Third Party & Independents Archives

Will hate of Bush be enough?

In two of the nations most highly contested Senate races the Democrats seem to be taking an anti-Bush path in their advertisements. But will this work?

In Virginia Democrat Jim Webb is pushing advertisements that tie Senator George Allen's voting record to the opinions of President Bush. While in Maryland Democrat Ben Cardin is running advertisements that say Republican candidate Michael Steele is loved by President Bush and actually shows a picture of Bush and Steele standing together inside of a heart.

Will this be enough though? Democrats have tried this tactic before, think back to 2004 the Democratic Party ran their presidential campaign as an anti-Bush / Anybody But Bush campaign. They failed to show why their candidate was worthy of election and instead just hightlighted the ills of Bush, and they were unsuccesful. This time it is a bit different because Bush is not actually a candidate, so instead the Democrats strategy is to tie these Republican candidates to the highly unpopular Bush.

If the Democrats had a plan, any plan than this tactic would not be necessary. However since the Democrats seem to be everywhere on every issue with some for the war some agaisnt the war, some for the torture bill (Military Commissions Act) some against, almost all voting with Bush and the Republicans on the Patriot Act, and overall never coming out with a real plan for the country, this is the only strategy they can muster.

In seven days the voters will decide on this strategy and we will see if this anti-Bush advertisement strategy is successful.

In the Maryland Senate Race Green candidate Kevin Zeese will also be on the ballot, Zeese originally was nominated by the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Populist Party.


Posted by Richard Rhodes at October 31, 2006 5:06 PM
Comments
Comment #191942

I think the Mark Foley scandal ought to do it.

Besides, plenty of Republicans are disassociating themselves from president Bush as it is so that probably would not be a dominant factor anyways.

Posted by: Zeek at October 31, 2006 5:13 PM
Comment #191946

Richard
The Dems are also running anti-Bush ads here in Missouri.
I’m not sure its the only plan the Dems can “muster,” but it sure seems to be the one they think will be enough to win.

Sure would have been nice to have seen them re-evaluate their platform and fix it so that it represents all of us though.
Talk about a slam-dunk.

Posted by: kctim at October 31, 2006 5:18 PM
Comment #191955

kctim- Ironically here in Virginia I have personally never seen Webb and the Democrats make an ad on Allen’s racist comments. So it seems they are choosing not to motivate the Black vote which votes heavily Democrat.


I am not saying that the Democrats have not made an ad about Allen’s racist comments but that I have personally not seen such an ad, while I have seen the Allen compared to Bush anti-Bush ad several times so it seems this is their all in strategy.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at October 31, 2006 5:31 PM
Comment #191969

Personally, the whole anti-Bush campaign will probably be enough, but does it really make sense.

Even if it does work logically it shouldn’t. Most Republicans have broken their bonds and ties to Bush, and the Democrats have a sad sorry line up for the majority of their positions, as do the Republicans.

If the majority of voters would actually stop picking sides and start looking into what it is the individual politicians are all about, I think the Libertarian party would indefinetly take a landside of votes.

Here in WA we have proven Cantwell(D) vs. fiscal genius McGavick, both are good candidates, but niether are what really need to be present.

The Libertarian party has offered us Bruce Guthrie who is an incredible candidate who doesn’t stand a chance in this two party minded populus.

All together, I don’t want it to work because it is a sad sorry way to get votes, but it probably will.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at October 31, 2006 5:57 PM
Comment #191973

It my experience that politicians either rarely stick to the plans they make, and when they do, its not always for the best.

Campaign promises are often made in ignorance and are often regrettable in their keeping. I would rather get a sense of how they are going to approach problems, how they think. Few issues we ask a president or legislator to take care of are really that simple.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2006 6:17 PM
Comment #191979

Bryan AJ Kennedy-
The Republican in Congress had no problem in being rubberstamps and sharing in Bush’s glory in 2002 and upholding his candidacy in 2004. They had no problem in associating themselves with all things Bush when he was popular.

Just what is wrong with keeping them as attached to his coattails in the of his fall, as they were in the time of his rise?

The Republicans secured their power at our expense and the expense of this country, based on Bush’s being our fearless leader. They excused and cooperated in many of these failures. To let them distance themselves at this point is silly. They knew what they were doing, they did it anyways. They deserve their punishment.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2006 6:42 PM
Comment #191982

Richard, it doesn’t matter. It has boiled down to mudslinging, lies, misrepresentations, sleaze, and beating the grass to scare the snakes to the polls.

It is no longer about Iraq, the Debt, falling educational, health care, and national security standings. It is all about character assassination now, and beating the grassroots.

