A theory about how Dean could beat Bush
Dean beats Bush
American Conservative is a magazine run by Pat Buchanan. In this article they argue that Bush could be defeated because in some manners he has definately left more traditional conservative ideas behind. George Will makes a strong case for what conservative values Bush has ignored with regard to core conservative values.
George Will
Buchana suggests that Dean could topple Bush and reshape the national debate by suggesting what is essentually a liberal idea if you can free it from race/ethicity and that is fair trade couple with new and enforced immigration limitations.
Fair trade and immigration work right into the union support of the Democratic party however right now it doesn't work. How can you get latino immigrants to vote in a union when they know there is a line of freshly immigrated folks (both legal and illegal) who will gladly take their place. This thinking, even outside of the unionization issue holds down the wages of working class folks attempting to get off the bottom rung of the economic ladder. Likewise it is hard to vote for a union when you know that they could just close up shop, move the whole operation south and have the wages they want to pay.
Buchanan also theorizes that this would energize and turn out the black vote even more because blacks are most in competition with these recent immigrants. If they are as they believe, last hired, first fired, then they have been most vulnerable to the wage stagnation that occurs due to record levels of immigration.
Finally you have the folks that the Democrats have just about lost. The endangered species in Democratic circles known as the white male voter. Buchanan contends that white males who work in skilled or semi-skilled industries (truck driving, construction, low level computer tech, etc.) have already left most high immigration states due to not being able to earn enough to get by or for being unwilling to lower their standard of living to accomodate immigration. However this high level of immigration has been going on for so long that now many interior states are finally seeing large numbers of immigrants as well. Buchanan contends that if Dean supported fair trade in conjunction with lowered immigration it would win back these voters who could then also sweep him to victory.
What do you think?
Nick
American Conservative is a magazine run by Pat Buchanan. In this article they argue that Bush could be defeated because in some manners he has definately left more traditional conservative ideas behind. George Will makes a strong case for what conservative values Bush has ignored with regard to core conservative values.
George Will
Buchana suggests that Dean could topple Bush and reshape the national debate by suggesting what is essentually a liberal idea if you can free it from race/ethicity and that is fair trade couple with new and enforced immigration limitations.
Fair trade and immigration work right into the union support of the Democratic party however right now it doesn't work. How can you get latino immigrants to vote in a union when they know there is a line of freshly immigrated folks (both legal and illegal) who will gladly take their place. This thinking, even outside of the unionization issue holds down the wages of working class folks attempting to get off the bottom rung of the economic ladder. Likewise it is hard to vote for a union when you know that they could just close up shop, move the whole operation south and have the wages they want to pay.
Buchanan also theorizes that this would energize and turn out the black vote even more because blacks are most in competition with these recent immigrants. If they are as they believe, last hired, first fired, then they have been most vulnerable to the wage stagnation that occurs due to record levels of immigration.
Finally you have the folks that the Democrats have just about lost. The endangered species in Democratic circles known as the white male voter. Buchanan contends that white males who work in skilled or semi-skilled industries (truck driving, construction, low level computer tech, etc.) have already left most high immigration states due to not being able to earn enough to get by or for being unwilling to lower their standard of living to accomodate immigration. However this high level of immigration has been going on for so long that now many interior states are finally seeing large numbers of immigrants as well. Buchanan contends that if Dean supported fair trade in conjunction with lowered immigration it would win back these voters who could then also sweep him to victory.
What do you think?
Nick
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
What do you think?
It's a fair enough criticism to argue that Bush hasn't been all that conservative although it's odd to hear coming from Buchanan. I don't consider him to be the keeper of the conservative flame. There's nothing particularly conservative about Buchanan's isolationist foreign policy or his never-ending war against free trade.
And it's not high immigration that's the problem. It's high illegal immigration that's the concern. At any rate, with Hispanics overtaking African-Americans as the largest minority I just don't see Dean embracing Buchanan's prescription. Immigration is a big issue with Hispanics.
If ask me though, our country is handling the illegal immigrant (I prefer alien
Originally posted by LiquidR
Interesting article, but I still don't see how he'd beat Bush. Bush has had the highest approval ratings since FDR.
If ask me though, our country is handling the illegal immigrant (I prefer alien
No, anyone caught illegally entering the country is deported and NEVER allowed back. Legal immigration should be eased but entering the country illegally should have some real repercussions.
