For 2004, Bush's Aides Plan Late Sprint for Re-election

April 22, 2003 12:59 PM

For 2004, Bush's Aides Plan Late Sprint for Re-election.Interesting piece on the Bush administration's re-election strategy. The GOP convention marking the formal launch of Bush's campaign will be Sept. 2 — the latest nominating convention in the party's history — in New York. "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..." [more inside]
posted by Dirjy (74 comments total)

This cuts right to the heart of what I've been thinking about lately concerning Bush's emphasis on national security. Would you feel comfortable playing up this national security success record:

* Osama Bin Laden: MISSING
* The Anthrax Mailer: MISSING
* Saddam Hussein: MISSING

It seems to be a common belief that we shouldn't bother with methodical investigation, arrest and prosecution of terrorists. We should just "go get 'em" with an overpowering war, but the previous administration applied the first option and got justice for the both WTC bombing and the Murrah bombing.

I'm sure this campaign strategy will be very effective, but why aren't people demanding concrete results in the War on Terror?
posted by Dirjy at 1:02 PM on April 22, 2003

Better link (same article) from IHT.

Highlights:

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

The convention is to be held in New York City, and Bush's advisers said they chose the date so the event would flow into the commemorations marking the third anniversary of the World Trade Center attacks.

Behind the scenes, Bush's advisers have been quietly assembling the framework for the 2004 campaign. They have set fund-raising targets, made personnel decisions and made calculations of the contest's ideological and geographic contours to try to turn Bush's incumbency to his political advantage at every opportunity.

Already, the president's travel schedule is emphasizing states that will prove pivotal in the 2004 election. He went to Missouri last week and is heading for Ohio this week. Since those trips are presented as official White House travel, they were not billed against Bush's re-election campaign.

posted by four panels at 1:14 PM on April 22, 2003

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.

And that, in a nutshell, is why I'm ready to bet that Bush will "win" again.
posted by muckster at 1:16 PM on April 22, 2003

They could:
1. Turn the economy around.
2. Capture bin Laden.
3. Prove WMD were in Iraq.

But it's easier to write checks to the networks for face time.
posted by Hugh2d2 at 1:21 PM on April 22, 2003

My guess is the Bush/Rove camp will primarily use fear to keep hold of power.

What good have they done?

It will be fear alone that will keep Bush in office. Fear of terror, terror cells, the neverending war with Oceania.
posted by four panels at 1:26 PM on April 22, 2003

Thank God all those people died, huh? Bush sure does.
posted by jpoulos at 1:29 PM on April 22, 2003

And that, in a nutshell, is why I'm ready to bet that Bush will "win" again.

Selling democracy short doesn't help either party, or the country.

If more people vote for Bush, then he has won the election, not "won" the "election".
posted by goethean at 1:36 PM on April 22, 2003

Why not just throw the convention on Sept. 11, at Ground Zero, with Bush speechifying on top of a gigantic iron fist in a military uniform. That way the whole "national security" point wouldn't be so obscure.
posted by BigPicnic at 1:39 PM on April 22, 2003

As far as I'm concerned fear of terrorism is the only thing that Bush has to run on.

That, and a shitload of cash. Let's face it, the average American essentially sells his or her vote to whoever buys the most advertising, because they're too stupid to think for themselves. It's going to be a close one, but personally I'm betting that your average moron 'Merican won't realize how bad things are until fresh water is privatized. Only time will tell...
posted by zekinskia at 1:44 PM on April 22, 2003

This is perverse. It goes without saying that all professional politicians indulge in opportunistism, but this is more like necrophilia.
posted by homunculus at 1:44 PM on April 22, 2003

# The convention is to be held in New York City, and Bush's advisers said they chose the date so the event would flow into the commemorations marking the third anniversary of the World Trade Center attacks.

Is there no level too low for this guy to stoop? How disgusting, he is going to campaign on the backs of the folks who lost thier lives or family members that day? I keep repeating this:

We need a hero!

Excuse me I have to go puke now....
posted by SweetIceT at 1:47 PM on April 22, 2003

Let's face it, the average American essentially sells his or her vote to whoever buys the most advertising, because they're too stupid to think for themselves.

So, everybody who disagrees with you is a moron? Somehow, I'm guessing if your preferred person wins, it won't be because the general public was too stupid to see the error of their ways.
posted by obfusciatrist at 1:59 PM on April 22, 2003

Why don't we all just register Republican now and vote for Trent Lott in the primaries? Imagine, if every Democrat went and registered Reublican and we handed the nomination to someone bound to lose?
posted by eustacescrubb at 2:02 PM on April 22, 2003

Why don't we all just register Republican now and vote for Trent Lott in the primaries?

