Democrats continue to hope ANTI-Bush is a winner

But be prepared for a long line of disappointments if they win

from JoeUser Forums

Many of the Democrat commercials in the important races in the D.C. area (Virginia Senate, Maryland Senate, Maryland Governor as examples) are relying quite heavily on the anti-Bush sentiment to bring them voters.  There are literally hundreds of attack ads aired each week with "the other guy's" name shown on the screen at the same time as an image or sound bite from President George W. Bush is shown.  If not that, then we have images that show President George W. Bush speaking on behalf of a candidate and those sound bites being repeated ad nauseum.  Or, finally, we have images with candidates (like Michael Steele) that stumped for President George W. Bush during his re-election campaign.

The entire idea -- obviously -- is to link the candidates as closely as possible to President George W. Bush and then rely on the idea that voters will run to the polls and vote for your candidate because they aren't George W. Bush and aren't tied to him at the hip.  The funny thing is that Democrats tried that approach back in 2004 and found that it failed.  I guess at the time they hadn't slung enough mud, and hadn't received enough bad (good in their minds) news out of Iraq to really be able to capitalize.

I still hope that they (the Democrats) basically get their asses handed back to them for using this approach, but if somehow it really does work, then what?

I know others have written some comments about "when the Democrats take control", and I've spoken up a little in those articles, but I'm gonna write out a few more thoughts here and offer the space in the comments area to others that want to debate the issues or offer their own thoughts as well.

My sub-title makes the better point here, which is "be prepared for a long line of disappointments if they win" (should Democrats win control of either chamber of the Congress).  Why do I say that?  Because that is pretty much exactly what will happen.

Voters that expect action from the Democrats are going to be disappointed.  There's not going to be an impeachment of George W. Bush, there is not going to be an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, nor even really an effective plan or exit strategy for same.  There won't be a boost in the minimum wage, and there won't be tax increases on the rich or even windfall profit taxes on the big evil oil corporations.  Not going to happen.

Huh?  What??!  Not going to happen!?!  Surely I must be joking.  How could that be?

Simple -- there's not going to be an over whelming majority, and especially won't be a veto or filibuster proof majority should Democrats win.  If they win it's going to be in small measures.  Even the most optimistic polling data doesn't give them the blow out wins they'd need to take over complete control and effect their own policy without fear of veto or filibuster.

Thanks to the gang of 14 that helped eliminate Democrat filibusters for George W. Bush's judicial nominees, the rules were never changed in the Senate to restrict the use of filibusters.  Without having granted more power to the majority party, the rules still favor gridlock over progress in most cases.

George W. Bush, a president that has only sparingly used his veto pen up to this point could be about to make serious use of it in the coming two years.  His compatriots in the Congress are also quite familar with the much easier to play role of spoiler and minority party.  It's always easier as the party "out of power", and the Republicans will relish the role and make things as difficult as possible for the Democrats if put into that role.

So, in effect, the Democrats have built their platform upon guarantees of broken promises.  They are promising the world, but won't be able to deliver anything.  And what happens two years out when they've delivered nothing?  Uh, good question.  Will they have mustered additional support to widen a possible majority, or will they lose out in much the same way they're hoping their Republican opponents are now?  Most likely the latter.  They'll find that the Republicans come back strong promising to accomplish things and pointing at the failure of the Democrats to get things done.  They'll point out those failures endless times in political commercials.  They'll scare monger over the idea that ultra liberals will be in control and the morals of the country will be at stake, and they'll probably completely and totally energize that vast right wing base that they hope stays home dejected and sleeping during the coming election.

In anycase I hope voters are smart enough to see through the promises of impossible goals and dreams and realizes that anti-Bush sentiment won't get progress at all.  Far from it.  Best case it'll result in regression, rather than progression.  Especially in the areas of taxes.  On the plus side, those sun-setting tax-cuts are all going to come due for renewal during the coming years and Democrats will most definitely find themselves associated with tax increases if they don't continue the cuts and keep things at status quo.  What a nice little box they'll have painted themselves into.

politics
6,738 views 23 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
The space below is all yours folks.  Tell me I'm wrong, tell me I'm right, or tell me to just shut up.  I don't really care.  (Just keep it civil please, lest you find your comments banished as they should be).
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Democrat Senatorial campaign is running just such an ad against Allen down here.  I thought McCain Feingold got rid of those ads?  Guess it is not worth the paper it was written on.
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Anybody Baa-ut Bush!" ~ The bleat of the mindless sheep.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top

The Democrat Senatorial campaign is running just such an ad against Allen down here. I thought McCain Feingold got rid of those ads? Guess it is not worth the paper it was written on.

I see plenty of those Webb ads (and ads in his favor against Allen) in my area too Dr. Guy.  It's part of what inspired my comments here.