Trumpet knows this, but do the rest of you know that you can't even ask for a green card if someone wants to go to public school? That is utter crap. So much money is wasted because we're afraid of offending someone. To go to public school, legal residence in the United States MUST be established.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
It's a fair enough criticism to argue that Bush hasn't been all that conservative although it's odd to hear coming from Buchanan. I don't consider him to be the keeper of the conservative flame. There's nothing particularly conservative about Buchanan's isolationist foreign policy or his never-ending war against free trade.
And it's not high immigration that's the problem. It's high illegal immigration that's the concern. At any rate, with Hispanics overtaking African-Americans as the largest minority I just don't see Dean embracing Buchanan's prescription. Immigration is a big issue with Hispanics.
It is high immigration that is also the problem. I have no problem with the people immigrating and have no doubt that if I was in their position, I would do exactly what they do, be it legal or illegal.
However I believe the charge this time will be lead Hispanics themselves. When I worked in Los Angeles, one of the mothers of my children was trying so hard to go to classes. She had worked sewing oven mitts in the same factory for 13 years. She was a supervisor/foreman(woman) but could never request time off or a raise because there was always a long line of people willing to take her job. When you consider all the groundskeepers, custodial staff, service industry people and others who have tried to unionize and have been kept from doing so, it might change minds. If you could say, look lets focus our resources, still on the Hispanic population, but get them what they need, it might work. When arguing that you need to focus resources to insure that the Hispanics here get the financial aid for their children then need, help to become citizens to vote, etc. Then I bet it would fly. Especially if you spoke of it as a pause in immigration to focus and strengthen the Hispanic base here it could be pulled off.
Likewise you assume a liability when a little creative thinking can kill two birds with one stone. No one said that reductions in immigration have to mean reductions from all countries equally. You could advocate that all the reductions be from Russia, Europe, etc. You could advocate that you keep the same levels of immigration from Mexico, Cuba, El Salvador, etc. This would take a political liability and turn it into a plus.
Nick
Originally posted by LiquidR
Interesting article, but I still don't see how he'd beat Bush. Bush has had the highest approval ratings since FDR.
It's actually quite stunning how low is approval rating is. Bush's approval rating immediately after the incredible victory in Iraq was still lower than Clinton's in the middle of his impeachment. Bush's dad's approval was much higher after his Iraq war, and look what happened to him.
According to this Gallup poll from a few days ago, more people disapprove of Bush's handling of the economy than approve.
Check this out:
Basically, immediately after 9/11 and immediately after going into Baghdad, Bush got a nice bounce, and then it was back to virtually even. I don't think Bush has much of a reservoir of good will from the US at all. People just don't particularly like him, or they don't trust him, or something. I've said this many times in SDW's 2004 election fantasy threads, but 2004 will be a close one, mainly because the country is so split down the middle between Democrats and Republicans.
Originally posted by trumptman
It is high immigration that is also the problem. I have no problem with the people immigrating and have no doubt that if I was in their position, I would do exactly what they do, be it legal or illegal.
However I believe the charge this time will be lead Hispanics themselves. When I worked in Los Angeles, one of the mothers of my children was trying so hard to go to classes. She had worked sewing oven mitts in the same factory for 13 years. She was a supervisor/foreman(woman) but could never request time off or a raise because there was always a long line of people willing to take her job. When you consider all the groundskeepers, custodial staff, service industry people and others who have tried to unionize and have been kept from doing so, it might change minds. If you could say, look lets focus our resources, still on the Hispanic population, but get them what they need, it might work. When arguing that you need to focus resources to insure that the Hispanics here get the financial aid for their children then need, help to become citizens to vote, etc. Then I bet it would fly. Especially if you spoke of it as a pause in immigration to focus and strengthen the Hispanic base here it could be pulled off.
Likewise you assume a liability when a little creative thinking can kill two birds with one stone. No one said that reductions in immigration have to mean reductions from all countries equally. You could advocate that all the reductions be from Russia, Europe, etc. You could advocate that you keep the same levels of immigration from Mexico, Cuba, El Salvador, etc. This would take a political liability and turn it into a plus.
