|
A REFERENDUM ON BUSH
By Tim Siggia
August 25, 2004
With the 2004 Democratic National Convention now firmly esconced in the annals of history, and the Republican National Convention about to unfold in New York City next month, political momentum seems at this time to shifted to President George W. Bush and the Republicans. Senator John F. Kerry, now the official Democratic Party nominee for president, did not get the expected "bounce" from his party's convention. On the contrary, he actually lost ground. After two days of introductory warm-ups to the main event, Kerry finally delivered an acceptance speech that was long on theatrics and short on substance. The delegates cheered wildly, of course, as delegates are supposed to when their candidate speaks. But after all the whoopie-do was all over, the most memorable part of it all was all those ridiculous balloons.
So, with Senator Kerry having essentially nothing in the way of a positive program to point to, and with his much-touted military awards now coming into question, coupled with a solid record of accomplishment and leadership on the part of President Bush, it would now appear that a Republican victory in November would be a slam-dunk. But, in a paraphrase of the late Cab Calloway, it may not be necessarily so.
Enter the Hate Factor.
Sooner or later, the Democrats are going to have to play the Hate Card. It is, for all intensive purposes, the only one they have. They're already playing it, in fact, though not as part of their official campaign, of course. That's all still upbeat and positive, or at least as much so as Democrats are able to be these days. Rather, the Democrats are playing the Hate Card through surrogates, people who, while not official spokesmen for the Kerry campaign, are nevertheless saying those things the Democrats secretly want said. Their names are becoming household words: Michael Moore, George Soros, Al Franken, MoveOn.org and all those 527 groups being financed by the Tides Foundation.
The Hate Card plays quite well in certain designated areas, known to political analysts as the Blue States. In my own home state of Connecticut, where hatred of and for George W. Bush is an all-but-official residence requirement, for example, that that state's seven electoral votes would go to the Democratic candidate was already decided long before anyone had any idea who that candidate might be. The reason, of course, is clear: In Connecticut, the standing mantra is, "Anybody But Bush." Why the overwhelming hatred? Simple. As previously noted, Connecticut is a Blue State, which is to say that despite a Republican governor and three out of five of Connecticut's House seats being held by Republicans, Connecticut is still for the most part a strongly Democratic and totally liberal state. Not only is Bush a Republican, but he's the wrong kind of Republican. All -- I repeat all -- of Connecticut's Republican office holders are "moderate" Republicans. Which means they are RINOs: Republicans who think, act, and vote like Democrats. They're the only kind of Republicans acceptable to a state which recognizes only two positions on the political scale: moderate and far right.
When we hear such comments as, "Bush got us into a war just to avenge his Daddy," or "It's all about oil," or "His Daddy got him into the Guard to keep him out of Vietnam, and then he went AWOL," (this, curiously enough, from the same crowd who saw nothing wrong with making a draft-dodging coward our commander-in-chief), or, "He sends our boys off to die for Halliburton and his rich buddies," or, "He's not the legitimate president, he stole the election" (no president can be considered "legitimate" unless he is a Democrat) -- we see the Hate Card being played. The Hate Card is alive and well in Connecticut, and the proliferation of bumper stickers with messages like, "Drop Bush, Not Bombs", even more than official Kerry-Edwards campaign stickers, plainly tells the story.
So it is that come November, while many Americans will be casting their votes for Kerry, comparitively few of them will be actually voting for Kerry. The overwhelming majority will be voting against Bush, which means that this year's election will essentially be a referendum on Bush: Has he or has he not been a good president, a good commander-in-chief, a good steward of his office? In Connecticut, as in too many other states sworn and committed to the doctrine of liberalism, that question has already been answered in favor of the hatemongers. Let us, as conservatives, therefore, look forward to the upcoming Republican National Convention and the presidential debates that will follow as opportunities for a good president to remain in office, and hope and pray that in November fair-minded Americans will vote with intellect rather than emotion, and not follow Connecticut's example.
|