Incumbents are dedicated to getting the focus off their record. Challengers are dedicated to getting the focus back on incumbent’s records. That is the only strategy at play in this election.

However, there is a far, far larger long term strategy at play here, which is being very effectively played by Republicans. Have you counted how many former Republicans are now running as Democrats? The grand slam of alltime politics is happening before our very eyes, and no one has seen it until this comment was written. The Republicans are infiltrating the Democratic Party. En masse. If they are going to lose as a party, they are insuring they have a number of their own in the party that will replace theirs.

Now that, Richard, is strategy! Brilliant strategy. And if Democrats don’t wake up, an incredibly effective one to continue to steer this nation right and conservative regardless of which Republocrat party has control.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 31, 2006 6:56 PM
Comment #192000

You know David R, my wife’s brother in law has a saying: - “it doesn’t matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in”

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 31, 2006 7:59 PM
Comment #192009

I think it’s everything. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Iraq, Afghanistan, Corruption in Spades, The Debt, The Economy Only For The Rich, Foley, Lack of National Security, The Healthcare Crisis, The Looming Medicare Crisis, The Social Security Crisis, The Children Left Behind Educational Crisis, Looming Global Climate Change, and the complete takeover of American Government by the Corporations. It’s all of this failure that has been driving the GOP implosion, IMO.

“Have you counted how many former Republicans are now running as Democrats?”

No. Why don’t you give us a list. I’ll start by stating the obvious: Lieberman, Feinstein, Hilary Clinton…

“The grand slam of alltime politics is happening before our very eyes, and no one has seen it until this comment was written. The Republicans are infiltrating the Democratic Party. En masse.”

The Liberal Netroots isn’t going to fall for this for one minute. We look at who the candidates are, where they come from, and what their stands on the issues are before giving anyone our time, money or support. Republican Lite and Republicans sheepishly donning Democratic clothing doesn’t now, and won’t in the future cut the mustard with folks like us. In my opinion, those of us who are vigilant, well informed, and tightly connected to each other via the internet are going to be the future of the Democratic party in the years to come.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 31, 2006 8:28 PM
Comment #192037

Here in Tennessee, I get mailed campaign ads from Republicans that never mention the word Republican. They don’t mention the Iraq War either. It’s all about family values and cutting taxes. If this wasn’t so deadly serious, it would be amusing that they are running from their party.

Posted by: Trent at October 31, 2006 10:08 PM
Comment #192050

Adrienne, you may want to research it before taking such a stand.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 31, 2006 10:34 PM
Comment #192063

Kansas: Nine Ex-Republicans run as Democrats

Webb running against Allen in Va., an ex-Republican running as Democrat.

Ca.: Ex-Republican to challenge Doolittle

The Prospect

But Kansas isn’t alone. In South Carolina, 5th Circuit Solicitor Barney Giese, a longtime Republican, has decided to run for reelection as a Democrat.

ibid: NBA Hall of Famer Charles Barkley has switched teams.

Now, this may be just a reversal of a trend after the Reagan years. Or, maybe not. One thing is for sure, the conservative dissonance in the Democratic Party is the main reason the Democratic Party can’t find a unified platform or voice on a single issue, except reversing Bush.

It appears after Nov. 7, American will have two gigantic political parties broken into many pieces and lacking in unity of platform, message, or purpose (other than warfare with each other).

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 31, 2006 10:56 PM
Comment #192096

David,
Looks to me as though Kansas has become highly allergic to the Neocons. Good, all Americans should be. I already knew about Webb being a former Republican. And of course absolutely anyone would be a better choice than that crook Doolittle — a man who can be bought, and who is ripe with the stench of being connected to the Trifecta of Corruption: Abramoff, Cunningham, AND Delay! Not to mention being the best friend of another California Crook with a history of corruption as long as both of your arms and mine: Richard Pombo.

Here’s my take on this idea of a GOP sneak-attack on the Democratic Party: If “Moderate” Republicans actually believe they can take over the Democratic party simply because they don’t have the cojones to take their own party back after the Neocon Hijacking of it, they’re in for a rude awakening.
Either that — or the Democratic Party is Totally Kaput.
Because I can promise that the Liberal base will start jumping ship in earnest, and the hemoraging won’t stop until all that’s left is a bunch of people who like being beholden to Corporations (the professional politicians and their well-placed friends), and a bizzare gaggle of confused or uninformed fence-sitters who don’t know whether they’re coming or going.
The truth is, it’s been bad enough for Liberals having to contend with the DLC Democrats, aka “The New Democrats”, aka Republican Lite, aka the NAFTA Dems, aka the Morally Bankrupt supporters of the Bankruptcy Bill (on behalf of the Credit Card Companies and their ability to fill their campaign coffers), but if they think we’ll allow Republicans to pull this party any further to the right than it already is, they really will be history.
I for one will naturally leave the Democratic party again in a heartbeat if this is the way the wind is going to blow. I’ve already left once and the only reason I came back was to do my best to try to save it from complete destruction. But, I’m far from stupid, nor am I a bloody masochist that needs to cling to a political label more than I do my own views and ideals.

