Bush's re-election strategy

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Bush's re-election strategy
16
Wed, 04-23-2003 - 2:08pm
For 2004, Bush's Aides Plan Late Sprint for Re-election

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and RICHARD W. STEVENSON

The New York Times


WASHINGTON, April 21 — President Bush's advisers have drafted a re-election strategy built around staging the latest nominating convention in the party's history, allowing Mr. Bush to begin his formal campaign near the third anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks and to enhance his fund-raising advantage, Republicans close to the White House say.

In addition, Mr. Bush's advisers say they are prepared to spend as much as $200 million — twice the amount of his first campaign — to finance television advertising and other campaign expenses through the primary season that leads up to the Republican convention in September 2004. That would be a record amount by a presidential candidate, and would be especially notable because Mr. Bush faces no serious opposition for his party's nomination.

The president is planning a sprint of a campaign that would start, at least officially, with his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, a speech now set for Sept. 2.

The convention, to be held in New York City, will be the latest since the Republican Party was founded in 1856, and Mr. Bush's advisers said they chose the date so the event would flow into the commemorations of the third anniversary of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.

The back-to-back events would complete the framework for a general election campaign that is being built around national security and Mr. Bush's role in combatting terrorism, Republicans said. Not incidentally, they said they hoped it would deprive the Democratic nominee of critical news coverage during the opening weeks of the general election campaign.

The strategy, described by Republicans close to the White House, is intended to highlight what Mr. Bush's advisers want to be the main issue of his campaign, national security, while intensifying his already formidable fund-raising advantage in the general election campaign.

By scheduling the start of the convention for Aug. 30, a month after Democrats choose their candidate, the White House has put off the imposition of spending ceilings that take effect when the parties officially nominate their candidates.

Under campaign spending laws, candidates who accept public financing will have about $75 million to spend between the nominating conventions and Election Day. Because the Democrats scheduled their convention for late July, the party's candidate will have to stretch out the same allocation over a longer period. The nominees of both parties are expected to accept public financing.

Even though Mr. Bush will not begin his formal campaign until after the convention, his political team is preparing to begin broadcasting television advertisements as early as next spring. By that point, the White House expects the Democratic candidate to be settled, but battered and sapped of money from the primaries, and thus unable to counter a Republican advertising assault.

The strategy of starting so late and building the campaign around the events in New York is not without risks. Mr. Bush's advisers said they were wary of being portrayed as exploiting the trauma of Sept. 11, a perception that might be particularly difficult to rebut as Mr. Bush shuttles between political events at Madison Square Garden and memorial services at ground zero.

In addition, Mr. Bush's advisers said they remained worried by the economy's persistent weakness, an issue that could trump national security if the threat from terrorism appeared to recede.

But they said the Democratic Party was making a mistake in building its hopes for 2004 on the fate of Mr. Bush's father in 1992. The current president, White House officials said, has already dispatched with his father's biggest problem, the perception that he was out of touch with the nation's economic woes, by pushing his economic program nearly every time he appears in public.

"This isn't 1991," an adviser to Mr. Bush said. "People clearly see this as a chapter in a struggle against a new kind of threat. Al Qaeda is still out there. The security and national security issue is going to remain very, very strong."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IMO exploiting the horrible tragedy of 9/11 and the wide spread fear of terrorism as a platform for re-election is an all time low, even for a politician.

Any other thoughts about this?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-17-2003
Wed, 04-23-2003 - 3:46pm
It's not going to get them any more or less votes.

Like his father before him, his lack of attention outside anything war/terrorist related will be his undoing. They're singing the same old supply-side song and ain't no one dancing but the corporate bigwigs who stand the gain the most. Your average middle american will is jobless now, will probably remain jobless.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Wed, 04-23-2003 - 4:05pm
I agree with you completely! This only proves, that the Shrub will do almost anything to get elected in 2004! It's the economy stupid!
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 04-24-2003 - 12:42pm
Well Mayor Bloomberg gave the Democrats the opportunity to hold their National Convention here, but they turned him down, so why is it bad for the Republicans to not take advantage?

With regards to using 9/11 as a campaign aide, I think it is wrong, but I am sure that people such as Hillary Clinton and Charles Schummer and Rudy Guiliani will be doing the same things......dont you? Face it...politics is basically a corrupt and immoral system, at least the way it is done in the US today....

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 04-24-2003 - 1:21pm
>>Well Mayor Bloomberg gave the Democrats the opportunity to hold their National Convention here, but they turned him down, so why is it bad for the Republicans to not take advantage?

If Hillary, Charles or Rudy do it, I will not change my opinion. Thank God the Democrats did turn it down! At least some one is showing SOME respect for the victims and their families of this horrible tragedy. IMO those people's death should NOT be used as a flippin political platform, PERIOD.

How disgraceful and tacky some people can be!


>>Face it...politics is basically a corrupt and immoral system, at least the way it is done in the US today....

I completely agree!

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 04-28-2003 - 12:19pm
Actually the reason the Democrats turned down the offer had nothing to do with caring for the victims of 9/11, but with the ego of Terry McCaullife, and him demanding that Bloomberg withdraw his invitation to the Republicans for the Democratic Party to even consider New York City as a host site. Pretty silly isnt it?
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Mon, 04-28-2003 - 12:45pm
Well is it really a surprise? This Administration has used the 9/11 trajedy for political purposes since it happened. They use 9/11 but they have tried to stonewall the Independent Investigation at every opportunity. Let's hope this callous attempt to use 9/11 backfires.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 04-29-2003 - 1:10pm
You can thank 8 years of inaction by Bill Clinton for that. Bush will be responsible for some of it too, unless he and his advisors are able to do something to get the economy going again.

Please tell me ONE positive thing Bill Clinton did for the economy by means of economic legislation or economic policy.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-29-2003
Tue, 04-29-2003 - 1:29pm
Clinton raised some taxes and he did so selectively, much like Bush 41 did that and it was good yet he alienated himself and was haunted by the words: read my lips.

The underlying theme here, A Balanced budget. How simple, yet so complex. Why are you against a balanced budget? You can't be for this tax cut and for a balanced budget. Like many people are saying, prioritize: Balance the budget first, cut taxes if you can afford to.

Avatar for goofyfoot
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 04-29-2003 - 1:52pm
Brilliant! You go boy, work it! (nt)
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Tue, 04-29-2003 - 2:54pm
That is the problem with government. It is too big. You cannot balance the budget and cut taxes with the government continuing to grow.

The problems that the states are now facing is their overdependence on the Federal Government for assistance. The Federal Government is NOT to blame for the fiscal irresponsibility of the states, such as California, which is bankrupt.

If you can come up with a plan to balance the budget, and reduce the size of government, I would love to hear it, because every time someone in Washington suggests that the size of government is too big, they get stiffled.

Pages