Nick
best words i've read in regard to this issue... the hispanic population of this country have long been ignored, and I don't see how it will stand much longer, they will soon be the majority in California, and soon the largest minority in the United States. Their issues must be heard, and they must be accomidated in the nations long term plans, and no longer the gardener or field worker with no benefits, no work safety or insurance... the problem needs to be solved, not ignored.
Originally posted by trumptman
It is high immigration that is also the problem...
Why is legal immigration a problem? Legal immigrants often have similar chracter traits as do entrepreneurs. And every census from 1880 to 1990 has shown immigrants are more likely to be self-employed than natives. They also have had a salutory effect on some of our poorest urban neighborhoods.
However I believe the charge this time will be lead Hispanics themselves. When I worked in Los Angeles, one of the mothers of my children was trying so hard to go to classes. She had worked sewing oven mitts in the same factory for 13 years. She was a supervisor/foreman(woman) but could never request time off or a raise because there was always a long line of people willing to take her job. When you consider all the groundskeepers, custodial staff, service industry people and others who have tried to unionize and have been kept from doing so, it might change minds. If you could say, look lets focus our resources, still on the Hispanic population, but get them what they need, it might work. When arguing that you need to focus resources to insure that the Hispanics here get the financial aid for their children then need, help to become citizens to vote, etc. Then I bet it would fly. Especially if you spoke of it as a pause in immigration to focus and strengthen the Hispanic base here it could be pulled off.
Controlling illegal immigration would certainly help to address this problem.
Likewise you assume a liability when a little creative thinking can kill two birds with one stone. No one said that reductions in immigration have to mean reductions from all countries equally. You could advocate that all the reductions be from Russia, Europe, etc. You could advocate that you keep the same levels of immigration from Mexico, Cuba, El Salvador, etc. This would take a political liability and turn it into a plus.
Keeping the same levels from Mexico, etc. puts the same pressure on the woman in your example. Why is this a solution? Okay, maybe it's a solution to Dean's political problem with Hispanics should he call for a rollback of immigration but now he'd have a big problem with Poles, Russians, Indians, etc.
Different immigrant groups bring with them different sources of economic strength. Favoring Mexicans, etc. at the expense of Russians, etc. may be politically shrewd (although the jury is still out on that) but it may not be economically wise.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Why is legal immigration a problem? Legal immigrants often have similar chracter traits as do entrepreneurs. And every census from 1880 to 1990 has shown immigrants are more likely to be self-employed than natives. They also have had a salutory effect on some of our poorest urban neighborhoods.
Controlling illegal immigration would certainly help to address this problem.
Keeping the same levels from Mexico, etc. puts the same pressure on the woman in your example. Why is this a solution? Okay, maybe it's a solution to Dean's political problem with Hispanics should he call for a rollback of immigration but now he'd have a big problem with Poles, Russians, Indians, etc.
Different immigrant groups bring with them different sources of economic strength. Favoring Mexicans, etc. at the expense of Russians, etc. may be politically shrewd (although the jury is still out on that) but it may not be economically wise.
Legal immigration is not a problem per se. I tried to make that clear. It is a simple supply and demand issue. If you have loads of people, be they immigrants or whatever willing to do what you do, it makes it hard to raise wages, etc.
As I have mentioned I find nothing wrong with immigration. I consider it literally the us skimming the cream of the world most of the time. The point is that with all good things there can be too much. If certain immigrants can't get loans to start businesses because the program that helped them serves 5,000 and we have 25,000, that means folks are losing opportunities. Like the mother I mentioned. She wanted classes but there was no way. Even if she could get the time, imagine trying to find an open class at a community college. They are all overstuffed. Immigration is a good trait when we have the resources to take full advantage of the folks doing it. When we don't it can just become a muddle of people stuck on the bottom rung of the ladder, climbing over each other in an attempt to get at limited resources. To few winners and to many losers. That is not an advantage.
I must have assumed you know a bit with regard to what Buchanan would propose regarding illegal immigration. In exchange for lowering legal immigration overall there would be clear efforts to control and stop illegal immigration at both borders. (Stop those pesky Canadians as well
It doesn't become a racial issue in my book when you still allow immigration from Mexico and other latin countries, reduce it from the rest of the world, and in exchange you heavily police both borders. With the example of the mother I gave I bet this would still positively benefit her because as you mentioned most legal immigrants are more skilled, educated, capable of starting businesses. She is more likely fighting with illegal immigrants who have little education and skill.