If, as you claim, this does come to pass, it will automatically mean that a new party comprised of Liberals will need to be born.

Posted by: Adrienne at November 1, 2006 12:50 AM
Comment #192111

I’m sick of all this plan non-sense. Obviously, Democrats are going to reign in Bush’s spending (they don’t agree with his priorities). Force more transparency in Iraq (won’t vote for what’s unclear), and in general just not be party machine robots. What these ads show is that congress was Bush’s bitch. They voted for anything he suggested without a moment’s thought about what was really good for the country. We need some friction. And people better damn well indicate they are unhappy.

Posted by: Max at November 1, 2006 5:14 AM
Comment #192117

The problem I currently have with “voting the person” — If the Person is a Republican is
No matter what his/her intentions are — it has become apparent that the PARTY controls things — and especially for a newcomer — he/she would be unable to counter the pressure coming from the PARTY.
So It is nice that all these candidates have finally “seen the light” — but I am afraid that is really just a smoke screen to get re-elected.
Since the Party has lost credibility — it is difficult to trust that the individuals will remain (or be allowed to remain) individuals as long as this party leadership remains in power — and it appears that the true “leadership” of this party appears to be whomever pulls Bush’s strings (Rove?? Cheney??)
Until such time that the Republican party demonstrates it’s renewed commitment to the Constitution, and the people they represent, I can NOT in good conscience vote for ANY of them.

The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
Henry Kissinger (1923 - ), New York Times, Oct. 28, 1973

Posted by: Russ at November 1, 2006 7:27 AM
Comment #192118

David R. Remer-
The Republican Party no longer represents moderates so well, so many of their moderate candidates have flocked to us. This may exert some conservative pull on the party, but we will exert a liberal pull on them as well, and on the people of those states. In short, its a reversal of the trend of moderates toward the Republicans, and it should not be belittled by a conspiracy theory as to what’s being done. It is evidence of a demographic shift, and a necessary one if the Republican domination of politics is going to continue its downward slide.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2006 7:54 AM
Comment #192159

I don’t think hatred of Bush is enough. Democrats, since 2002 have been what the Australians call “knockers.” Knockers are people rail against a person, group, idea, policy, but offer no alternative.

On the issue that Democrats have made their bread and butter issue, the war in Iraq, not one coherent policy statement has come out from Democrats as a group other than the Bush policy is bad. I have long believed that just be anti-“something” doesn’t win elections. Americans I think are smarter than that.

Obviously the overwhelming majority of Americans, including growing number of Republicans, believe that the Bush policy is not working, but they not likely to endorse no policy over a weak policy.

This one issue, more than any other, illustrates how unprepared the Democrats are for leadership. Ideas still matter.

Posted by: Matt Johnston at November 1, 2006 9:38 AM
Comment #192255

Matt Johnston-
People know what our alternative is: timetables and withdrawal. An exit strategy. To say we have no plan is to ignore even your own criticisms of us. If we have no plan, then what exactly is the “Cut and Run” comment supposed to nail? If we have no plan, then what’s the point of criticizing John Murtha?

We have a plan, but Republicans don’t like it, so it’s no plan at all.

We have plenty of plans, no doubt. We just have a Republican party that ignores what it dismisses, even as its own plans stand in obvious need of improvement or replacement.

You folks are in power, we’re telling people we’ll do better. Of course we’re going to sound like “knockers” to you.

The bitter irony in all this is the long term knocking of Democrats and their alternatives, their principles that Republicans have engaged in. Is it any wonder they remain in a state of denial?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2006 12:44 PM
Comment #192331

Stephen

[I would rather get a sense of how they are going to approach problems, how they think.]

My friend, that is exactly what I am trying to say.

I also agree that the republicans have ‘rubber stamped’ all Bush’s policies, but so have the democrats with their Executive teams in the past.

I am not speaking against Dem or Repub, I am speaking against them both. Not every politician is a failure, but for the time being (namely last 20 eyars) we have had a sad run of nit-picking and back-stabbing on both sides in the federal government.

Look at New York, they have two very qualified candidates, who both could do great things and on the personal level are running honest and friendly campaigns. Then you look at what their parties are doing and its sad to watch. Repubs and Dems are using slash and hack tactics in a way that really only hurts the integrity of both of their candidates.