Interesting fantasy, but couldn't the delegates still just nominate Bush?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 2:08 PM on April 22, 2003

So, everybody who disagrees with you is a moron?

the Average American is a moron, regardless of who they vote for. I supported Clinton, but I'm pretty sure he won because he was charming and charismatic, not because he had the right ideas. Al Gore, who had ideas very similar to Clinton (and much less scandal associated with him) lost because he isn't charming and charismatic.

That, and he didn't promise everyone a check for $300.
posted by jpoulos at 2:08 PM on April 22, 2003

I think we should start placing bets on what date (before the election, obviously) they will raise the terrorism level again. To 'scare' us republican.
posted by graventy at 2:12 PM on April 22, 2003

Is there no level too low for this guy to stoop? How disgusting, he is going to campaign on the backs of the folks who lost their lives or family members that day?

That's dead on. Well at least this will illustrate a good point, The Bush Administration (and Republicans in general) know how to bomb "brown people" and fool Americans and other world leaders into loving them for it. Well, let's just hope that the real message gets told, "It's the economy stupid."
posted by Bag Man at 2:16 PM on April 22, 2003

Interesting fantasy, but couldn't the delegates still just nominate Bush?

Many states' delegates are legally bound to vote with their constituents, I believe.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 2:16 PM on April 22, 2003

In other news, I must admit this is a smart plan.
posted by Bag Man at 2:18 PM on April 22, 2003

the Average American is a moron

Fair is fair, but this tag can placed on any general public.
posted by Bag Man at 2:20 PM on April 22, 2003

Did anyone catch this:

Marc Racicot, the Republican national chairman, said recently that Mr. Kerry "is going to have a hard time translating out of New England." Another Bush adviser said of Mr. Kerry, "He looks French."

Mr. Racicot said Mr. Edwards could be portrayed as "slick and shallow," while another Bush associate described Mr. Edwards as the Breck Girl of politics, a reference to the shiny-hair model for a popular shampoo in the 1960's.

Kerry looks French and Edwards is a Breck Girl??!! What the fuck is this? Are we being revisited by the ghost of Lee Atwater? Only this time, they'll use the current strain of anti-French sentiment to knock Kerry, and basically call Edwards a sissy.
posted by psmealey at 2:22 PM on April 22, 2003

Goethan said: If more people vote for Bush, then he has won the election, not "won" the "election".

I hate this topic as much as anybody, but you're also wrong. More people did vote against Bush, but a lot of those people lived in the same states as the other democrats, and thus they had fewer electoral votes to work with.

That being said, I really, really can't believe that it seems nobody addressed the key problem of the Florida incident, and that is that there was allowed to be a deviation from the pre-arranged recount procedures. We need to determine, without legal question, what happens during a recount, and then stick to it, no matter whose candidate it helps or hurts.
posted by mosch at 2:23 PM on April 22, 2003

According to the LATEST daily AOL Poll...

Disclaimer #1: Yes, I'm currently using a 3-month free AOL offer that came with my new elcheapo PC to avoid paying anything for Internet Access as long as I can. I take pride in contributing to AOLTW's massive money burn-through as much as I can.
Disclaimer #2: Yes, I know how unrealistic on-line polls can be, but the fraction of AOL's internet-semi-literate universe that votes on these (1.5 million a day out of how many million AOLers?) have shown a fairly close correlation to the pro-war percentages revealed on more so-called-scientific surveys, and when they come up with a more interesting question with more interesting results, I think it's worth noting. And, at least, you know the Farkers aren't skewing the results ;)

Which should be Bush's top priority?
War on terrorism 27% (403,224)
The economy 64% (951,058)
Rebuilding Iraq 7% (113,591)

So, are Bush's Political BattleBots taking note of this veryveryvery short attention span in their plans for a 9/11 Elephant Orgy? I'm sure they'd try to reschedule the election closer to September 11th, if they could get away with it.

