Is anti-terrorism enough of a platform?

[Ulysses]

Listening to the speeches yesterday as well as reading/listening to other Republican takes on the issues, I'm struck by one thing. Without analyzing/discussing/reviewing the information, just going on my first take, after all this stuff I'm typically left with one key message. Bush is the man to fight the war on terror. I don't know about you or about the typical listener, but all of the stuff about the economy and everything else seems to fall by the wayside and I'm pretty much left with that one message most of the time.

Do others agree with me here? Or am I just mentally keying in on this one point more than others?

If you do agree, is this enough to win an election on? If there isn't any major US (or maybe Western) terror attack prior to the election, is 9/11 (and the Iraq invasion) still close enough to people for this to be such an overwhelmingly emphasized primary point?

[nolanfan34]

I am a Republican. But I'll agree with you, this alone isn't enough to run a platform on. It's one part of Farenheit 9/11 that I thought was interesting, the idea that the current administration is just in the business of keeping the public scared and on edge (ie the mysterious alert color levels), to keep the war on terror focus justifiable in absense of other issues.

I hope the President's speech tonight focuses on some plans to continue economic recovery in this country, but I'm not holding my breath.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope the President's speech tonight focuses on some plans to continue economic recovery in this country, but I'm not holding my breath.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would almost guarantee that from the president tonight.

[nolanfan34]

Guarantee that he will talk about it or won't talk about it? I know he will talk about the economy, but I'm thinking it won't be as much as he should.

[elwoodblues]

Guarantee that he will talk about other topics. I think they are setting it up so that his speech will stand out because it doesn't focus so much on terror. We'll see.

[cjromero]

Elwood is right. The RNC decided to focus on terrorism the first 3 nights of the convention for two reasons. First, the American public already views Bush as the strongest candidate on the terror issue (by 20 points), just as they have already made their mind up that Kerry is better on the economy (by about 20 points). The RNC wants to play to Bush's strength, which is the war on terror, at least in the eyes of the public. Second, the focus of the RNC couldn't be on the state of the economy given where the country is in terms of jobs creation, deficits, etc. At best, Bush will be able to explain away the current economic state by saying the recession was inherited, that 9/11 and the corporate scandals made it worse, and that his tax relief package helped get the economy moving back in the right direction quicker than it otherwise would have with no tax relief.

Bush's speech tonight will begin with a long segment on the economy, on his theme of America as an "ownership society" (own your own home, own your own personal savings account, etc.), before turning to terrorism in the second half of the speech.

Also notice that much of the focus has been on the global war on terror, as opposed to Iraq.

These may or may not prove to be successful strategies come election time, but it's the smartest way to run the convention because it is Bush's best hand.

[MMMMMM]

Home ownership is at an all-time high, and unemployment by historical standards is very low, and interest rates are extremely low. More Americans have more wealth than ever before.

Yes, the deficit is a real concern, and the economy could be doing better--but Americans are better off overall, despite the rhetoric of Kerry and Michael Moore.

Hard to envision an incumbent getting sacked with so many Americans doing so well, really.

[Rooster71]

[ QUOTE ]
At best, Bush will be able to explain away the current economic state by saying the recession was inherited.

[/ QUOTE ]
In other words, Bush will invoke the Republican "blame it on Clinton" philosophy.

[Knockwurst]

Uh, you're kidding, right?

Don't know what you're smoking, but it must be pretty strong. Here's some hard data:

While the United States spent some $400 billion on tax cuts since Mr. Bush came to power, 4.3 million people have fallen below the poverty line, set at $18,660 for a family of four in 2003, bringing the total number of people living in poverty in 2003 to 35.9 million, or 12.5 percent of the American population. While the number of children living in poverty increased by 11 percent over the past three years, the number of children receiving welfare declined by 10 percent over the same period. Median family income - $44,853 in 2000 - fell by $1,535 during the administration's first three years, while the number of Americans without health insurance, according to the Census Bureau, grew by 5.2 million, to 45 million in 2003.

A Bush campaign official suggested that the census report was misleading because it did not reflect the economic growth of the past 11 months. In fact, the report covers all of 2003. And in three of the seven months of 2004 for which data is available, job growth has not been strong enough to even keep up with population growth. Moreover, a Commerce Department report released yesterday showed that economic momentum slowed in the spring, with the economy expanding at a rate of only 2.8 percent, the slowest advance in more than a year, versus 3.0 percent as originally reported. The downward revision reflects June's record trade deficit of $55.8 billion.

From the New York Times. But what do you expect from the left wing media conspiracy always ready to report unpleasant facts that threaten our national security and provide comfort to our enemies.