The big push this season seems to be one of making the GOP candidate a Bush clone.  Since the public supposedly is so fed up with Bush and his negatives are so high the Dems are trying to make the public think that the GOP candidate is just as bad, if not worse than Bush and shouldn't have a snowballs chance in hades of getting elected.

The funny thing is that if Bush was sitting higher in the polls there'd be absolutely no mention of Bush and instead it would all about which candidate is better for the populace.  In fact, some of those same Democrats would be pulling out ads with their own faces closely aligned with the so-called enemy.

The Dems are ultimate in hypocrites and they aren't afraid to use any thing to their advantage.  Whether or not it's a real advantage really remains to be seen though.  Certainly using Bruce Springsteen and others to get out the vote against W. in 2004 didn't work, did it?

Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is what happens when you turn elections into quantifiable events and produce experts and strategists for it. All sides would evaluate qualitatively which strategy ofers the most bang for the buck, and if "anything but Bush" does the job, they will use it.

Make no mistake, this is not a Democrat or Republican phenomenon. It's just what you get when you have professional political operatives.

cheers
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Linking a candidate, especially an incumbent, to Bush is a very valid approach. The reason is very simple. For the most part, the majority of Americans clearly see that the Bush policies have failed. If the candidate is an incumbent they have enabled that policy to be enacted by rubber stamping the Bush policies. That is why they state the percent of support for Bush.

Any GOP candidate is likely to continue to support Bush if they are reelected. Thus voting for a GOP candidate would most likely continue policies that most Americans do not support.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
If you don't have any actual facts or a viable alternative plan, any sort of "anti-whatever" is all you have to work with. The hate Bush crowd has nothing else to work with, so they go with what they have (which actually isn't much).
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Democrats have been the un-party for decades. That's the trouble with all "reform" minded parties if you ask me, they spend all their time talking about the way things oughtta be, but rarely ever have any sort of plan to make it happen.

Dems are actually worse, because they just want to talk about how things SHOULDN'T be.

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

If you don't have any actual facts or a viable alternative plan, any sort of "anti-whatever" is all you have to work with. The hate Bush crowd has nothing else to work with, so they go with what they have (which actually isn't much).

And in the end, they are going to have some very POed voters as hate is not a policy, or viable either.

Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
For the most part, the majority of Americans clearly see that the Bush policies have failed.
Which is just your opinion. If the American people were so "fed up" as you and the other democrat hacks keep telling us, the GOP would be facing a damaging loss. If democrats do win anything, it will only be one branch, and the victory will be slim. But as usual democrats offer no plan of their own. Just "we are not Bush, so vote for us". Which worked so well in '04, no wonder they are doing it again. One reason democrats can't tell us their plan is because they have to wait for the daily poll to tell them what to think. You can relate to this col. You base your policies off media-driven polls just like democrats do. They can't take a stand on anything because they are not sure which way the poll will turn.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think the entire government should be scrapped and reorganized with people that "really do care" about our nation and the people in it. The people in the government now seem to forget that they work for the rest of us, not the other way around. This administration has brought us so far down I wonder if we'll ever recover.

And yes, I believe that the majority of people ARE 'fed up' with this administrations policies. The problem is most are afraid to talk about it or do anything about it for fear of retaliation.

I think that the two major parties should be abolished. Neither party has done Americans any good whatsoever. Especially in this administration. It seems like this administration has been in there forever, I can't believe we still have two more years of this farce.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
And yes, I believe that the majority of people ARE 'fed up' with this administrations policies. The problem is most are afraid to talk about it or do anything about it for fear of retaliation.


This is just plain crap! Do you think we live in communist Russia? GROW UP!
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
So what is the Republicans excuse for not getting anything substantial accomplished. They have had both houses and the presidency for how many years and their big concerns are banning gay marriage and steroids in baseball. At least according to Bush's SOU address.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

So what is the Republicans excuse for not getting anything substantial accomplished.

Filibuster.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
2 Supreme Court nominees Aggressively fighting terror despite democrats opposition Cutting taxes Bringing economy out of recession I wouldn't say "anything" hasn't been done. But then again, what is the democratic plan for anything?
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top

"We advise the American people … do not vote for Bush and his ilk," Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli of Iran said.

Enough said right there.  Best reason not to vote for democrats.

http://www.nysun.com/article/42657?access=302702

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
by your logic, every politician who has ever been elected to a legislative body and was not a part of a veto proof or fillibuster proof majority is just a liar?