[maximum cynicism] And for those of you who believe they're doing crappily at actually dealing with terrorism, maybe they need the "endless war" to keep winning elections? The big question is whether Bin Laden and his surviving cronies will pull another major terrorist stunt close enough to election day to ensure a Bush win? [/maximum cynicism]
posted by wendell at 2:24 PM on April 22, 2003

The sky is falling.
posted by rocketman at 2:27 PM on April 22, 2003

Really. Check the windows.
posted by rocketman at 2:29 PM on April 22, 2003

What if you're using Linux?
posted by wendell at 2:33 PM on April 22, 2003

Let me go on record by saying that this will be one of the nastiest campaign seasons of all time, if not the worst.
posted by tittergrrl at 2:38 PM on April 22, 2003

War on terrorism 27% (403,224)
The economy 64% (951,058)
Rebuilding Iraq 7% (113,591)

what about re-election?
posted by goethean at 2:40 PM on April 22, 2003

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.

Second time posted.
But, but, but... only Republicans were killed that day, is how I read this.
posted by thomcatspike at 2:43 PM on April 22, 2003

Does anyone else wonder if Bush will even show up for debates this goaround? My guess is that the Bush camp will use some security excuse (Terror Alert Code RED) to weasel out, or he'll just take the "I-won't-dignify-my-opponent" excuse.

(I even reserve a small part of myself to wonder if Bush won't just suspend elections if his poll numbers look bad enough. Either way, we'll be at Code RED come next November, I guarantee you.)
posted by argybarg at 2:43 PM on April 22, 2003

I thought Code Red was an actual terror attack, so I sure hope not.
posted by agregoli at 2:45 PM on April 22, 2003

Some advisers said they were hopeful that the 2004 contest would mirror the 1984 re-election of Ronald Reagan, who loped to an overwhelming victory over Walter F. Mondale.

Remnants of my failed first FPP.
posted by thomcatspike at 2:45 PM on April 22, 2003

* Osama Bin Laden: MISSING
* The Anthrax Mailer: MISSING
* Saddam Hussein: MISSING

The problem with emphasizing the President's alleged lack of effectiveness on these national security issues is that there is likely to be no viable Democrat alternative. It seems to me that -- irrespecive of how big the deficit is --the election is more likely to be decided when people ask themselves the following question: Who has the balls to go after the terrorists?

Are they going to trust Howard Dean -- the George McGovern wannabe -- with national defense? What about wishy-washy Senator Kerry, who tried to be against the Iraq war even though he had voted in favor of it? What is Senator Edwards (a trial lawyer, by the way) going to do any different? If the Democrats were smart, they would simply go back to the days of the smoke-filled rooms, leave the peace-niks out of nominating process and put forward a decent candidate on defense issues.
posted by Durwood at 2:53 PM on April 22, 2003

Yeah... Debates... What the hell does it matter anyway, after last time? Even though Gore was condescending and smarmy during the first debate in 2000, he still managed to demonstrate clear superiority in his command of the issues over his often stammering and bewildered opponent. Despite this, in the recap from Brokaw, Russert et al, the chatter was not about Gore's grasp of the issues, but of the fact that "you know, Bush didn't do so badly", and the public perception became that he won the debate.

After all that's happened in the past two years (911, the War in Iraq), why would it be any different next time around? Bush can go to as many debates as he likes in 2004, and as mushmouthed and inane as he gets, the networks will still call it in his favor.
posted by psmealey at 2:55 PM on April 22, 2003

I find this "average American is a moron" argument that some of you are making to be just incredibly irritating. The average American voter, I would argue, has reasonably well-formulated political views and votes for the candidate that they think will further those views. For most people (myself included) that means voting for one party pretty consistently. The target audience of these campaigns is a relatively small group of voters that could go either way. Most of these voters are probably ambivalent toward both candidates, or feel strongly about specific issues that conflict with the platform of the party that they would otherwise be inclined to vote for. So for them, it really is a toss up who they vote for and thus advertising and personality might make the difference. That doesn't make them stupid, just conflicted.
posted by boltman at 2:59 PM on April 22, 2003

I find this "average American is a moron" argument that some of you are making to be just incredibly irritating.

Isn't the real moron those who talk politics yet never vote?
posted by thomcatspike at 3:02 PM on April 22, 2003

agregoli: no, only a "severe risk" of terrorist attack.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:02 PM on April 22, 2003

Durwood,

A trial lawyer! Good gawd! Is there a child pornographer or someone I can vote for instead?
posted by hackly_fracture at 3:05 PM on April 22, 2003

MSN lost customers after spending a bundle on advertising, AOL lost a bunch of customers and they spend plenty on advertising. Both companies have bad products that cost too much money. Now Bush is a bad product that costs too much, maybe the "dumb American voter" will vote with their pocketbook like they did with MSN, and AOL. Of course the Democrats have to offer a decent product/candidate.
posted by jbou at 3:21 PM on April 22, 2003

If the Democrats were smart, they would simply go back to the days of the smoke-filled rooms, leave the peace-niks out of nominating process and put forward a decent candidate on defense issues.