I think these two should be an example to politicians every where on how two people of different agendas can both be upstanding indivuals who are equally dedicated to their people with total respect for each other.

They run campaigns focused on how each one wants to attack the same issues and the people have the choice of choosing which they feel with be more effective. That to me, is a beautiful thing to see.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at November 1, 2006 3:01 PM
Comment #192387

Ned Lamont was also a lifelong Republican until he wanted to gain power.

Does this tugging to the right within the Democratic Party not concern Democrats? Well, I can see why not. Power at any cost is as alive on the left as it is on the right. That is why our government no longer has any integrity.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 1, 2006 5:19 PM
Comment #192393

Adrienne:

“I’ve already left once and the only reason I came back was to do my best to try to save it from complete destruction. But, I’m far from stupid, nor am I a bloody masochist that needs to cling to a political label more than I do my own views and ideals.”

I applaud you for this comment. I appreciate someone who is willing to stand up to their “party” in favor of common sense.


Matt Johnston:

“On the issue that Democrats have made their bread and butter issue, the war in Iraq, not one coherent policy statement has come out from Democrats as a group other than the Bush policy is bad.”

As a party, I have to agree with you here. Those who have stated a plan or alternative have varied greatly from their peers. The one lone voice in the darkness of the dem party has been Russ Feingold. His position has not wavered. I don’t completely agree with him, but I have to admire a man who made up his own mind based on facts and has not wavered. And, frankly, he has been mostly correct. As a fiscal conservative, I like Russ alot. He is the ultimate fiscal watchdog in the same vein as the famous Bill Proxmire (D-WI).

Stephen Daugherty:

“We have a plan, but Republicans don’t like it, so it’s no plan at all.”

If there is a plan, I haven’t heard it coming from dem leadership in one voice. Each dem leader has their own plan. For this to work, eventually, the dems are going to have to learn to reach consensus and speak with one voice. Otherwise, we will get mired in discussion and no action.

Posted by: Chi Chi at November 1, 2006 5:28 PM
Comment #192443

I agree with Chi Chi

The Dem party is in need of unification.

I firmly believe that the Repubs are in power not due to any kind of scandal, but are so because the agree.

That makes it easier for over worked, under paid, under appreciated Mrs. American Soccer Mom to agree. That’s how it works, wether you agree with the means or not, that is just how it works.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at November 1, 2006 7:27 PM
Comment #192723

David:
“Does this tugging to the right within the Democratic Party not concern Democrats? Well, I can see why not. Power at any cost is as alive on the left as it is on the right. That is why our government no longer has any integrity.”

You had to totally ignore my post in order to ask this question. Okay. Whatever.

Chi Chi:
“I applaud you for this comment. I appreciate someone who is willing to stand up to their “party” in favor of common sense.”

Thanks, Chi Chi.

“The one lone voice in the darkness of the dem party has been Russ Feingold. His position has not wavered. I don’t completely agree with him, but I have to admire a man who made up his own mind based on facts and has not wavered. And, frankly, he has been mostly correct. As a fiscal conservative, I like Russ alot. He is the ultimate fiscal watchdog in the same vein as the famous Bill Proxmire (D-WI).”

Well said.
I agree completely, except for the fact that I do mostly agree with Feingold’s positions.
FEINGOLD in 2008!

Posted by: Adrienne at November 2, 2006 12:48 PM
Comment #192889

Adrienne, I didn’t ignore it. Democrats are being pulled right in the name of power at any cost. If the liberals ditch the party, that disintegrates the party, and liberals still lose by virtue of not having the benefit of the big tent voter numbers.

It is a crossroads the Dem. Party is at. And how they negotiate this juncture is as vital to their party as is the same juncture now facing the GOP, whose disintegration is imminent.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 2, 2006 6:42 PM
Comment #193162

The article about Ex-Republicans becoming Democrats highlights one of the real problems in our Country.

Ex-Republicans by and large should become Libertarians, just like most fiscally conservative voters that are discusted by Republicans should be voting Libertarian…

The effect that this 2 party monopoly has on our country is restricting voters 2 the lesser of two evil choices instead of voting for a platform that actually lines up with their beliefs.

Look at the Democratic party, what is their platform? “We are not the Republicans/Regligious Right” When people can transition back and forth between the two major parties so easily it kinda suggests that there really isn’t much choice being offered to the voter - pick a color, you can have light blue or teal - wow what a choice!

Posted by: Redlenses at November 3, 2006 5:18 PM
Comment #193391

Redlenses, there is always Green!

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 5, 2006 5:51 AM
Post a comment