Asymmetrical Information

Hurt. The media cannot continue to bash Bush because their viewers are expecting Reagan memorials. Without all the constant harping on Bush, Kerry looks bad.

This is why I personally believe Kerry has taken a week off of campaigning. He can't afford to have the spotlight put on him right now because he has no recourse but to praise Reagan which would expose his hypocracy even more.

It'll all be ancient history by November, so I doubt the D-Day celebrations or former President Reagan's death will have any real impact one way or the other. Kerry will shut up for a week, which will help his numbers temporarily, but he'll be back to digging his hole deeper soon enough.

Myria

Well, Jane: I think you hit it on the head with your choice of the word: "pedestrian".
My view: a wash.
After the week's flood of teary sentimental Reaganolotry,the real life of 2004 will get back to the real issues of the world we live in:
Bush will add Ronnie-worship to every speech he makes;
Kerry will ignore him (Reagan, not Bush!)
Things will go on: Ronald Reagan will be placed where he so rightly belongs:
History.

Can't help but think that the "stupid cowboy" rhetoric is taking a beating.

The same accusations made against Bush were made against Reagan. Watching and listening to the coverage of Reagan's death, one cannot help but notice this.

And, in the long run, who was really stupid? It was the stupid, Marxist left, of course.

I think Bush will get some breathing room as long as the Dems stay respectfully silent, but in the longer term, I think this hurts Bush more. There will be innumerable reruns of Reagan's finest moments on tv for quite some time, and there's no way to avoid the comparisons between the Great Communicator and President Fumbletongue.

Whether you're fer him or agin' him, GWB is still a mighty pale comparison to Reagan.

Hurts Dems in the organizational mode: Countdown clock to Dem convention is fully operational. Cancelling those "star studded gala fundraisers" this close to Boston will make it very difficult to reschedule at past and delays getting the money into the war chest in the very least.
A week of "dignity" along with Clinton acting in his own best interest (what he does best) won't leave much much oxegen left... only us bloggers and political junkies won't need a news vacation after this week of tribute.
Both campaigns are going to have to reset the campaign table, and the demos will have to do it right as the summer vacation schedule starts, and kids get out of school.
Advantage Rove...

"President Fumbletongue"

I support the man, but that is now my official nickname for him!

I like Myria's thought the best.

And my thoughts...

This week where Kerry won't be able to get his message out helps Kerry. The media elite, academics, and Hollywood will all be working in parallel at trying to raise Bush's negatives.... And succeeding to some extent as they have already.

Kerry's best chances are if he doesn't say much at all but a few dignified speeches and a few dignified campaign commercials.

Unfortunately for us Kerry isn't dignified and will sling mud as he's done for a year now. Bush has not responded in kind until a few commercials last month. Then as soon as that happens, Alan Colmes puts out the message that Bushes commercials have 70% attacks on Kerry while Kerry's commercials have only 30% attacks on Bush. That's funny.

To me you can erase all of the attack ads and hyperbole and look at it this way:
1) Figure out where you stand on the issues. I stand for:
a) Supply side economics with a more simplified tax code that treats everyone fairly (I really like a flat tax with a large personal exemption and dependant exemption) and equally.
b) The federal government accomplishing the tasks that the constitution laid out such as defending this country and letting the states handle all other tasks not spelled out by the constitution.
c) No discrimination or preferential treatment based on race or sex, just like the CA Civil Rights Iniative proposition that was put on the ballot by Ward Connerly AND PASSED (BTW, Read his book "Creating Equal").
d) Environmental policy based on facts and science and not crisis mongering and junk science. There is certainly a place for caring for the environment. When policy debate turns into calling Bush anti-environment because he didn't back the Kyoto treaty (but neither did the Senate in a vote of 95-0), or because Mercury rules put into place in his last day in office was reversed by Bush so that further study could be accomplished.... So, you enviros out there need to understand that 99% of us want a good earth to hand to our children. It's not just Dem's that want a good earth. And when there is legitimate debate on the topic on WHAT SOLUTIONS are needed, it doesn't mean that because we don't agree with you that we don't care.
e) Social Issues - When Bush has been moderate on social issues, trying to appease the left and right, he has angered both sides. Conservatives wonder why the federal government has to spend money on stem cell research at all? Conservatives wonder why when 70% of America feels a certain way about "partial birth abortion" or "Homosexual Marriage" why is it that Bush is called an extremist when Bush is just working IN THE SYSTEM and not acting UNILATERALLY on either of these issues. Bush was hoping that we could work on passing a constitutional ammendment which would take a decade if it even got looked at by any of the states. Not very extreme to me. BTW, this is so much of a non-issue except to liberals and very devote Christians it seems.
2) After you figure out where you stand on issues you can look at where the 2 have stood by looking at their voting records. Kerry has a very liberal voting record (facts are facts) voting for many more tax increases than others, many more spending bills than others, etc. etc. Bush has a different record. He has a record of trying to work with Democrats and has a very moderate record because of that. 11% increase in spending on Education (more than Clinton during his 8 years), Increase of Medicare spending by $500 Billion, proposing some sort of Amnesty for Illegal immigrants, straddling the stem cell research fence in 2001 (before 9/11). Giving tax cuts to ALL who earn income but front loading the tax cuts so that the low income get the tax cuts first and then the other cuts are phased in until the rich finally got theirs. Percentage wise a cut in the rate from 15% to 10% is like a 33% cut for the low income. Nominally it's small because 33% of 2,000 in taxes paid is only $600. A cut in the tax rate from 39% to 35% is like a 10% cut in the rate.