Where's Wesley Clark? Perhaps he's already agreed to be run with someone else as vice-president (IMHO the best decision for democrat's chances in '04)?

Would American's vote in a general as president? Or do we prefer generals run the military and draft-dodgers run the country? Are we becoming more like Israelis, and if so, is that necessarily a bad thing?
posted by kickingtheground at 3:24 PM on April 22, 2003

Where's Wesley Clark?

Draft Clark.
posted by homunculus at 3:35 PM on April 22, 2003

Mr. Edwards was open to attack ... for his lack of experience in government.

Duhbya's previous experience in government:
1. Texas Air National Guard (1/2 time; 1/2 time AWOL)
2. Putting people to death as TX gov
3. Visiting daddy in the White House
posted by NorthernLite at 3:41 PM on April 22, 2003

i'm hoping for an Edwards/Dean ticket, and I'll be protesting this ghoulish Republican convention come Sept.04...this is especially stupid of the republicans (unless, of course, they can find, kill, and parade osama's head on a pike around ground zero)
posted by amberglow at 4:34 PM on April 22, 2003

I'm inclined to agree with kickingtheground that Wesley Clark strikes me as being a good choice for the Democrats, if he decides to run. He's quickly shaping up to be the Democratic version of Colin Powell. A Dean-Clark ticket, which is unfortunately pure fantasy, might be the Dem's best chance.

What I'd find absolutely fascinating would be a Bush-Rice ticket for '04. Cheney's made some noises that he's not going to run for VP again for health reasons, and Rice would at least keep things interesting.

So yeah, Dean-Clark vs. Bush-Rice is my hope.
posted by Pseudoephedrine at 4:43 PM on April 22, 2003

Would American's vote in a general as president?

Heard of Eisenhower?

A key issue in all this is that Americans don't vote. Perhaps there would be no chance of a Florida repeat if we had compulsory voting, like Australia. Naaah, the Republlicans would never allow that...
posted by isobars at 4:44 PM on April 22, 2003

Naaah, the Republicans would never allow that...

Who are the Republicans? Bush or the folks in you community?
posted by thomcatspike at 4:55 PM on April 22, 2003

As an Australian, I've got to agree with isobars - compulsory voting does seem to work well (although it would be ideal if coupled with a "none of the above" option on the ballot paper). It does tend to drive the vote away from extremists, for a start, and encourages all citizens, not just politically active citizens, to have a say. The result tends towards moderation.
posted by Jimbob at 5:03 PM on April 22, 2003

A Dean-Clark ticket, which is unfortunately pure fantasy, might be the Dem's best chance.

Or a Hart-Clark ticket. I think Hart's track record on national security would outweigh any residual fallout from the adultery scandel of yore (especially running against a deserter with a history of drug use,) and may even win over some moderate Republicans.

Either way, Clark is probably the perfect VP candidate.
posted by homunculus at 5:07 PM on April 22, 2003

Who has the balls to go after the terrorists?

Well let's see:

There's John Kerry a Vietnam veteran (might stack up well against a diaper dandy draft dodger).

There's Lieberman who's as much of a hawk (particularly in the Middle East) as any Republican.

And the already mentioned potential Wesley Clark.
posted by aaronscool at 5:22 PM on April 22, 2003

Kerry/Graham, the Dems need Florida, and Graham has won five statewide elections in the sunshine state, he'd beat Jeb right now in a race. Plus Graham is strong on terror. Clark will fill a cabinet position in the Kerry administration.
posted by jbou at 5:41 PM on April 22, 2003

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.

What I fail to understand is why anyone believes that 9/11 reflects well on the Bush administration.
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:52 PM on April 22, 2003

Goethean (if you're still reading this thread--your post is towards the top of the page): isn't it Bush's campaign strategy that's selling democracy short? I always pictured democracy as involving a little more in the way of real debates, and maybe even a press conference once in a while; a little less jingoism, flag-waving, fear-mongering.

