Bush Advisers Formulate Election Plans

[MonstaThrilla]

New York Times

President Bush's campaign has settled on a plan to run against Howard Dean that would portray him as reckless, angry and pessimistic, while framing the 2004 election as a referendum on the direction of the nation more than on the president himself, Mr. Bush's aides say.

Some advisers to Mr. Bush, increasingly convinced that Dr. Dean will become their opponent next fall, are pushing to begin a drive to undercut him even before a Democratic nominee becomes clear. But others said the more likely plan would be to hold back until after the Democratic contest had effectively ended, probably no later than March.

As a Bush strategist put it, Dr. Dean's rivals are "doing a great job for us" with their increasingly tough attacks on him.

"Voters don't normally vote for an angry, pessimistic person to be president of the country," Matthew Dowd, a senior Bush adviser, said as he pressed the anti-Dean theme this week in an interview at Mr. Bush's re-election campaign headquarters. "They want somebody, even if times are not great, to be forward looking and optimistic."

As the second part of a two-part strategy, Mr. Bush's aides said, the president will set out upbeat themes and policy ideas, starting with the State of the Union address on Jan. 20. That would be part of a drive to buttress what polls show is a growing feeling among voters that the country is on the right track. The goal, Mr. Bush's advisers said, is to make the election more about the nation's success in confronting great challenges than about Mr. Bush personally.

By depersonalizing the election ? at least when it comes to Mr. Bush ? the White House is seeking to counter Democratic efforts to play to sharp anti-Bush sentiment among Democrats. Dr. Dean, a former governor of Vermont, has repeatedly said that the key to victory next year is heavy turnout among Democrats alienated by Mr. Bush.

[...]

The president's political team, led by Karl Rove, his senior adviser, is working on policy initiatives that would help build support among specific blocs of voters. For the so-called investor class, the team is planning a push for private investment accounts in Social Security and expanded tax-free savings accounts. Mr. Bush is also developing an immigration proposal, expected to be announced early next year, that would make it easier for workers from Latin America to move to the United States legally. That step could help Mr. Bush appeal to Hispanics, a fast-growing segment of the electorate and one that Mr. Bush and Mr. Rove have worked hard to win over.

Given the nation's close partisan division and the president's status as the embodiment of one side of that divide, his advisers said that one key to victory was to depolarize the electorate as much as possible and draw more support than the other side from the middle. They said Mr. Bush was in a stronger position than Dr. Dean to do that.

[...]

What a terrific, losing strategy. I don't know how they're going to paint Dean as reckless when his record as Governor of Vermont displays the exact opposite or how they're going to paint Dean as pessimistic when Dean's three campaign planks will be 1) jobs, 2) healthcare, and 3) education. They've got it right on angry I guess, but I don't know how much that can resonate with the swing voters they're trying to court. The strategy to make the campaign a referendum on direction rather than the man would work if they could frame the debate that way, but I don't know how they can frame the debate that way when you've got angry Howie blabbing on and on about the President night in and night out. Further, they risk alienating some of their white base by allowing an influx of Hispanics to enter the country.

Oh well. Here's to the genius of Rove & Co. :beer:

 

[glenn1]

What a terrific, losing strategy. I don't know how they're going to paint Dean as reckless when his record as Governor of Vermont displays the exact opposite

Okay, as a Libertarian/independent 34 y.o. white male (one of the "undecided" in the most cherished voter demographics), let me tell you how. He's reckless because he doesn't engage his brain before speaking. He can't seem to open his mouth without his foot flying into it. "I guess it's a good thing Saddam is out of power" ring a bell? Or his shameless and tasteless pitch for "Confederate flag waving guys? How about "I don't think capturing Saddam makes us safer" ?

or how they're going to paint Dean as pessimistic when Dean's three campaign planks will be 1) jobs, 2) healthcare, and 3) education.

This one's tougher. But the thinking is probably that as the challenger, it's his job to say why Bush isn't doing a good job and therefore should be replaced. That's somewhat of a "glass is half-empty" chore by its nature. I do agree that will be far easier for Dean to counter, however.

They've got it right on angry I guess, but I don't know how much that can resonate with the swing voters they're trying to court.

