0
   

AND, IF ELECTED, I PROMISE . . .

 
 
Setanta
 
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2003 09:22 am
We have threads about the potential contenders in the 2004 election. I think we might enjoy (in our own perverse way) a thread to discuss the issues. I have my thoughts on this, as well as wishing to hear those of others. First would be, of course, the "it's the economy, stupid" tactic. Simply complaining of the tax cuts as give-aways to the wealthy will not be helpful, and given that those more affluent citizens are more likely to vote, this could blow up in a candidate's face. However, if the current incumbent could be put on the defensive-the economy could become a mine field for the Republicans. A challenge must be issued and constantly reinforced for the President to clearly demonstrate how these tax cuts have created jobs, how they have helped the majority of consumers, whose purchase of durable goods is the only certain way to create genuine job growth. If used carefully, corporate greed and venality, and questionable accounting practices could be laid at the administration's door as a sin of omission.

The war on terror could be used-once again, carefully. It would not be good to seen as attacking the commander in chief while troops are under fire in Iraq. The issue of whether or not the President knowingly lied should not be pressed, unless there is already a significant move under way in Congress to question this. However, it could be useful to point out that we've accomplished little in Afghanistan, and have now diverted attention and resources to Iraq.

What other issues occur to you. Please be pragmatic, and consider what could be useful to the eventual candidate, rather than simply airing you personal ideals for political activism. Nothing wrong with your ideals of political activism, but i think that this should rather be an ad hoc at-this-site platform committee. Conservatives are welcome to come sneer, as always.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,368 • Replies: 46
No top replies

 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2003 12:03 pm
One issue should be how we work with other countries in achieving our goals. The current problems in Iraq are a great example of what can go wrong when we go it alone (or with one other country, the UK).

Ultimately, this is also about treaties and other agreements that the current administration has chosen to withdraw from. It's all about foreign policy.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2003 12:17 pm
....not to make any promises, bdcause it's the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help me..... c.i.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2003 12:48 pm
How about actually and really and trully not only denoucing the ways of Washington, but doing it also!!!!!!!!!!
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2003 01:15 pm
I think foreign policy should be avoided by those wishing Bush should be replaced, not because I'm a fan of his foreign policy (I'm the type who cares more about foresign policy than domestic simply as a matter of being more interested in geopolitics and I think this administration is among the worst at foreign policy of all time) but because it's a very weak issue for the Democrats.

I'm not faulting the Democrat's foresign policies but simply noting that a significant portion of the American public thinks it's either non-existent or soft.

I really dislike the objections to the Iraq war based on cost but I think it's sound political strategy. It ties into the economy, which is, IMO, this Administration's weak spot. I find this odd because I do not fault this admnistration for the economic state. But in any case I think this is where the opposition needs to make their political hay.

I agree with Setanta in that "it's the economy stupid" is the best strategy. I'd not, however, press for details on how the tax cut has created more jobs for two reasons. First of all it can be circumvented with the "have patience" shite and it would be partly true. Secondly tax cuts, even foolhardy ones, have a loyal following among those willing to believe it means more in their pockets.

In regard to teh economy I'd keep the focus on budget bleeding. It ties into the tax cut but in a way that Joe Blow doesn't confuse with conflicting wishes (i.e. the wish to pay less taxes).

There should be a repeated attempt to bring the buget fiasco to the public's attention. This is one area that this administration's policies can be clearly held responsible.

After that I'd keep the focus on the current economic slowdown. Even though I do not fault Bush's admin for this the public seems to fault the current admin for any economic difficulties and as a rule this has few exceptions in politics.

Going back to foreign policy I'd use it carefully, as Setanta suggests. I'd not take the Iraq war head on but rather deal with some of the low lights.

The perceptions about Afghanistan are a key one and Iraq is shaping up with the same perceptions. I'd stay away from the WMD question as it can and will blow up in anyone's face if they try. In regard to foreign policy I'd highlight the declining trust in the veracity of statements made by the US administration and highlight that Bush has taken the country from a time in which America enjoyed a great outpouring of sympathy to a point in which animosity against Amerioca is at a peak. This would be tied in to foreign policy blunders and the way this admin has created rifts with reckless abandon.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2003 01:35 pm
A chicken in every pot.

A car in every garage.

(That hasn't already been done, has it?)
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2003 01:39 pm
Pretty close, but still not 100 percent. Wink
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2003 02:10 pm
In todays world it must be two cars and a side of beef!
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2003 03:17 pm
You mean two SUVs in a three-car garage...
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2003 03:22 pm
Hey, watch it, bub, before you find yourself disparagin' the Americans' God-given right to conspicuously consume in fuel-chugging buggies for no other reason than ego gratification! Don't Tread on Me!!!
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2003 03:32 pm
D'artagnan wrote:
One issue should be how we work with other countries in achieving our goals. The current problems in Iraq are a great example of what can go wrong when we go it alone (or with one other country, the UK).