Okay, I'm being unfair. The campaign strategy doesn't sell democracy short; in fact, it seems driven by the awareness that Bush wouldn't have a chance in a real democracy.
posted by uosuaq at 6:18 PM on April 22, 2003

It would be eversomuch better were the elections less about marketing, and more about substance.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:05 PM on April 22, 2003

here's some more bad news:

the economy is already pretty bad, if for some reason it starts to recover by mid 2004 there is no doubt bush will get re elected.....

on the other hand the only way the economy won't recover atleast partially is if the economy takes a double dip - in which case we are screwed anyway
posted by nish01 at 7:20 PM on April 22, 2003

Atrios just noticed this little problem: If the GOP convention is held on Sept. 2, that makes the nomination of the party candidate scheduled for three days after the deadline for Alabama. Legally, Bush counldn't be that state's Republican candidate; he'd have to be a write-in.

Of course, it's a major problem since you can't change the rules of an election to fit the needs of a candidate, right George?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 7:53 PM on April 22, 2003

* Osama Bin Laden: MISSING
* The Anthrax Mailer: MISSING
* Saddam Hussein: MISSING

...but why aren't people demanding concrete results in the War on Terror?

With reasoning like this, no wonder there's no serious chance of Bush losing. Lets see:

* Bin Laden: NO TERRORISM ON AMERICAN SOIL SINCE 9/11
* The Anthrax Mailer: NO ANTHRAX DEATHS SINCE 10/11
* Saddam Hussein: IRAQ LIBERATED; SADDAM GONE.

Look. It would be nice if there was a chance of President Bush losing in '04, but it's not going to happen, primarily because the Democrats are so weak, but also because the economy isn't that awful and is likely to improve somewhat in the next year.

So: Lobby Congress to neutralize the President's environmental and tax mania; and focus on Congressional and statehouse elections.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:53 PM on April 22, 2003

Re: XQSDFOIJFWEEFSEF's post:

Wow. First, from the top article, we have Bush advisers admitting - no, admitting implies a realization of wrongdoing or impropriety - rather, stating matter-of-factly that they are delaying the selection process so that it will mingle with the anniversary of Sept. 11. Then, from XQSDFLKJEFSDF's link, we have them trying to get a state to change its rules to get Bush on the ballot, despite the fact that they're scheduling the convention later than any convention in the party's history.

Don't you have to step back and just admire the sheer sack of this administration? They can do any damn thing they want and they know it. This is just the latest jewel in their crown of audacity.

Jesus fuck.
posted by UKnowForKids at 9:16 PM on April 22, 2003

>Al Gore, who had ideas very similar to Clinton (and much less scandal associated with him) lost because he isn't charming and charismatic.

Exactly. Over 7.7 million registered Democrats voted for Bush in 2000. Of course, its easier just to blame Nader.

I hope these fair-weather Democrats got a good taste of "compassionate conservatism" and will be running, not walking, to the polls to vote for non-Bush in 2004, but considering how well the GOP did in the midterm elections, i think they're starting to enjoy it.
posted by skallas at 9:50 PM on April 22, 2003

According the the Times Daily article

"The problem is that the Republican National Convention is being held later than usual to avoid conflict with the Olympics and the GOP won't choose a candidate until Sept. 2"

But the New York Times says,

"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."

Well, they've got a year and a half to get their stories strait.
posted by Tenuki at 10:09 PM on April 22, 2003

* Bin Laden: NO TERRORISM ON AMERICAN SOIL SINCE 9/11
* The Anthrax Mailer: NO ANTHRAX DEATHS SINCE 10/11

Well then. I guess the Anthrax mailings between 9/11 and 10/11 were just marketing gimmicks. Still, I'd love to see that campaign: "Re-Elect Bush: No Anthrax deaths since 10/11."

Look. It would be nice if there was a chance of President Bush losing in '04

Right. I'm sure it's your dream.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:20 PM on April 22, 2003

can they actually exhume some of that poor corpses and parade them in front of cameras at the Convention?
How's that for a photo-op?
posted by matteo at 3:11 AM on April 23, 2003

Right. I'm sure it's your dream.

Even if it "does not compute" for you, I'm actually left of center, or a progressive-centrist. And I would only vote for President Bush if his opponent turns out to be an uberpanderer. Or maybe I would sit on my hands and vote for neither.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:06 AM on April 23, 2003

I'm honestly doing my best to be as cynical as possible but the Duhbya cabal just keep lowering the bar....
posted by nofundy at 5:15 AM on April 23, 2003

* Bin Laden: NO TERRORISM ON AMERICAN SOIL SINCE 9/11
* The Anthrax Mailer: NO ANTHRAX DEATHS SINCE 10/11
* Saddam Hussein: IRAQ LIBERATED; SADDAM GONE.