3) So you see, the choice is between a moderate and an extreme leftist. Conservatives have no choice but to vote for the moderate to even have a voice. Leftists have no choice but to try to paint their candidate as being more mainstream and Bush as an extremist.

4) And why would we as conservatives let leftists define Bush in the same process smearing conservatives? To us it's bigger than Bush. It's about the direction of the country. Bush can go or stay but we would like the issues to be talked about truthfully and we would like legitimate debate.

I think Stephen is right. Even in death Reagan is getting out Bush's message far better than Bush ever will.

Folk who didn't know the Left's rotten track record are getting briefed, and exposure is always bad for lefties. Many will draw the obvious parallels with the present.

Kiddies who in school never learned about the 70's failures and 80's successes are getting educated. The bright ones will start questioning the Recieved Narrative.

More Reagan is always good for right-wingery.

But watching a Reagan speech followed by a Dubya speech is rather hair-raising.

Agreed that Bush loses the comparison to Reagan in the communication department, but I don't think that's news anymore. No one, including Bush, is claiming he's a great public speaker.

It's the other parallels between Reagan and Bush that get highlighted by Reagan's death that I think help Bush. Note:

-- "Evil Empire" "Axis of Evil"
Reagan was criticized as provoking the communists, alienating our allies, and making the cold war unwinnable, just as Bush has been. This is a great chance to point out that the last time we called someone evil, we turned out to be right, and the world eventually came along with us.

-- Recession in the first 2 years -> economic boom
Bush presided over a recession in the beginning, and is now starting to see some positive economic signs. It's a great chance to point out that Reagan's economy also struggled in the beginning (some people have likely forgotten), and imply that we're on a Reagan-like path to prosperity.

-- Morning in America
Everyone generally agrees that Reagan made Americans feel proud of America again. At a time where we're pretty much convinced that everyone else on the planet hates us, a week's worth of videotape of Reagan telling us about the American ideal will put that attitude in perspective.

-- Management Style
Communication skills aside, Bush's management style is very much like Reagan's (even moreso than it is like his father's). He's the CEO-type: setting policy and then surrounding himself with good people to "get the job done." A reminder of how Reagan ran the country will minimize Kerry's attempt to paint Bush as "out of touch."

Final score: This helps Bush.

Brian, You are correct. There was a recession in 1981. Reagan's policies (he was sworn in January of 1981) did not cause the recession but created a very good economic boom from 1982-1990.

I don't think it matters much one way or the other. Perhaps it hurt Kerry this weekend a tiny bit, but political matters were already going to take a backseat due to the anniversary of D-Day. The attention span of the American voting public is very short. By next weekend, we won't be talking about the effect of Reagan's death anymore.

This is very bad for the Democrats because it changes the dynamic. Bush was getting hammered over Iraq, Abu Greib, and high oil prices. Now the media is stuck talking about how Reagan won the Cold War. Maybe Bush will walk into a buzz saw again when Democrats get their media outlets cranking, but he's got a respite. He's like a boxer on the ropes being saved by the bell. He can go to his corner, regroup, and come out swinging.

This is why I personally believe Kerry has taken a week off of campaigning. He can't afford to have the spotlight put on him right now because he has no recourse but to praise Reagan which would expose his hypocracy even more.

Why because it would bring to light his voting record?

I love the guy. As I've watched a few hours of Fox coverage, I am truly nostalgic for the 80s, when we had a damned funny President. His style of discourse (edgy and disarming sense of humor, warmth to opponents, etc.) is worth careful study and emulation. You'd think Donald Trump would be ecstatic now, as Reagan in the 80s had an incredibly unique and recognizable hairstyle, much as Trump has one in this age.

