Posted on 02/15/2004 6:03:32 AM PST by Theodore R.
A Strategy for Kerry
January 29, 2004 After the first President Bush betrayed conservatives by raising taxes, in spite of his promise never to do so, many conservatives didn’t bother voting for him in 1992. This was one of the reasons he lost to Bill Clinton, who re-energized the conservative movement and brought about a Republican takeover of Congress in the 1994 elections. In the meantime, Clinton’s ambitious national health-care plan flopped.
Principled conservatives should hope that history repeats itself in 2004. If John Kerry wins the presidency, Republicans may start acting a bit like conservatives again. Under the current President Bush, party loyalty has made them supporters of further expansion of the Federal Government.
This election will be a battle of the big spenders. There isn’t much to choose between Bush and Kerry (or whoever the Democratic candidate turns out to be). But a Bush victory will ensure that the Republican Party will continue to betray conservatism.
Unfortunately, most self-identified conservatives don’t see it that way. For some reason, they continue to regard Bush as their guy — maybe because, like Richard Nixon, he truly annoys liberals in spite of all his efforts to appease them.
Kerry, a walking stereotype of liberalism, can probably win by simply toning down his rhetoric. If he avoids antagonizing and frightening conservatives, if he subtly resists the temptation to portray the election as a stark contest between opposed philosophies, a critical number of conservatives may simply stay home on Election Day.
Fortunately for Kerry, this shouldn’t be hard. He’s a boring fellow. How boring? Well, let’s put it this way: If you loved Al Gore, you’ll like John Kerry. When you listen to him deliver the standard litany of liberal clichés, it’s impossible to feel that much is at stake. He’s perhaps the perfect candidate to de-energize Bush’s base. That’s what he needs to do.
Democrats really hate Bush; that’s what will bring them to the polls: fear and loathing. Republicans, on the other hand, don’t hate Kerry enough to rally against him; they hardly know him yet. He should do all he can to keep it that way. He needs a strategy of ennui. Don’t give the other side a reason to turn out to vote!
A passionless campaign will be good not only for Kerry, but also, ultimately, for conservatism. Kerry may seem an improbable savior for the conservative movement, but Bush is destroying it. It would be a disaster for that movement to allow Bush to identify his grab-bag politics with it.
Bush’s only intelligent enthusiasts are neoconservatives, who might better be called pseudoconservatives. They love him for giving them the war they’ve hungered for since his father’s presidency (even if it fell short of the “World War IV” they called for), and they don’t really mind that he promotes bigger government all over the place. After all, they revere the memory of Franklin Roosevelt and other icons of liberal Democrats. They’ve changed parties without changing principles.
The Iraq war, alias the War on Terror, has ceased to be a strength for Bush. By the time the fall campaign really begins, it may have become a huge minus. The costly occupation of Iraq (and, oh yes, Afghanistan) drags on pointlessly, and Bush has already abandoned his absurd insistence that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass murder that could threaten this country. Either his word or his judgment, or both, can’t be trusted. The country has quietly lost faith in him. For an incumbent seeking reelection, that’s very bad news.
Bush will face other discontents too, including economic ones. He has tried to change his party’s image, and he has succeeded only too well. It’s now impossible to imagine the Republicans as supplying a prudent brake on fiscally improvident Democrats; they’ve taught the country how staggering Federal deficits can be. “Compassionate conservatism” turns out to be neither compassionate nor conservative.
If Kerry wins the presidency, he’ll have his hands full just handling the mess Bush has left him. He won’t want to get us into new wars, and there won’t be much loose change to pay for new Federal programs. Besides, the Republicans will try to frustrate his initiatives.
Unless something unforeseeable happens, we can look forward to a dull campaign between a real liberal and a phony conservative. And for real conservatives, the duller the better.
As an investor, a Kerry Presidency and a Republican Congress means gridlock. Gridlock historically is good for the investment climate as no meaningful legislation is likely to be passed.
I'll cry all the way to the bank. Either way...
Yawn. Kerry and the Dems have been in the full media spotlight for over a month. Bush hasn't even come to bat yet. And he's got a really big honkin' bat - namely, Kerry's anti-defense, anti-intel and pro-internationalist voting history in a time of war. That's why Kerry wants the election to be over an earlier war - Vietnam - than over this one.
The poll showing Kerry ahead by 9-10 votes is a poll of "adults" or so it has been quoted. The election will be close. IMHO the campaign will have little effect as long as our foreign policy stays on a winning upswing and the economy continues to recover. As others have noted, the RATS are not offering much of anything except they hate President Bush.
No way. McCain may be a nutbar, but he is more hawkish than Bush. He wouldn't run with a guy who is so anti-war and anti-American.
Don't worry about McCain. The last thing he would do is join a ticket with a man who demonstrated with Fonda while McCain was in the Hilton.
They may be friends, but no way would McCain join the Democratic Party.
As to Joe Sobran, "principled" conservative: go pound sand, treasonous asshat!
Be Seeing You,
Chris
It would be a disaster; however, what if Dean runs as a Green Party Candidate and Nader runs as an independent?
You are right about Clinton getting 42% but, that was 42% of the 50% who voted or a paltry 20% of eligible adults. No sex scandal will terminate Kerry in a general election but the fact that some of the RATS brought it up suggests the base isn't altogether happy with him either.
That's a far cry from being his veep.
Sobran as usual fills his column with lies. How Libertarian.
Bush 41 lost because of the economy not because he raised taxes. After election studies including those done my me, showed that the reason Bush 41 lost was the ECONOMY. It was as Clinton Said, It's the Economy Stupid!!! and as it was in 1980, 1984 and 1988 it was the economy stupid. It nearly always is.
In 1988, a bit over 90 million people voted and Bush won. In 1992 there were 105 million people voted. Fifteen million more people voted in 1992 than in 1998 and Sobran wants you to believe that people stayed home and did not vote in 1992. What part of 15 million more people voted in 1992 escapes Sobran the lying idiot.
The victory in the house in 1994 had little to do with Bill Clinton. It had a hell of a lot to do with the Republican's Gerrymandering house districts accomplished with the redistricting of 1990. Many districts were gerrymandered to be just slightly Republican. The economy kept the Republicans from winning the house in 1992. But with the economy off the table in 1994 the Republicans won the House.
It was that gerrymandering that let the Republicans hold the house in 1996, 1998, 2000, and 2002. If Sobran were right the Republicans would have lost the house in the big Clinton victory in 1996.
The last of the Gerrymandering from the 2000 census, will let the Republicans pick up house seats in Texas in 2004. The Democrat hold on the house is very solid and will increase. It si called Gerrymandering enabled by by Republicans getting a majority of state houses and state legislatures.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.