Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Rove Must be Worried

So, Mr. Bush is well into an election year and he still needs to shore up his own base.

Of course, we know the fiscal conservatives are upset with him because of the massive explosion of federal spending and the size of the Fderal government.

One would have thought, though, that the social conservatives would be locked into his corner. Apparently not. Mr. Bush has decided to support a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriages to placate the social conservatives.

With the nation at war and American's dying daily, with terrorists acting with impunity throughout the world, with job creation virtually nil, with inflationary pressures beginning to develop, with the world having lost confidence in anything the US says based on its intelligence gathering, one would think that Mr. Bush has more important issues to address.

He would address them, of course, if he knew he had his own base in line. They obviously aren't, so off he goes to throw them a bone that the President cannot even deliver because he is not involved in the process -- but which the social conservatives can see as a reason to come back to the fold.

A very interesting commentary on the fear that is beginning to grip the White House.

What planet are you posting from, John?

Sometimes your lack of political finesse makes me laugh out loud.

The economy is turning around, and if it acts as typical with this type of growth, will create 600,000 jobs in the last 2-3 quarters. So I think Bush will have the economy.

The gay marriage issue has "wedge" written all over it, and Kerry's on the wrong side of the wedge.

Oh, couple that with Fienstein's attempt to renew the "assault weapon" ban (forgot that is coming up this summer, didn't you?), and you have TWO wedge issues.

Now please combine those two facts with the exit polls of why people have voted for Kerry in the Democratic primaries - a large percentage of voters, roughly 30-35%, have no earthly idea of Kerry's voting record in the Senate. I can assure you that his record will be explained to the American people in excruciating detail. According to more than one yardstick, Kerry is one of the top three liberal Senators, and that is not where the majority of the country is politically. These people are voting for him based on his military record, because of the safety issue. 9/11 still has political legs.

However, when it comes down to fighting terrorists, Bush still gets the nod from the majority of the American public, so those votes will peel away from Kerry.

I don't think Rove, et al, are worried - I think they have identified the prospective nominee, and are starting to campaign.

Quite happily, since they have two wedge issues in their back pockets.

It sounds more like you are worried, John.

The more I learn about Kerry, the more I think that Bush will beat him so badly I will have to avert my eyes. Dean could have given him a run for his money perhaps but Kerry? The only person worse for the Democratic nomination would be Ted Kennedy.

Do you remember when Bob Dole went up against Bill Clinton? This will be way worse than that.

Democrats are happy because they have been making it in the news lately because of their nomination process. They seem to have gotten some traction on a few issues after being marginalized for the last two years. They forget that Republicans have not even begun to campain. Kerry can have his few weeks in the sun and I hope he enjoys it. I hope he does not resign from his Senate seat anytime soon, he will still need a job when its all said and done, and the chances of him getting elected president are nil.

Kirk

...and netizen will owe me a CD!

If you think the Constitutional Amendment is NOT to shore up a base that should be solid now and is just a wedge issue, you might be interested ing the following from the NY Times.

As is clear in the article, the worry is not that the conservatives will find another candidate, but rather that they will stay home out of disillusionment -- while the Democrats are fired up.

Based on this, if Mr. Rove is not worried, he should be. And, of course, wedge issues are exactly those that fire up the faithful.

Some Noted Conservatives Bash Bush
By JIM RUTENBERG

WASHINGTON (Feb. 9)- For most of his presidency, George W. Bush has counted on a chorus of conservative newspaper columnists, radio hosts and television commentators to give powerful punctuation to his initiatives, proposals and defenses.

But in recent days, there has been an uptick in criticism of Mr. Bush from those quarters, underscoring strains between him and the Republican base that has so faithfully defended him in the past.

For example, Peggy Noonan, the Reagan speechwriter, had this to say on Sunday in opinionjournal.com about Mr. Bush's "Meet the Press" interview: "The president seemed tired, unsure and often bumbling. His answers were repetitive, and when he tried to clarify them he tended to make them worse."

George Will, the conservative columnist, wrote in his syndicated column on Sunday, "It is surreal for a Republican president to submit a budget to a Republican-controlled Congress and have Republican legislators vow to remove the 'waste' that he has included and that they have hitherto funded."

While most conservatives remain squarely behind Mr. Bush, the united front has not been quite as united.

Columnists like Robert Novak, conservative television hosts like Joe Scarborough of MSNBC and others on local radio and the Internet have raised questions about Mr. Bush.

"It's a critical departure," said J. David Hoeveler, a professor of history at the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, who said last week that he believed that his local conservative radio host, Charlie Sykes, had begun sounding less exuberant about Mr. Bush. "Generally it's been whole-heartedly Republican," Mr. Hoeveler said of the tenor of the conservative media. "It would suggest that those who would call themselves Republicans are quite possibly breaking ranks."

Bush campaign officials say the frustration stems from an eagerness among his supporters to take on the Democrats aggressively, which they say he will begin to do soon. And some columnists and commentators who have voiced criticism of the president insisted on Monday that they were not breaking ranks and that he remained their standard-bearer.