Dean's position, if this were it, could give him so problems with other groups, you are corrent in that matter. However it would win him back white males which no Democrat has had in eons, turn out the black vote favorably, and perhaps net him a large percentage of the hispanic vote as well if it were handled well. All those would easily elect him.
Nick
America don´t need another New Democrat.
So. That should make everybody disagree with me
Presenter:
You have a new theory about the brontosaurus.
Miss Elk:
Can I just say here Chris for one moment that I have a new theory about the brontosaurus?
Presenter:
Er... exactly.
(he gestures but she does not say anything)
What is it?
Miss Elk:
Where? (looks round)
Presenter:
No, no. Your new theory.
Miss Elk:
Oh, what is my theory?
Presenter:
Yes.
Miss Elk:
Oh what is my theory that it is.
Well Chris you may well ask me what is my theory.
Presenter:
I am asking.
Miss Elk:
Good for you. My word yes.
Well Chris, what is it that it is - this theory of mine. Well, this is what it is - my theory that I have, that is to say, which is mine, is mine
Presenter:
(beginning to show signs of exasperation)
Yes, I know it's yours, what is it?
Miss Elk:
Where? Oh, what is my theory? This is it.
(clears throat at some length)
My theory that belongs to me is as follows.
(clears throat at great length)
This is how it goes.
The next thing I"m going to say is my theory. Ready?
Presenter:
Yes!
Miss Elk:
My theory by A. Elk. Brackets Miss, brackets.
This theory goes as follows and begins now.
All brontosauruses are thin at one end, much thicker in the middle and then thin again at the far end. That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too.
Presenter:
That's it, is it?
Miss Elk:
Stop on, Chris.
Presenter:
Well, er, this theory of yours appears to have hit the nail on the head.
Miss Elk:
And it's mine.
Presenter:
Yes, thank you very much for coming along to the studio. Thank you.
Miss Elk:
My pleasure, Chris ....
Presenter:
Next week Britain's newist wasp farm ...
Miss Elk:
It's been a lot of fun.
Presenter:
Yes, thank you very much.
Miss Elk:
Saying what my theory is.
Presenter:
Yes, thank you.
Miss Elk:
And whose it is.
Presenter:
Yes, thank you - that's all - thank you... opens next week.
Miss Elk:
I have another theory.
Presenter:
Yes.
Miss Elk:
Called my second theory, or my theory number two.
Presenter:
Thank you. Britian's newest wasp farm...
Miss Elk:
This second theory which was the one that I had said...
Presenter:
(the phone rings; he answers)
Yes, no I'm trying...
Miss Elk:
Which I could expound without doubt.This second theory which, with the one which I just said, forms the brace of theories which I own and which belong to me, goes like this...
Presenter:
(looking at his shoe)
9 and a half, wide fitting... Balleys of Bond Street.
What? No, sort of brogue.
Miss Elk:
This is what it is.
(clears throat)
Presenter:
8 and a half.
Miss Elk:
This is it...
(lots of noisy throat clearing)
The Presenter rises and leaves the set to go next door to the travel agents set, leaving Miss Elk behind for a moment.
Bounder is still on the phone.
His other phone rings; he answers it.
Bounder:
Hello, yes ... yes ...
The presenter enters the travel set. The tourist is still droning on from a previous sketch and Bounder is still on the phone.
Tourist:
(carrying on all through the scene below)
...and the Spanish Tourist Board promises you that the raging choloera epidemic is mearly a case of mild Spanish tummy, like the last outbreak of Spanish tummy in 1660 which killed half London and descimated Europe, and meanwhile the bloody Guardia are busy arresting 16-year-olds for kissing in the streets and shooting anyone under 19 who doesn't like Franco...
The Presenter approaches Bounder.
Presenter:
The Fire Brigade are here. They're coming!
Bounder:
Hello! No, no, no I think they are all part of the British Shoe Corporation now.
Miss Elk follows the Presenter in.
Miss Elk:
Chris, this other theory of mine which is mine like
the other one I also own. The second theory...
The Fire Brigade enter and the secretary goes to greet them. They speak to her and she takes off her shoe to check the size.
_Meanwhile...
Miss Elk:
My second theory states that Fire Brigade choirs
seldom sing songs about Marcel Proust.
With only a half-beat pause the Fire Brigade starts singing the Proust song. After the usual number of lines we hear the gong.
