Bushbots, or why a third party is needed

ASB | 02/19/04 | Anitius Severinus Boethius

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

As we head into this election, Bush has to do a few things to become re-elected.

First, he must secure his base.
Second, he must construct the debate.
Third, he must play a mistake-free hand.

The first objective is to secure his base. But who is his base? Many people like to think they are his base, but if they voted for Pat Buchanan last time, or the Constitution Party candidates or, held their breath and turned blue, or even voted Libertarian, they are not his base.

His base are moderate to conservative Republicans who are for lower taxes, less government involvement in everyday life, and more morality in society as a whole. Pretty broad definitions, but most people who aren't daily invested in politics hold pretty broad views. Those who would close our borders completely, who worry about the price of Gold in Botswana, or read the Congressional Record highlighting every "UnConstitutional" act or statement are not the target for his "securing the base" step.

Second, President Bush, not the Democrats, must construct the debate. If the election is going to be about Iraq, it needs to be the President who makes it about Iraq. If it's about immigration, President Bush should be the one pushing the Democrats on what they do or do not want to do.

He had better be able to throw off lines like, "Well, I understand that we have some differences on the Iraq situation, but what this election is about is the security of our Nation as a whole, not a simple matter of when elections will be held in Mosul."

Controlling the debate means focusing on issues that the majority of politically disinterested voters want to hear about. This means broad areas like the Economy (not H-1B Visas), National Security (not whether a single member of the House of Saud is still sympathetic to Bin Laden), and Size of Government (not whether the NEA is getting a 4% increase).

Third, he must remain scandal free. This means keeping your distance from corruption and being open to investigations of even imagined impropriety. The more open he is with his records and private data, the more it will look like his opponents have to hide. Perception is the key here, and not making a mistake means not looking like you have something to hide.

If he can do these three steps he can then rely upon the money and organization of his key political people to work towards the 269 he needs.

Having a third party wouldn't hurt either. I encourage all of those who think they should be his base but are being ignored to give money to the Green Party. With the Green Party in the race, you won't have to vote "Republicrat".

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

I'm sure this makes me a Bushbot. But if you didn't vote for Bush last time, he didn't "betray" you. And if you have already decided you aren't going to vote for him this time, why should he try to get your vote?

There are plenty of undecideds out there, that's where the focus should be.

[cyborg]

I'm voting for him.

[RebelBanker]

Me, too.

[cyborg]

I voted for him the first time, will vote for him again because overall he's done a good job. Imagine Kerry or the 'slip and fall' attorney as prez.

[KarlInOhio]

Those who ... read the Congressional Record highlighting every "UnConstitutional" act or statement are not the target for his "securing the base" step.

I usually find it helpful to just keep a bucket of yellow ink to drop each new copy of the Congressional Record in.

[theFIRMbss]

>I'm sure this makes me a Bushbot

If you looked like this, then people would say you looked like a bush baby . . .

[Servant of the 9]

Those who would close our borders completely, who worry about the price of Gold in Botswana, or read the Congressional Record highlighting every "UnConstitutional" act or statement are not the target for his "securing the base" step.

That is because there aren't enough of them to fill a football Stadium, much less a Political Party.

So9

[Publius]

MOst of his base are belong to us.

[Always Right]

Unfortunately, both parties are controlled by the polls and both are afraid to wonder too far away. Republicans do offer an slight advantage on taxes, regulations, and a larger advantage on foreign policy. The real power in government though lies in the judicial branch, where once in position judges are unaccountable to anyone and can usurp any law they wish. Now if the GOP only had the backbone to fight as hard as the Democrats do in this area, they might be worth their salt.

[ladtx]

Hmmmm. Let's see. Bush-Kerry-Bush-Kerry-Bush-Kerry. Easy, unless I'm a flaming liberal it's Bush.

Next question?

[spookycc]

I thought I was a Bushbot until he proposed the immigration plan. I oppose that, but I still think he's the best bet we have in 2004.

[mabelkitty]

ditto

[kevkrom]

For all practical purposes, we have a two-party system in the United States, regardless of the claims from the minor party supporters. There is too large of a base of those who are party loyalists for a mnor party to do anything but be a spoiler. I won't go as far as saying that not voting for candidate "A" means the same as voting for candidate "B" -- that's actually provably false -- but instead, those who choose to vote for neither candidate "A" nor candidate "B" are in effect removing themselves from the process. They are not, as they like to think, "sending a message" or "holding them accountable". Instead, they are marginalizing themselves as easily dimissed "kooks".

[Chris Talk]

I think Laura would make a better president than her husband.

[Joe Hadenuf]

As we head into this election, Bush has to do a few things to become re-elected.

First, he must secure his base.

Wonder if Washington ever had to secure his base?

[airborne]

Bush or anything the Dems could possibly offer. It's not even gonna take 1/2 second to choose.

[ladtx]

I think Laura would make a better president than her husband.

Laura's not in the running, so we're back to Bush-Kerry-Bush-Kerry-Bush-Kerry. Still an easy answer -- Bush.

[cripplecreek]

I did'nt vote for him last time, but i will this time.

[Chris Talk]

IMHO Kerry has only about a 51% chance of being the RAT nominee. I would put Edwards at about 27% and (ultimately) Hillary at some 19%. The other 3% is wild.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I think Laura would make a better president than her husband.

Looking forward to 2008 already? Pace yourself.