Putting Bush On The Ballot

by Todd Beeton, Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 10:23:05 AM EDT

The latest MoveOn fundraising pitch does a nice job of framing the Republican candidates as not only the wannabe successors to Bush but as Bush surrogates who would gleefully carry out what would essentially be Bush's third term:

What would a third Bush term look like? Endless war in Iraq, continued torture and spying, more ultra-conservative judges, more and more people without health care, and so on ... it'd be awful.

But that's impossible, right? Well, maybe not. Every Republican candidate for president is trying to distinguish himself from Bush, but the major candidates would carry forward Bush's core agenda:

    * President Giuliani would support a second escalation of the war in Iraq.
    * President Romney would double the size of the Guantanamo Bay prison.
    * President McCain would bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
    * President Fred Thompson would have offered Scooter Libby a full pardon.

There's plenty more where that came from.

Off the top of my head, there's McCain in New Hampshire today actually defending the Iraq war, running the Bush "Look at me, I'm principled, dammit!" 2004 strategy.

And then there's Giuliani who proudly boasted to the Wall St. Journal that he would have appointed Roberts or Alito...or Scalia or Thomas to the Supreme Court.

Let's not forget Thompson who wholeheartedly supports the Supreme Court decision to uphold the "partial birth abortion" ban that had been overturned by court after court because it did not have exceptions for the health of the mother.

You run any of the Democratic candidates against Bush today (now there's a poll I'd like to see) the Democrat will win every time yet we're still seeing these Republican candidates running neck and neck with the Democrats in national polling.

Any more examples of how these guys would simply represent Bush v. 3.0? And perhaps more important, do you have examples of the Democratic candidates throwing Bush around the necks of these Republican candidates?

Tags: Fred Thompson, George Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani (all tags)

  • 15 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

15 Comments

Shadow_head_small
The Dems Don't Need to Yet

Why legitimize any one candidate by calling them out?  Let the GOP sink themselves with their ridiculous debates over evolution and Jack Bauer while the Dems debate real ideas.

In doing so, by the time the general election comes around, the Dems will have plenty of ammo.

by dansac 2007-07-13 10:47AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
disagree

Attack early and attack often.  Influence the media narrative from the beginning.  Demoralize the primary voters.  Equate them all with Bush.

by Tim Hendricks 2007-07-13 10:52AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
No, No. No.

McCain would "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran"

by Jim Treglio 2007-07-13 10:50AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: No, No. No.

Part of me wants McCain to be the GOP nom... I want to see that video on a bunch of commercials.

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-13 11:05AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Putting Bush On The Ballot

I think the IRaq and Iran stuff is excellent.  I think the SCOTUS issue is more dear to the hearts of the base than the swing voters... I think they might think Roberts and Alito are too conservative, but a lot of them, even being pro-choice, don't support Partial Birth abortion rights or care if the exceptions are in place. The scotus could organize an excite the base, but I don't see it doing anything with the middle ground voters.

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-13 11:04AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Putting Bush On The Ballot

I agree with the sentiment that we should not legitimize any of the candidates by calling them out right now. It is too early in my opinion- we should be spending time talking about who we are and what we are about right now rather than attacking the entire GOP field. There will be plenty of time for that AFTER we define ourselves.

On a different, but somewhat related note, I think we should, for the moment, just take heart in the fact that all of their legitimate candidates have glaring flaws (far more glaring than any of our candidates.)

Thompson- Lobbyist, Do Nothing Senator, and all around Idiot. Probably the most likely to make it through the primaries but would get killed by any competent campaign in the general.

Guiliani- Three marriages, and the kids don't talk to him. Unlikely to make it through the primary, more dangerous in the General, but will do nothing to energize the GOP base.

Romney- I hate to say it so bluntly, but I do not think this country will elect a Moromon president. I just don't see it. I don't think he can make it through the primary, AND I think he would actually lose a good portion of the christian base to an overtly religious Democrat such as Obama or maybe Edwards.

McCain- Just laugh, thats all we can do at this point is laugh. It is a shame really...

by JDF 2007-07-13 11:43AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Rudy won't be the nominee

But I want to help google-bomb him just in case.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-13 12:47PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Putting Bush On The Ballot


The rationale for not "calling out" one particular GOP candidate by tying him to Dubya is marginally plausible.  But it is a different thing to call them all out, relentlessly, starting now.

Republicans do one thing better than Democrats:  explicitly attack the opposition's arguments, in addition to making their own.  For instance, Giuliani is not content to chant "9/11, 9/11, 9/11"; he also sneers at Edwards for pointing out that "global war on terror" is a bumper-sticker slogan.  Democrats (not just Edwards) make a big mistake in letting his sneer stand unsneered-at.  "Mayor Giuliani thinks President Bush is actually waging a global war on terror," Democrats should be saying, "because the mayor does not understand the difference between slogans and strategy."

Hard-core Democrats have to fight hard-core Republicans for the support of mushier-core voters.  The reason those voters are mushy is precisely because they are persuadable by talking points.  Talking points are inevitably more effective when they stand unrebutted by an opposition that thinks it can get somewhere by merely making its own.

I say Democrats should adopt a permanent talking-point: if you want more Bush, vote Republican.  Either it will stick in the minds of the mushy voters, or the Republicans will try to rebut it.  It will be a win for us either way.

-- TP

by Rethymniotis 2007-07-13 01:03PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Putting Bush On The Ballot

It is hard for some people to sneer at Rudy for this statement when one of our own top tier candidates sneered at him for it. I mean, of course, Hillary Clinton. In the debate where this question was brought up Hillary strongly disagreed with Edwards on his assessment of the war on terror AND supported it as sound policy that needs to be continued and strengthened.

This was the point at which I completely lost faith in HRC as a candidate for President. Not because she supports fighting terror, because I think we all do in one form or another, but because she supports the way Bush and company have been fighting terror and is willing to run to the right of her party on this issue.

by JDF 2007-07-13 01:43PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
No Third Term

That should be the slogan for 2008. Any of these candidates would constitute a Bush third term. It would be a reprise of the Republican slogan in 1940. Of course Roosevelt deserved a third term.

by Mister Go 2007-07-13 12:56PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Fred Thompson is lazy and a phony

Sounds a lot like Bush to me.

When we get around to googlebombing him, we should use that article about the beat-up red pickup he pretended to drive while running for Senate.

by desmoinesdem 2007-07-13 01:10PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Fred Thompson is lazy and a phony

He's Bush without the fake cowboy act.

by yitbos96bb 2007-07-13 01:32PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Be afraid...very afraid. I am.
"On a different, but somewhat related note, I think we should, for the moment, just take heart in the fact that all of their legitimate candidates have glaring flaws (far more glaring than any of our candidates.)" Every four years I always believed this but then the big guns came out and killed us. One of the reasons I suggest voting for Hill is that the Clintons know how to fight back. It will be a tough election because it will be Hillary vs Rudy.
by joliepoint 2007-07-13 01:31PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Be afraid...very afraid. I am.

I do not think Rudy getting the nomination, I think it is going to be Thompson (okay, I HOPE it is going to be Thompson as well.)

I think both Edwards and Obama are as capable of fighting back in this political landscape, and Obama in particular has shown a willingness to get a little scrappy in recently.

by JDF 2007-07-13 01:40PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Be afraid...very afraid. I am.

Yes. Hillary is more electable. This is what we thought about John Kerry. That worked out really well.

I have this crazy idea: Research the candidates and vote for the one whose policies, record, and ideas you like the best.

by Pope Jeremy 2007-07-14 01:15PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------