Quite a bit. When engaged in a war on terror, the Commander-in-Chief has to strike the right balance. We don't want someone coming off as half-cocked who would have dropped a nuke on someone on 9-11. But likewise, we don't want someone for doesn't seem like he gives a rats ass about fighting the war on terror. Dean loses on both counts. He's a hothead whom many won't trust and he's a hothead about exactly the wrong things.

The strategy to make the campaign a referendum on direction rather than the man would work if they could frame the debate that way, but I don't know how they can frame the debate that way when you've got angry Howie blabbing on and on about the President night in and night out.

Angry Howie blabbing. Great, that'll just make Dean look like a freaking loon.

Further, they risk alienating some of their white base by allowing an influx of Hispanics to enter the country.

And top it all off by playing the race card. You lose, and so will Dean if that's the best you can come up with. Dean will get crushed, and in the biggest landslide loss in history. He won't just lose, he'll lose cataclysmically.

 

[MonstaThrilla]

Okay, as a Libertarian/independent 34 y.o. white male (one of the "undecided" in the most cherished voter demographics), let me tell you how. He's reckless because he doesn't engage his brain before speaking. He can't seem to open his mouth without his foot flying into it. "I guess it's a good thing Saddam is out of power" ring a bell? Or his shameless and tasteless pitch for "Confederate flag waving guys? How about "I don't think capturing Saddam makes us safer" ?

So what one says is what makes him reckless? I thought actions spoke louder than words? What's reckless about a decade of fiscal discipline and balanced budgets, thats made Vermont currently one of the few states not with financial woes? What's reckless about covering 96% of the children in your state with health insurance, while maintiaing that fiscal sanity? What's reckless about centrist, down the line governing?

Also, capturing Saddam did not make this country any safer because he was not a threat to us.

Quite a bit. When engaged in a war on terror, the Commander-in-Chief has to strike the right balance. We don't want someone coming off as half-cocked who would have dropped a nuke on someone on 9-11. But likewise, we don't want someone for doesn't seem like he gives a rats ass about fighting the war on terror. Dean loses on both counts. He's a hothead whom many won't trust and he's a hothead about exactly the wrong things.

Again, my point was that there is no basis to think the anger he portrays in his stump speech will drive him to do crazy things in the White House. Common sense. Actions speak louder than words. His record as a Governor is solid and shows that he governs with a firm, even hand.

And top it all off by playing the race card. You lose, and so will Dean if that's the best you can come up with. Dean will get crushed, and in the biggest landslide loss in history. He won't just lose, he'll lose cataclysmically.

[/quote]

LOL. Like I'm really in a position of power to play the race card. Regardless, my observation is true and if you want to scream race baiting at me then go ahead. I was trying to start a debate on Bush campaign strategy and obviously that calls for an ad hominem.

And please do go on thinking he'll lose big time, and tell all your friends to rest on their laurels and think the same way too. :beer:

 

[glenn1]

And please do go on thinking he'll lose big time, and tell all your friends to rest on their laurels and think the same way too.

I don't see why you're all offended. You offered up the Bush & co. election strategy for comment, and i told you what i thought as someone who doesn't particularly care for either camp (and perhaps is representative of the feelings of many in the "uncommitted" camp). I didn't and won't vote for the boy idiot Bush and wouldn't vote for the noxious and obnoxious Dean. But i can still give you an impression of how an average non-partisan views the contest, however, and it's not looking good for Dean at this stage. He's combines several of the worst traits of some of the biggest losers in history (he's repeated Mondale's pledge to raise taxes, Carter's lack of a grasp on foreign policy, the firebrand my-way-or-the-highway radicalism of Goldwater, and the pacifist streak of McGovern). In short, he's a walking disaster for the average voter. It's a shame because Bush shouldn't be a hard nut to crack given his weaknesses, but he should rout Dean easily.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: glenn1

What a terrific, losing strategy. I don't know how they're going to paint Dean as reckless when his record as Governor of Vermont displays the exact opposite

Okay, as a Libertarian/independent 34 y.o. white male (one of the "undecided" in the most cherished voter demographics), let me tell you how. He's reckless because he doesn't engage his brain before speaking. He can't seem to open his mouth without his foot flying into it. "I guess it's a good thing Saddam is out of power" ring a bell? Or his shameless and tasteless pitch for "Confederate flag waving guys? How about "I don't think capturing Saddam makes us safer" ?

or how they're going to paint Dean as pessimistic when Dean's three campaign planks will be 1) jobs, 2) healthcare, and 3) education.