There is one thing I have to say that I have never heard anyone, left or right, comment on. Reagan was such a powerful figure in politics the last 3 decades of last century, that his Alzheimer's announcement reshaped our government. There is no doubt in my mind that the Reagans timed the announcement (just the weekend before the 1994 election) for maximum political effect, because they were shrewd political players for the better part of 30 years. Also no doubt in my mind that the Republican Party had nothing to do with the timing (the hacks aren't that smart) and that the Reagans wouldn't have done it that way if asked or prompted.

I doubt we will have another Reagan -- either someone just liike him or someone so unique -- as President in my lifetime. I wish the Republican Party factions would get over trying to inherit his legacy, much as the Party doesn't argue over which faction is the rightful heir to the Lincoln legacy. As a Party and as a nation, we are most fortunate that he came along.

I sincerely hope that Bush doesn't try to wrap himself in Reagan this campaign season. He is not Reagan, and we don't need Reagan as President right now. We need someone who will eliminate the thugs who would fly planes into our buildings.

"But watching a Reagan speech followed by a Dubya speech is rather hair-raising.

I love GW, but you sure hit that right on the head.

Even more horrific was watching Clinton give his book speech the other night. The guy is a walking encyclopedia and master of public presentation. At the end of his presidency I found I could no longer look at the guy on the Telly because he made me recoil in revulsion. Now I feel the same way when I watch Mr. Bush mumble and fumble his way across our TV screens. And I have the utmost respect and admiration for George. He is just fantastically incompetent at public speaking.

Yikes.

I think it hurts Kerry that Reagan died less than three weeks before Clinton's book comes out.

A greater contrast between standard-bearers couldn't be imagined.

"someone" -- You are dead on. I bet Bill Clinton is wondering what he has to do to dominate the news cycles for just a day, if not for a whole week again.

Helps, but only marginally. First of all Bush suffers by any comparison to Reagan. And this election (like any with an incumbent) is going to happen in two steps. First, the electorate is going to decide whether or not the Incumbent deserves to keep the job. Then and only then are they going to look at the challenger to see if he's acceptable.

Comparisons of Bush to Reagan hurt Bush, comparions of Reagan to Kerry simply don't happen until Bush has already lost his shine, at which point the comparison is Bush to Kerry, and Bush looses again.

Also, any non-trivial discussion of the Reagan legacy reminds us that he left office under the shadow of impeachable crimes. That he was not impeached speaks to the fact that most people found it entirely believable that he wasn't really in charge by then. Many, many members of his administration were convicted of crimes. And thoughts turn naturally from there to a recognition that some of those convicted are now re-employed in the Bush administration. Furthermore, there are at least two very serious investigations into possible treasonous activities in the current administration. And once again, The president is largely believed to be innocent of wrongdoing because so many people believe he isn't really in control his underlings.

That said, Reagans death will be old news by November, and it's effect will most likely be completely swamped out by events between now and then.

I'm a little confused. Why does it hurt President Fumbletongue (heh!) to be compared to Reagan's speeches more than it hurts Kerry? Candidate Nuance may have a smoother tongue, but when he's done talking, you don't really know where he stands. Bush badly articulates simple ideas, while Kerry loftily proclaims who the hell knows what.

I guess the question is, when someone hears a Reagan speech and thinks: "Damn, I wish we had a Great Communicator in office now. I'm sure not voting for __________." Who gets put in the blank?

Neither - ABC's The Note did a pretty thorough analysis the other day. There are advantages and disadvantages for both candidates, but the election is still months away. Voters will chose based on which candidate's platform will help them the most (the old "Are you better off that you were four years ago?").

Hurt...
from an entirely visceral frame of reference. As the left frantically tries to minimize Reagan's triumphs and the right tries to minimize Reagan’s follies, there are those of us who remember first hand. While I did not vote for Reagan in 1980, he earned my vote in 1984 (the only time i have voted for a nominated major party candidate). He earned my vote because he wasn't the typical vacillating politician - he knew where he stood and said what he meant.

I suspect that other Reagan Democrats and Regan Independents feel similarly.

Help.

At the end of the day Reagan would sit down with Tip and they hammered out a compromise. Then they would both take it back to their party and get them to agree to it.

I suspect independants and middle-of the roaders tend to like this type of governemnt. Nothing too extreme gets done on either end and everyone goes home, if not happy, then at least not horrified.

Bush's administration is the antithesis of this and a comparison to Reagan shows it quite clearly. Since we're only talking about those 10%s who are on the fence, it seems to me that those people tend to be more middle of the road and prefer compromise.

But then I tend to be an optomist.

Kate,

Again you get it wrong about Bush (in my humble opinion) without facts to back it up. You continue to try and paint Bush as an extremist when he has been a moderate and slightly left of center.

Many posters here have had patience and tried to entertain you with fact and figures to tell you why they feel the way they feel.