[MMMMMM]

You seem to be confusing income with net worth. They are not the same thing. Please go back and reread my post, and try again.

[GWB]

My administration's Education reform was the first issue Dick Cheney talked about last night.

What you get out of a speech depends on what you are listening for.

Terror is not the only issue being talked about. Arnold said almost nothing about it, Laura said almost nothing about it.

[Knockwurst]

Home ownership is at an all-time high, and unemployment by historical standards is very low, and interest rates are extremely low. More Americans have more wealth than ever before.

Yes, the deficit is a real concern, and the economy could be doing better--but Americans are better off overall, despite the rhetoric of Kerry and Michael Moore.

Hard to envision an incumbent getting sacked with so many Americans doing so well, really.

____________________________________

I believe the inconvenient facts that I cited fully address your rosey-hued assessment of the economy and how Americans are faring.

"More Americans have more wealth than ever before."

So general and vague as to prove meaningless. How can more Americans have more wealth when the rate of poverty is increasing and the median household income is shrinking?

How are Americans better off overall?

When the number of the uninsured is growing, the percentage of unemployed is increasing, and the rate of poverty is increasing?

So many Americans doing so well?

These are the same meaningless bromides we hear from the current administration. Who are these Americans? Those within the top 5% of yearly income earned?

[MMMMMM]

"How are Americans better off overall?"


For these reasons, Knockwurst:

"Home ownership is at an all-time high, and unemployment by historical standards is very low, and interest rates are extremely low. More Americans have more wealth than ever before."

That doesn't mean ALL Americans are doing better; just that an awful lot of Americans--including most of Middle America--are doing better.

Home ownership being so high is actually very important--low interest rates are important--and unemployment is low. Those facts do not contradict the facts you cited, Knowckwurst--because they are different facts.

Now, maybe the lowest tier is in fact doing worse, as you state. That still wouldn't controvert the claim that the average Middle American is wealthier than ever before. And even if the lowest tier is doing worse, Ray Zee still apparently can't find anyone to paint his barn for $20/hour.

[El Barto]

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/09/02/politics/campaign/20040902_wordsB.gif

[vulturesrow]

MMMMM,

Unfortunately, there are two problems. One, most people really have a gross misunderstanding of basic economics. Two is that most people dont understand how easy it is to take some small piece of statistical data and focus on it to the exclusion of all others and then show how it proves the economy is doing so poorly. Notice how conveniently left out data on the migration of people to higher income brackets as well. Good on you for pointing out home ownership rates, which is a key economic indicator. Nice posts though.

Chris

[Nate tha' Great]

The GOP is seeking to win this election on style, not substance. Terrorism touches on a lot of the emotional buttons that the conservatives have played at very effectively in recent years, and provides some gravitas to their flag-waving that it might otherwise lack. If Americans were making some sort of cooly rational EV-based decision in this election, the Dems would win in a landslide, provided representative turnout. Bush and his people understand that most people don't go about making their decision that analytically.

[vulturesrow]

Its called playing to your strengths. Most americans believe (According to the polls) that Bush is strong on national defense. Of course they will emphasize that point. There are other positives for Bush but this is the point where he is strongest.

[Cyrus]

George W Bush is trailing (or barely pulling even) with John Kerry in all polls except one: who's the right man to lead America in its "war against terror"? Kerry, for some reason, has not convinced people he can do an equally good (I mean messy) job as Dubya.

So, naturally, the GOP wants to fight this battle on the only ground that is good for their troops, and that ground is anti-terrorism. The media is most helpful in this case. No one is asking questions about the economy (jobs lost, the colossal budget deficit that'll get worse next year, etc) or America's relations with the rest of the world (one word: doldrums).

It looks like, at least until the debates, GWB has the field all to himself.

[MMMMMM]

"George W Bush is trailing (or barely pulling even) with John Kerry in all polls except one: who's the right man to lead America in its "war against terror"? Kerry, for some reason, has not convinced people he can do an equally good (I mean messy) job as Dubya.

So, naturally, the GOP wants to fight this battle on the only ground that is good for their troops, and that ground is anti-terrorism. The media is most helpful in this case. No one is asking questions about the economy (jobs lost, the colossal budget deficit that'll get worse next year, etc) or America's relations with the rest of the world (one word: doldrums).

It looks like, at least until the debates, GWB has the field all to himself."


If Kerry and the Democrats can't figure out a better strategic approach to defeat Bush, it doesn't exactly inspire confidence in their ability to figure out a way to defeat Islamic terrorists, either.