To do that you'd have to show that the same things would not be happening to a broader coalition. Your premise seems based on that assumption, but I know of no reason to assume that it's true. What makes you think we would not have the same "current problems in Iraq" with a larger coalition force? And what evidence can you offer that the UN has shown any talent at managing these kinds of situations?

Lastly, we can't always work with other countries; sometimes our goals are not theirs. I want a leadership in this country that is willing to put our interests first. That France did not want to lose the financial ties they had to Saddam is not a compelling argument for the US to allow him to remain a threat. Their interests were not ours. That does not mean we had none, nor does it mean we should have subordinated ours to theirs. Working together is only possible when you share a desired goal. France had shown for years that they cared far more for the money Saddam could make them than for the people he murdered. If the US had been arguing to leave Saddam in power because he was good for business, I suspect I'd find you on the other side of that issue (but I could be wrong).

Anyway, all of that aside, I do agree with your core statement: Democrats need to tell the people what they would do differently and why. Hopefully they will do so this time. Historically, they have tended to prefer only to tell people what is wrong with what Republicans have done, rather than what is right with the Democrat way. (Of course, there's plenty of this on both sides!)
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2003 03:40 pm
Park Service Suffers Falling Budget, Maintenance Backlog

Despite President Bush's pledge to eliminate a $4.9-billion maintenance backlog, the National Park Service continues to battle deteriorating roads, sewage systems, infrastructure and natural resources. At the same time, the number of visitors to national parks is up and the park service's budget is down. Hear NPR's Elizabeth Arnold.



http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.jhtml?prgId=3&prgDate=current
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jul, 2003 04:15 pm
Scrat wrote:
To do that you'd have to show that the same things would not be happening to a broader coalition.


Well, one thing that would not be happening is the daily attacks on US soldiers! A more diverse force would spread the casualties around...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2003 04:45 am
Bill, thanks for adding the parks issue. I had heard that report on NPR yesterday, and i recall thinking this could be used against him if properly handled. A clever opponent could make much of the Shrub's constant tactic of trying to be all things to everyone.

D'art, try to ignore Scrat, who is just attempting to derail the topic at hand--it ought to be obvious to anyone familiar with it's posts here that it does not have this topic at heart, but is simply looking to pick a fight. Thank you for your earlier contributions. Let's do some more work on how the Shrub's disasterous term can be terminated.
0 Replies
 
SealPoet
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2003 04:58 am
The most qualified person for the post is someone who wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot battle-ax.

Me? I'm writin' in Setanta...

I'd say something more serious, but I'm pressed for time. My theory on how Bush got where he is today is that the GOP knew that Gore was unelectable: any idiot could beat gore. so they put up any idiot.

My deepest fear for the nation is that the Dems will do the same damn thing.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2003 05:08 am
Just tryin' to cheer us up, right, Seal?
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2003 09:19 am
Part 2 of the National Parks NPR blurbs is about the way Bush wants to "fix" the Parks - use all available money to do a study of commercializing the jobs. Interesting listening:

Quote:
National Parks - Part II
In the second of two reports, NPR's Elizabeth Arnold reports on low morale at some of the country's national parks. The budget for the park service has been cut, and many maintenance jobs may be contracted out to private companies. Many park service employees are worried about their jobs.

http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.jhtml?prgId=3&prgDate=current


More money for his buds!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2003 09:59 am
I'm sure Teddy Roosevelt is spinning in his grave. The Park System grew out of a devotion to preserving a natural heritage, but the Shrub, clueless as usual, wastes money which could be be used for facilities maintenance for a study, the purpose of which would be to surrender this trust to private interests. It was precisely to keep such lands out of the hands of private interests that the park system was created.

A savvy contender could make great political hay out of this.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2003 10:10 am
D'artagnan wrote:
Scrat wrote:
To do that you'd have to show that the same things would not be happening to a broader coalition.


Well, one thing that would not be happening is the daily attacks on US soldiers! A more diverse force would spread the casualties around...

I'm not sure that I see that as an improvement, but I can't fault your logic. Cool
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jul, 2003 11:31 am
Quote:
Who Is Buried in Bush's Speech?

The truth has been shot! Round up some unusual suspects.

By Michael Kinsley
Posted Monday, July 14, 2003, at 3:53 PM PT

Once again a mysterious criminal stalks the nation's capital. First there was the mystery sniper. Then there was the mystery arsonist. Now there is the mystery ventriloquist. The media are in a frenzy of speculation and leakage. Senators are calling for hearings. All of Washington demands an answer: Who was the arch-fiend who told a lie in President Bush's State of the Union speech? No investigation has plumbed such depths of the unknown since O.J. Simpson's hunt for the real killer of his ex-wife. (Whatever happened to that, by the way?)


Whodunit? Was it Col. Mustard in the kitchen with a candlestick? Condoleezza Rice in the Situation Room with a bottle of white-out and a felt-tipped pen?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2085612/


The only truth about this whole fabrication, a must read!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » AND, IF ELECTED, I PROMISE . . .
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2021 at 09:21:47