NONSENSE!

a democratic majority will give them the ability to actually have some fair debates and get bills onto the actual floor. something they have been banned from since losing the majority.

if people are running on platforms or principles such as wanting an increase in the minimum wage instead of pay raises for congress, not being able to put up a veto proof bill on the matter hardly makes them a liar or someone who is breaking promises in advance.

if a democratic house of congress puts up a bill supporting something like a minumum wage increase, opponents will have to go on record and probably make statements sabout why they think the poor don't deserve another 50 cents or buck an hour.

if the bill passes a house of congress, the other house will have to debate it and go on record. if it passes there, the president will have to explain to the poor why they are not worth a dollar to him.

giving democrats a piece of the pie will restore at least a little balance of power and our "check and balance" system. that may come as quite a shock to those used to the last several years of selectively framing debates and squelching oppositions that have little or no recourse than to be silenced where it counts.

running on principles that are not fillibuster proof doen't make you a liar. if you stick to your guns, despite politics, it makes you principled.

and as i've said before, if the democrats get a piece of the power pie, i will be at the forefront making sure they don't squander that opportunity the way the president has squandered every opportunity he has had since taking office.

what a democrat did 24 years ago, or a republican did back then will be irrelevant to me. i am interested in what we do from here on out.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top

what a democrat did 24 years ago, or a republican did back then will be irrelevant to me. i am interested in what we do from here on out.

Well, that was a nice freudian slip.  Whatever else Bakerstreet said, he was right about one thing.  You are like Col Gene in one respect.  You are presenting yourself under false colors.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, that was a nice freudian slip.


nothing freudian about it. WE are all americans right? but it does appear ya'll got caught in yet another "gotcha" game.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
You are presenting yourself under false colors.


ok, how much ya wanna bet that i am a card holdin libertarian?

put up the stakes guy,,,and i'll be more than happy to prove it
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

Sean Conners - you took offense with my words above, and that is fine, but I'd stand by my statement that the Democrat claims for change and plans that will be enacted are just pie in the sky.

You see, I remember just a few short years ago when Democrats pushed a candidate in Montgomery County Maryland with the promise that winning that seat would be THE key (their emphasis, not mine) to putting Democrats into control of the House of Representatives.  Only problem, they needed to win about 20 other seats and couldn't even come close.

Those empty promises put a guy into Congress that hasn't been heard from at all -- with the exception of ear marks added to spending bills to send home a little pork.  The sad part is though that the Representative that he replaced had done a great job for her constituents, had brought home plenty of bacon, and was really no friend of President Bush.  She was the most liberal Republican in the Congress and had served very honorably there for several terms.

Could I say that GOP campaign promises are lies?  Maybe.  But the difference has been that the GOP has tried to accomplish several things along the way and has been stymied by the Democrat minority that has refused to allow progress in just about any area that hasn't involved money sent to their home districts.  At least the GOP has tried though.

The Democrats -- for the time that they were "power sharing" with the GOP during the early parts of President George W. Bush's first term -- have already proven that they aren't interested in getting anything done.  They want nothing to be accomplished because if it is, they fear that Bush and the GOP will get credit for it.  That is definitely no way to run the country, and no way to get anything done.

Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
But the difference has been that the GOP has tried to accomplish several things along the way and has been stymied by the Democrat minority that has refused to allow progress in just about any area that hasn't involved money sent to their home districts.


this is just politics. ya'll have had the majority in everything for 4 years...don't act like the "big bad minority" stopped you. that's nonsense. the GOP pushed most of their agenda thru over this administration. many of those policies have been disasters imho.

The Democrats -- for the time that they were "power sharing" with the GOP during the early parts of President George W. Bush's first term -- have already proven that they aren't interested in getting anything done.


well, pre 9/11 ya got a point. but selectively choosing that is isingenuous. there are several periods in history, for one,94-2000 where power sharing brought much progress.

also, pre 9/11, if you remember, there was a lot of resentment of how bush became president. yes, that contributed to the "attitude" going on then. i don;'t wanna get into a shout fest about whether the dems were right or wrong for their protest, as i am not passing judgement about the attitude that the administration came in with. you remember, the "evreything clinton did will be undone" attitude. the bottom line is that the 2000 election was polarizing, regardless of where one sat on the political fence.

9/11 caused everyone to come together. as i saw it, that opportunity was squandered by the administration with their "we'll handle everything that matters" and ya'll just go about your business attitude. when the left joined withthe right in combatting americas enemy in al quaeda, that goodwill was answered with a "sit down and shut up" attitude anytime the democrats even tried to get a bill on the floor.

bottom line...painting 1 side as "trying to get things done" and the other as "trying to stop any progress for america" is just political punditry. fact is, throughout our history, both parties have contributed both positively and negatively to america.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
They want nothing to be accomplished because if it is, they fear that Bush and the GOP will get credit for it.


and the GOP has had that same attitude towards the democrats. that's why they can't even get a bill on the republican floor, have been called names and slandered throughout this administration and want to use every little thing as "proof" they are right and the democrats are wrong about everything.

you push people into a corner like that and then expect a "thank you sir, may i have another" attitude, you are fooling yourself.

the polarization of this country, in my view, is far more a republican responsibility than the minority who can't even get their voice heard in a fair way.