Still, several conservative columnists and commentators said their pronouncements of disappointment resulted from growing frustration with what they saw as unbridled federal spending, Mr. Bush's mixed signals on gay marriage and his caution in meeting fierce critiques from a newly emboldened opposition.

Republicans who gave him poor grades for his performance on "Meet the Press," for instance, said they were concerned that he was not in fighting form when the possible Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, is.

Many critiques go beyond politics. For instance, until recently Mr. Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida, was as energetic a booster of Mr. Bush as anyone. He said he began speaking out against the Bush fiscal policy about two months ago, as he grew alarmed by the growing deficit and what he said were needlessly expensive proposals, like a manned Mars expedition and an increase in financing for the National Endowment of the Arts.

"When I first started doing it, I had Republicans calling me up and saying `Hey, why are you knocking a guy who's from your party?' " he said. "Two months later, everybody seems to be saying it. There's been no fiscal restraint and that's hurting the party and it's hurting the conservative cause."

In one column last week, Mr. Novak criticized Mr. Bush for giving "the most ineffective State of the Union address in recent years." And, he wrote, the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the admission that the president's plan to expand Medicare would cost more than initially estimated were "a double blow to his credibility."

Mr. Novak pointed out in an interview that despite his criticism, most Republicans are not likely to vote for the Democratic nominee. But, he said: "The problem is not whether they vote for Kerry. The problem is whether they stay at home."

Terry Holt, the president's campaign spokesman, said he expected it all to quiet down as soon as Mr. Bush went up against Mr. Kerry directly, should the senator capture the nomination. "When the campaign enters a new period where Kerry will stand in direct comparison to the president, there will be a more intense focus on Kerry's record," Mr. Holt said, "And I think what we're seeing from these folks is a sense that they are ready for that period to begin."

John Andrew, Kool-Aid drinker.

Jeez, dude, wake up and smell the iced latte (what is it that the elites like kathyk say?)

What you're pointing out is that conservatives are honest and will criticize their own, unlike the liberals who line up behind Monica and in the end, end up with love juice on thier lips.

Every study done to date shows something like 80+% of Americans, regardless of party, are against gay marriage, and support an amendment that will end the confusion about it.

And the NY Times has been shown to be to the left of Pravda, more and more viewed even by liberal democrats as so biased and full of propaganda that is isn't worth reading.

So far it looks like the Democrats haven't found a candidate with a chance of winning, and that's unfortunate. Bush's actions vis-a-vis Afghanistan and Iraq were correct and well received and no amount of Monday morning quarter-backing can change that. Some of his administrations other actions aren't quite so clearly well accepted. The tax cuts may be destabilizing in the long-term and could certainly be a topic of debate, especially the inheritance tax issue. Also, the incredible actions of the Federal Energy Regulatory Comission carrying water for Enron, El Paso, and the other oil boys, in itself, deserves investigation and debate. The role of Secretary Fall (or was that VP Cheney) in the energy rape of California should be of interest to everyone. But none of the Democratic candidates inspire any confidence. It's too bad. This is a winnable election for the Democrats, but attacking GWB's administration for the things most people think they are doing well, and otherwise acting clueless won't get a Democrat elected.

Not with their current crop of nincompoops.

My point exactly.

The more I learn about Kerry, the more I think that Bush will beat him so badly I will have to avert my eyes.

If you think what you know about him so far is bad, get a load of this 1970 article that has come to light, which ran in the Harvard Crimson:

John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress


Some choice tidbits:

Kerry said that the United Nations should have control over most of our foreign military operations. "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

Kerry wants "to almost eliminate CIA activity."


For a followup article that ran today, click the "related articles" link.

Eliminate the CIA, and turn out military over to complete control by the UN... yep - he's gonna be toast very soon.

JA,

gryphon is exactly right. This is the kind of routine, honest disagreement and criticism that goes on among those on the right.

If you think this is a sign that any of those conservatives speaking out are looking to Kerry as their savior you have badly misread the tea leaves.

Just a case of open minded conservatives sharing opinions that differ. Pretty common stuff.

Oh my, it gets worse. I read in the news today that Jane Fonda is defending Kerry. If I were running for president the last thing in the world I would want is to have Jane Fonda in agreement with anything that I did.

This boy Kerry is gonna get beat like a red headed step child. How could this happen to the Democratic party?

He must be especially worried, since he is once again in the hot seat. Maybe that's why he's been laying (or was lying?) low these days??? Rove Admits Smear Campaign

From the magazine's mission statement:

As much as the magazine would wish to claim autonomy, I read 4 articles while perusing the website, and glanced at many more headlines.

Bush bad, Democrat good, is the basic mantra.

The article cited is without meat. Typical KathyK stuff. :rolleyes:

Wrong link, kathyk? That one was about Valerie Plame, not about a smear campaign against Kerry.

Gimmee a break Jolly. Do you think I give a cat's rotten fish-head whiskers what the publication's mission statement is? This is ALL over news. Rove's hands are so dirty in this, it's pathetic. I originally posted stuff on this back in Sept and it ain't gonna go away. What he did was reprehensible.

No ma'am,

I fully realize you do not care where your news comes from.

As long as you agree with it.