In a statement yesterday, George W. Bush endorsed John McCain. In doing so, he seemed to want to pass the “terror card” along to McCain as if it were some kind of relay baton.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20080305-4.html

MSNBC posted a story on the endorsement this morning. That, btw, is where I got the title “Asset or Albatross." This might be helpful for background.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23498226

Questions for debate:

1. Given that the Bush campaign trashed McCain in 2000 in South Carolina, do you see this endorsement as more supporting McCain or Bush wishing to have his “ideas” follow him out of the White House?

2. Is the apparent attempt by Bush to pass on the ”terror card” a good strategy?

According to Real Clear Politics, Bush’s popularity remains stalled in the Lower 30% range.
Question 3 was a preface statement, please move on to, no pun intended,to question 4.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

4. How can the McCain campaign use Bush’s endorsement without appearing to carry on the Bush “legacy” of unpopularity and perhaps failure?

5. On what, if any, issues should McCain draw a distinct line of demarcation between Bush’s policies and those he intends to pursue if he is elected president?

Bonus Questions

How will the Democrats use the Bush endorsement?

How effective will it be?

1. Given that the Bush campaign trashed McCain in 2000 in South Carolina, do you see this endorsement as more supporting McCain or Bush wishing to have his “ideas” follow him out of the White House?

Given that McCain has "moved on" from the alleged smears in 2000 by Bush supporters (not Bush or Bush's campaign), we can conclude that Bush wants a Republican (McCain) in the White House over a Democrat (Obama or Clinton). This ain't rocket science.

2. Is the apparent attempt by Bush to pass on the ”terror card” a good strategy?

Odd phrasing, but since McCain is the Republican candidate who has most closely tied himself to Iraq, particularly the surge, and the GWoT, this is entirely natural. McCain is not running away from Iraq, but has a reasoned approach to why we need to win there (all apologies to DToM whom I disagree with on Iraq). National security remains one of the top issues for Repulican and moderate voters.

3. According to Real Clear Politics, Bush’s popularity remains stalled in the Lower 30% range.

Um, yes?

4. How can the McCain campaign use Bush’s endorsement without appearing to carry on the Bush “legacy.”

McCain has criticized the pre-surge strategy in Iraq. He is boasting about his pushing for the surge, which by all accounts has not only worked but has worked extraordinarily. Americans like winners, and the author of the surge strategy certainly has something to boast about.

5. On what, if any, issues should McCain draw a distinct line of demarcation between Bush’s policies and those he intends to pursue if he is elected president?

I think many people have forgotten that an embattled Bush won in 2004. This country is 50/50. Neither Democratic candidate has much real experience. Sorry, but being a cheated on wife doesn't count as 35 years of experience although I'm sure Hillary has some experience in crisis management on that front. Obama's national experience is laughable. Granted, this election may hinge on domestic policy and the media's portrayal of the bad economy. Surveys show that although people are personally doing well, they think that others are doing poorly. Class envy rhetoric (standard tool box techniques of the Democrats) has furthered this notion.

37 of the 50 states are above the "full employment" mark of 5% unemployment. Among the worst states are Michigan (whose tax policies drive businesses away in droves) California (regulation capital of the world) and Illinois (corruption, incorporated). Source

That wasn't written clearly. The "Real Clear Politics" statement was meant as a preface to the next question about Bush's legacy. I've edited it.



Edited to add:


Oh god, how could anyone forget about circumstances of Bush's 2004 win. The country was 50/50 in 2004, but not necessarily in 2006. An embattled George Allen lost in the midterms, remember.

We don't yet know what the split will be in November.

See if I can address all these questions in essay form. There is no question that the Democrats are going to attempt to make this election out as a third term for Bush. We're all ready seeing the "McSame" ads which are playground level quite frankly, but that's what they are going to try to do. The problem with that is that John McCain is NOT George Bush. He has pretty clearly defined himself over his many years of service to this country. He has a long record, and a strong record for what he believes in. John McCain will be able to define himself.

Bush helping him, particularly in the area of fund-raising is a huge plus. Bush has the national organization already in place, on the ground and ready to hit the streets and phones. If the Democrat opponent attempts the "McSame" crap because Bush is helping him, all McCain has to do is point at his record and say, "I'm John McCain, not President Bush". So, it's a win-win for him.


Aquilla

The best thing that McCain could have done for Democrats is to link himself in totality with Bush. Like it or not, Bush is the visual symbol for what is wrong with our economy and our foreign policy, in the eyes of many Americans. That number includes not a few disaffected conservatives, as we've seen by the numbers leaning toward Obama.

