Republican Strategy 2008

     As soon as the Republicans can get Mike Huckabee out of the race the sooner they can begin to institute the new/old strategies for 2008. The Republican strategies will rely on two main points for the general election. The first will be the nation at war narrative that will require a national hero and security hawk to navigate this dangerous world we now find ourselves in. The country will need his experience and understanding of war to succeed in the global struggle against the Islamo-fascist terrorists that hate us for our freedoms. The second will be a large cash give-away in an effort to buy the election. I am not talking about the tax rebate or stimulus package, no I am referring to the recently unveiled budget of George W. Let's look at both of these strategies and their appeal to voters in November.

    The first is the same strategy George W. used to beat John Kerry in 2004. The narrative was that a real war hero was not qualified to lead the country as well as a National Guard deserter and a chicken-hawk, only George W. could lead the country during these dangerous times. Well, now they have their own war hero to continue the disastrous war in Iraq. I guess because an ex-POW says we should stay in Iraq then that concludes anymore discussion on the subject. The Rovian model of the Republican majority is based in this nation at war scenario, as long as the Republicans can continue to use the scare and fear tactics that they have refined in the two past elections they can maintain a majority. As the election approaches the threat level is already being elevated in the MSM and the Defense Department. During the summer and into the fall there will be report after report of the growing capabilities of al Qaeda and their ongoing plans to attack America. Of course these reports will be attributed to unnamed administration  and defense spokespeople so they can never be checked out. The MSM will report and give them the weight of confirmed intelligence. I would not be surprised if the threat level is not elevated to its highest state in say four years.

Beginning with Mitt Romney, who withdrew from the race on Thursday, warning that he would not abet "the surrender to terror," Republicans, including Mr. McCain and Vice President Dick Cheney, have warned darkly that the Democrats were ill-suited and ill-equipped to protect the nation, the same theme that Mr. Bush struck in his successful 2004 re-election campaign.

"I guarantee you this: If we had announced a date for withdrawal from Iraq and withdrawn troops the way that Senator Obama and Senator Clinton want to do, Al Qaeda would be celebrating that they had defeated the United States of America and that we surrendered," Mr. McCain said at a rally in Wichita. "I will never surrender." NY Times

    The war supporters are all lining up to chime in with their predictions of an all-out al Qaeda invasion if we do not stay the course and elect John McCain. Flush from their victory in Iraq we will have embolden them to once again attack America sending in waves of terrorist from across the Mexican border. They may look like Mexicans, but don't be fooled they are terrorists in disguise. This will also help to sell the much needed security fence along the Mexican border. Brilliant

    The second leg of their strategy will be the government give-a-ways that are stuffed into the 3.1 trillion dollar budget submitted  by Bush. The President, a staunch critic of Congressional earmarks has sent a budget to Capitol Hill that is teeming with them. However in Bush speak an earmark is not an earmark if the President submits them. In many cases expenditures that Bush once called earmarks have turned up in his budget. Bush is once again showing us that budget constraints mean nothing to him and his fellow "fiscal conservatives", they will continue to spend money in spite of any recession or depression the economy may be experiencing. The Republicans can now promote McCain as a true fiscal conservative who will put an end to the waste in Washington, of course they will fail to mention that much of that waste occurred during a two-term Republican administration.

Thus, for example, the president requested $330 million to deal with plant pests like the emerald ash borer, the light brown apple moth and the sirex woodwasp. He sought $800,000 for the Neosho National Fish Hatchery in Missouri and $1.5 million for a waterway named in honor of former Senator J. Bennett Johnston, a Louisiana Democrat.

At the same time, Mr. Bush requested $894,000 for an air traffic control tower in Kalamazoo, Mich.; $12 million for a parachute repair shop at the American air base in Aviano, Italy; and $6.5 million for research in Wyoming on the "fundamental properties of asphalt."

He sought $3 million for a forest conservation project in Minnesota, $2.1 million for a neutrino detector at the South Pole and $28 million for General Electric and Siemens to do research on hydrogen-fuel turbines. NY Times

    Along with the built-in earmarks, the budget also includes 500 billion for defense along with an additional 200 billion to continue the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This translates to a 62% increase in defense spending under Bush. With this increased defense spending is America any safer Are our military forces stronger? According to the Pentagon they are just the opposite, our forces are over-spent and in terrible need of repair. But this will not stop the war mongers from pressing the case for more war and more spending. Who says a nation has to sacrifice during war times? Obviously not anyone familiar with the today's Republicans.

There are many more wrong answers than right ones, and they are easier to find - Michael Friedlander

The Disputed Truth

Tags: George W. Bush, Iraq War, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Military Budget, Republican Scams (all tags)

Comments

1 Comment

And the Democratic nominee will aid this strategy

If you look polls of a cross section of voters (for example Pew Research) where the question is asked who is qualified to be commander in chief, Obama does poorly on this question.  McCain does best but Clinton is a fairly close second.  Clinton knew what she was doing by joining the Armed Services committee, immersing herself in the details, and earning praise for her work on the committee from Republican colleagues.  She knew she would have a perceived weakness there so she took efforts to shore those up.

As far as Part II of the strategy, no major candidate has more budget credibility than McCain.  Clinton might get a little transferred to her because of her husband's relative success in holding down government spending.  What will be the source of Obama's cred in this area?

by lombard 2008-02-18 08:55AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads