with aid instead.
Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
What exactly is wrong with my suggestion of the Democrats coming up with someone really good? It's certainly possible in principle. Is it maybe not possible in practise?

Has the Democratic party become the party of Kool-Aid drinkers? I certainly hope not. I really would like to vote for one.

How about it, fellas? Give me a candidate who offers something beyond being the un-Bush. I fully agree with this view - kicking Bush out is not a solution, it's just a result.