Voice Over (Eric):
Start again.
The looney looks into the scene on overlay and waves at the camera just as we fade to black. We hold black for a few seconds and then the looney leans in to the black and waves again before fading away.
Originally posted by Anders
Dean can´t win over Bush.
America don´t need another New Democrat.
So. That should make everybody disagree with me
I don't disagree with you. I just want you to explain how fair trade, unionization, and helping minorities are "new" ideas for the Democratic party?
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I don't disagree with you. I just want you to explain how fair trade, unionization, and helping minorities are "new" ideas for the Democratic party?
Nick
With new democrat I certainly didn´t mean Dean but those who try to do "a Blair": www.ndol.org
Originally posted by BRussell
It's actually quite stunning how low is approval rating is. Bush's approval rating immediately after the incredible victory in Iraq was still lower than Clinton's in the middle of his impeachment. Bush's dad's approval was much higher after his Iraq war, and look what happened to him.
According to this Gallup poll from a few days ago, more people disapprove of Bush's handling of the economy than approve.
Check this out:
Basically, immediately after 9/11 and immediately after going into Baghdad, Bush got a nice bounce, and then it was back to virtually even. I don't think Bush has much of a reservoir of good will from the US at all. People just don't particularly like him, or they don't trust him, or something. I've said this many times in SDW's 2004 election fantasy threads, but 2004 will be a close one, mainly because the country is so split down the middle between Democrats and Republicans.
You are aboslutely dreaming. Bush has an approximate 60% rating with a bad economy. Isn't that interesting.
It's academic anyway, because the Dems would be crazy to nominate Dean. He will drag the party to the left and destroy any chance it has in 2004.
Kerry is the man. (aka: "The French-looking Guy").
i don't really care which party that person comes from, but i have not seen anyone that resembles my above criteria since i heard several mccain speeches in '98 & '99. i mean, i loved the fact that, when asked what we should do when we find out who was responsible for those "16 words" int he state of the union address, he said (before anyone knew -- and i paraphrase somewhat here) "we fire them. that's what you do when there's a serious failure like this. but it doesn't undo the justification of the war, either." wow. common-f'n-sense, well-put and with conviction.
anyway, no one on the dem side floats my boat, but i like dean's attempt to leverage the internet in a serious way. that's a bit interesting.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Kerry is the man. (aka: "The French-looking Guy").
Funny. I call Kerry "The-man-that-can´t-say-anything-without-talking-about-his-military-carriere". I would have called him the J.F.K-clone if the spot wasn´t taken by John Edwards.
Originally posted by Anders
Funny. I call Kerry "The-man-that-can´t-say-anything-without-talking-about-his-military-carriere". I would have called him the J.F.K-clone if the spot wasn´t taken by John Edwards.
Apparently, Limbaugh calls him what I posted above.
Funniest insult...EVAR. (apologies to Powerdoc).
Originally posted by rok
is it impossible to ask for a well-spoken person with good ideas, a proven track record, with an ability to listen but make tough decisions when necessary and be strong enough in their convictions to stand by those decisions?
i don't really care which party that person comes from, but i have not seen anyone that resembles my above criteria since i heard several mccain speeches in '98 & '99. i mean, i loved the fact that, when asked what we should do when we find out who was responsible for those "16 words" int he state of the union address, he said (before anyone knew -- and i paraphrase somewhat here) "we fire them. that's what you do when there's a serious failure like this. but it doesn't undo the justification of the war, either." wow. common-f'n-sense, well-put and with conviction.
anyway, no one on the dem side floats my boat, but i like dean's attempt to leverage the internet in a serious way. that's a bit interesting.
Bush is not very well-spoken. But the other qualities? He absolutely has them. Take this in contrast to Clinton, who had the speaking ability (though I didn;t like his public speaking style) and none of the other qualities...at all.
I was noticing your signature. With all due respect, it is very telling of your liberal mindset. Some of the most successful and intelligent people I know have a very strong sense of right and wrong. To label someone ignorant or underdeveloped because he knows right and wrong is nothing but an excuse for immoral behavior.
Originally posted by SDW2001
You are aboslutely dreaming. Bush has an approximate 60% rating with a bad economy. Isn't that interesting.
Yes, it shows how stupid, apathetic, and blind Joe Public really is. Sad more than interesting, really.