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.