This one's tougher. But the thinking is probably that as the challenger, it's his job to say why Bush isn't doing a good job and therefore should be replaced. That's somewhat of a "glass is half-empty" chore by its nature. I do agree that will be far easier for Dean to counter, however.

They've got it right on angry I guess, but I don't know how much that can resonate with the swing voters they're trying to court.

Quite a bit. When engaged in a war on terror, the Commander-in-Chief has to strike the right balance. We don't want someone coming off as half-cocked who would have dropped a nuke on someone on 9-11. But likewise, we don't want someone for doesn't seem like he gives a rats ass about fighting the war on terror. Dean loses on both counts. He's a hothead whom many won't trust and he's a hothead about exactly the wrong things.

The strategy to make the campaign a referendum on direction rather than the man would work if they could frame the debate that way, but I don't know how they can frame the debate that way when you've got angry Howie blabbing on and on about the President night in and night out.

Angry Howie blabbing. Great, that'll just make Dean look like a freaking loon.

Further, they risk alienating some of their white base by allowing an influx of Hispanics to enter the country.

And top it all off by playing the race card. You lose, and so will Dean if that's the best you can come up with. Dean will get crushed, and in the biggest landslide loss in history. He won't just lose, he'll lose cataclysmically.

" the biggest landslide loss in history. He won't just lose, he'll lose cataclysmically"

Of course it will be Bush on the losing end of that cataclysmic landslide

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, if Mr rove thinks that a few feelgood proposals will de-polarize the electorate, he's not nearly as smart as his fans seem to think. If anything, Dubya will play hell campaigning to the middle, given his record as president.

Having actually lost the popular vote in 2000, he took office by stint of Florida election peculiarities and intervention of the supreme court as a minority president. He got there by campaigning to the middle, promising integrity and bipartisanship.

As some say, 9/11 changed everything, at least for the republicans. They ruthlessly exploited it for partisan ends, and took the gloves off after their very successful midterm election efforts. They've kicked sand in the face of every interest to the left of Barry Goldwater ever since.

In short, it's too late for them to get anything back that they've lost from the middle, way too late.

Let's take inventory of the issues-

Guns are off the table, Dean gets top marks from the NRA. This issue alone hurt Gore terribly.

Bush's environmental record is dismal, sportsmen of all stripes are incensed over his policies, not just greens.

Fiscal integrity has gone over to the other side. Fiscal conservatives of all stripes have abandoned Bush.

Women's rights and issues are a dead loss for Bush.

The entire scientific community is up in arms over appointments of avowed creationists to important governmental scientific posts, and efforts to direct scientific work in ways acceptable to the christian right fringe.

Tax cuts and economic recovery have largely benefitted corporations and the wealthy while job creation is low, and wages in these new jobs are even lower. Corporate Cronyism is obvious, and rampant.

Iraq isn't going away, either, and anybody with a lick of sense knows the whole misadventure was misrepresented in a variety of ways, none of them flattering to GWB.

There's the senior drug benefit that isn't, unless you're a senior executive of a drug company...

And there's all the back burner stuff, just simmering- the Plame outing, Cheney's energy policy meeting notes, the 9/11 investigation.... and probably some other stuff we haven't even heard of- yet.

And they propose to counter this with more investor class benefits that threaten the health of social security? With an even stronger deluge of legalized immigrants who'll work for less, depress wages more? Native Hispanic voters, citizens, are supposed to like that? Blacks and working class whites too, I suppose...


Have at it, gentlemen. With any luck at all, you'll get the @ss kicking you so richly deserve.


PS- it seems to me, glenn1, that much of what you believe about Dean is what you've read from second-hand accounts about Dean. Get it from the source- www.deanforamerica.com