I guess that's one way to look at it. I guess we dreamers expected to see justice applied to evil actions and their perpetrators.
posted by Dirjy at 7:31 AM on April 23, 2003

Ah, behold: the power of spin:

* The Anthrax Mailer: NO ANTHRAX DEATHS SINCE 10/11

It's just as true that on September 11, 2001, over 275 million Americans were not harmed by Terrorism. This is akin to the logic employed by the administration that maybe a few hundred thousand americans protested in the days leading up to the Iraq War, but the overwhelming majority stayed home in support of the President's position.
posted by psmealey at 8:34 AM on April 23, 2003

CNN sez ...the Republican National Convention is being held later than usual to avoid conflict with the Olympics. On the other hand, in today's Guardian: "It has nothing to do with it," a party official said. "As the Democrats are out of power, they go first, and they chose July. Because the Olympics are in August, we had to go after that." Asked why the convention was not scheduled in the first half of August, before the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens are due to start, the official said: "It was just a choice that was made."

So the NYT article didn't bother to mention the Olympics, CNN just takes the Olympics explanation at face value and the Guardian asks the appropriate follow-up question eliciting the non-answer.
posted by xiffix at 9:00 AM on April 23, 2003

[maximum cynicism] And for those of you who believe they're doing crappily at actually dealing with terrorism, maybe they need the "endless war" to keep winning elections? The big question is whether Bin Laden and his surviving cronies will pull another major terrorist stunt close enough to election day to ensure a Bush win? [/maximum cynicism]
posted by wendell at 2:24 PM PST on April 22

Combine maximum cynicism with a good dose of paranoia and Bush wouldn't even need Bin Laden, The CIA could do the job.
posted by Mitheral at 9:17 AM on April 23, 2003

XQUZYPHYR: Atrios just noticed this little problem: If the GOP convention is held on Sept. 2, that makes the nomination of the party candidate scheduled for three days after the deadline for Alabama. Legally, Bush counldn't be that state's Republican candidate; he'd have to be a write-in.

Of course, it's a major problem since you can't change the rules of an election to fit the needs of a candidate, right George?

And isn't the state government controlled by Democrats? This one will be interesting to follow.
posted by ZupanGOD at 10:00 AM on April 23, 2003

XQUZYPHYR: Atrios just noticed this little problem: If the GOP convention is held on Sept. 2, that makes the nomination of the party candidate scheduled for three days after the deadline for Alabama. Legally, Bush counldn't be that state's Republican candidate; he'd have to be a write-in.

Of course, it's a major problem since you can't change the rules of an election to fit the needs of a candidate, right George?

And isn't the state government controlled by Democrats? This one will be interesting to follow.
posted by ZupanGOD at 10:00 AM on April 23, 2003

Is this the Oliver Stone Weblog? I got a little confused after reading all the conspiracy theories on how Bush is going to throw the election... umm, what party held the White House during the last election? Wouldn't it have been easier for them to "throw" the election in their favor rather than the challenger?

As for the choice of New York, I think the Democrats were down to Boston and NY when they chose their site, but decided to stay away from the city the Republicans chose to hold their convention there. Dems too are opportunistic...
posted by MediaMan at 10:47 AM on April 23, 2003

Is this the Oliver Stone Weblog?

The New York Times quoted Republicans close to the White House as saying the timing of the convention was part of a strategy to intertwine the re-election campaign with national security issues.

Oliver Stone seems to have acquired the Times. What a coup!
posted by soyjoy at 12:45 PM on April 23, 2003

Too many ambiguous arguments. Just vote. That will be enough.
posted by psychomedia at 1:44 PM on April 23, 2003

I think the obvious question is whether Bush will start another war in the next 18 months just to get reelected. It could happen. George W. can be defeated, just like his daddy. The main problem is the lack of leadership and near total incompetence of the Democrats, who have spent the last couple of years hiding under their desks.

I bet they wish they could bring back Clinton.
posted by mark13 at 7:06 PM on April 23, 2003

As an Australian, I've got to agree with isobars - compulsory voting does seem to work well (although it would be ideal if coupled with a "none of the above" option on the ballot paper). It does tend to drive the vote away from extremists, for a start, and encourages all citizens, not just politically active citizens, to have a say. The result tends towards moderation.

I agree with the "none of the above" bit, but I am against compulsory voting. Why? The legal reason: voting is a right and one has a right to waive one's right. The emotional reasoning: forced expression is not free expression.
posted by Bag Man at 7:00 PM on April 24, 2003