You continue with the propoganda.

You took the automatic pistol approach just like many on the left does (as if it explains anything)and rattled off stem cell research, abortion, homosexual marriage, Iraq.

I have gone down the path of explaining how or what Bush has done on each of these issues that actually makes him a centrist. You have to understand what conservative/libertarians think also to understand that Bush is centrist and that conservatives and libertarians are probably going to vote for Bush just to keep someone who is MORE liberal like Kerry out of office.

Please. Instead of rattling off like a pistol issues. Take the time to explain. It'll do well to maybe convince people to think the way you do (or maybe not :) ...people might see the illogic of how you think when others contrast what ACTUALL is the position of a conservative or libertarian to Bush's actions.

Bush has increased federal spending dramatically on Medicare, Education, and other areas.

Bush has proposed giving illegal immigrants some status (amnesty? workers permits?)

Bush tried in the summer of 2001 to split the difference and have federal spending on the remaining stock of stem cells.

Bush has done nothing on homosexual marriage but talk about maybe having an ammendment (the most non-unilateral approach to the problem - it would require involvement by every state legislature)

Iraq - Quite frankly, I'm tired of liberals propagandizing on this one. Bush said the same thing that French, German, Russian, U.S., British intelligence and Bill Clinton and John Kerry said and Al Gore said and Tom Daschle said. The world thought the same way for years. The world thought the same way from earlier than 1998 through 2003 (John Kerry). Now liberals are trying to MAKE an issue and have duped a few people including yourself to thinking that Bush lied or was evil or is occupying a country for it's oil or whatever....

Frankly the debate is tired and old and not even a debate because there are indusputable facts about what was said, it's just that liberals are tending to not know the facts or purposefully get them wrong.

Tell me I got something wrong....

Pat,

Okay, I'll bite...

"Bush tried in the summer of 2001 to split the difference and have federal spending on the remaining stock of stem cells."

Pat, this is the problem, we both interpret facts very differently. Your interpretation, in my opinion, has no basis in fact. If this issue was one of compromise then why did 58 senators (including conservative ones) on the Friday before Reagan's death requested that Bush lift the restrictions he has placed on this research? Why is it that the matriarch of the Reagan Administration, Nancy, has requested that they lift the restrictions? Here is my source.

http://us.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/07/stem.cell.ap/

This does not look like a compromise to me.

"Bush has proposed giving illegal immigrants some status (amnesty? workers permits?)"

I have never said anything against this plan, I see both pros and cons to it, but there are few specifics I can find. I would like you to find one place where I have ever said I have issues with this policy.

"Bush has increased federal spending dramatically on Medicare, Education, and other areas."

While I dislike some of the testing initiatives for the NCLB Act I will not argue with you that he has increased spending. So much so that reports indicate that the school systems can't spend it fast enough.

http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/108th/education/nclb/nclbfundingreport.pdf

That's not a useful way to spend my tax dollars.

And what about medicare?

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0628-02.htm

I suppose this is good if you don't like medicare, or if you want to spend huge sums of money on an essentially useless program...whatever. I just don't like money being spent for moneys sake. I may be socially liberal, but I am fiscally conservative.

"Bush has done nothing on homosexual marriage but talk about maybe having an ammendment (the most non-unilateral approach to the problem - it would require involvement by every state legislature)"

Bush has proposed to issue the first restrictive amendment to the constitution since Prohibition...and we all see how well that worked out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3320-2004Feb24.html

I find it very interesting that everything is a states rights issue until Bush doesn't like what the state is doing. I also noticed he pretty much dropped the subject once it became clear that he couldn't get a 37 state majority and a majority of the population, while they dislike gay marriage, also dislike the constitutional band on said marriage.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/139/story_13976_1.html

The problems I have with Iraq are so numerous I don't have the time or the inclination to go into them. Suffice it to say that while I supported the war in afganistan, and still do, I feel that Iraq was a mistake. Many conservatives, including this one:

http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=9044

agree with me.

And if we truely have a culture of compromise, then why are articles like this being written.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59731-2004May1.html

Oh, I am obvioulsy citing only to the "liberal media" and therefore you can discount all my citations. Good for you. Here is some sand, why not stick your head in it.

Pat, I have nothing against you, and I have lots of conservative friends and relatives, and even they are beginning to wonder what's going on. Seems to me you should be a little more inquisative and start reading and stop attacking people who disagree with you. You would like have an intelligent discourse? Fine, but don't go name calling for no reason. I simply shared an opinion and responded to a question. It's too bad it was not your opinion. I am sure if everyone agreed with you it would make you very happy. I know of a place like that. It's called fantasyland.

Comments are Closed.