McCain is making it easy for his opposition. The photo of him snuggled in Bush arms pit [ ] has already been making the rounds, his unabashed hegemonic foreign policy goals, and his Bush-like fear mongering phraseology such as 'I won't surrender to Al Qeada' makes McCain look like McW to many people.

Neither nominee is going to offer anything close to real change, but McCain isn't even trying. McCain may be able to define himself, but hitching his cart to Bush's broken wagon isn't going to be convincing to a lot of voters.

Again, McCain has staked his position on foreign policy. You don't agree that we are doing the right thing, but security is a huge issue for many voters including those that have friends or family serving in Iraq. Many Democrats are choosing Hillary over Obama because of this issue--they think she has better experience.

Now, we understand that you think the United States has become some Orwellian society where everyone is spied upon and people are snatched off the street to be waterboarded (exaggeration for effect here, but check your sig before bashing me on this...), but the reality is that things in the good old U S of A are better darn good. We gripe because we don't have enough money for healthcare or college tuition while everyone and their three kids has a cell phone, cable TV, high speed internet access, and high definition TV and radio.

Life is full of decisions and many Americans seem to feel that the government should bail them out of theirs. My mortgage just went up (just like the contract said when I signed it) -- bail me out!!

I understand the failing of the GWB administration. They have badly bungled the handling of Iraq until very recently. They don't get out in front of issues well. Bush himself is alternatively parodied as the embodiment of either evil or stupidity. Don't get me started on Cheney, Ashcroft, Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld. We understand the perception. It isn't the reality.

Bush was written off in 2004 because of the unpopularity of the Iraq war. He won. Americans like winners. The President's approval ratings (32%) are higher than Congress's (24%), so the reality is that Americans are fed up with their government. Yes, McCain is part of this, but so are Hillary and Barack. That much is a wash. Bush's numbers have not moved in about a year and a half.

Look at how Red this country is. A lot of these people won't vote for a Democrat as liberal as the two candidates still standing in the Democratic race.

Few people that will give McCain a look will decide that he's gone from the anti-Bush to the Bush clone because of a photo op. The people that would conclude such were never potential votes for McCain anyway, so nothing lost there. Bush can raise a ton of money for McCain, which is what he has always lacked. That alone is worth the endorsement.

McCain has said all along that he believes in combatting Muslim extremism, but he also has said this administration has bungled the Iraq war--both positions were staked out years ago. To abandon his hawkish war posture now would look foolish and disingenuous, and he has been distinguishing himself from Bush on how the war has been managed for years. The GWB endorsement should not hurt him if he continues to preach what he has been preaching for years.

Frankly, if anyone thinks about this at all, here is McCain: career naval officer and fighter jock, Vietnam vet and POW, 4 term Senator, with a father and grandfather who were admirals; and here is Obama: he has a tall, outspoken wife; and here is Hillary: she has a philandering husband. When it comes to national security experience in comparison to McCain, the Democratic candidates have about as much experience as my poodle.

"1. Given that the Bush campaign trashed McCain in 2000 in South Carolina, do you see this endorsement as more supporting McCain or Bush wishing to have his “ideas” follow him out of the White House?"

It's partisan politics, McCain is a Republican, and that's enough for Bush to prefer him to either of the other 2.

"2. Is the apparent attempt by Bush to pass on the ”terror card” a good strategy?"

I guess it hurts McCain by associating him with a continuation of policies that have been extremely unpopular, but if McCain plays his cards right he can turn that around with moderates and independents. Hardcore liberals (and hardcore conservatives) would never have voted for him anyways so a Bush endorsement makes no difference one way or the other to them.

"3. How can the McCain campaign use Bush’s endorsement without appearing to carry on the Bush “legacy” of unpopularity and perhaps failure?"

By promoting the success of the surge.

People need to know that all hasn't gone to Hell yet in Iraq, and that McCain supported a policy that dramatically changed the scenario over there. McCain should also avoid fear mongering while doing this, he should focus less on what would happen if the troops left, and more on showing them that there are REAL benefits in them being over there.

"5. On what, if any, issues should McCain draw a distinct line of demarcation between Bush’s policies and those he intends to pursue if he is elected president?"

On every single issue McCain needs to show that he is not Bush. Of course always attempting to differentiate himself from Bush would push him more to the left if he's not careful, and he's already semi-there as per many conservatives. So in other words, McCain needs to promote policies that differ from Bush's in that they are better, not simply different, and they also need to be policies that most conservatives can get on bord with.

"How will the Democrats use the Bush endorsement?"

Obviously by suggesting that McCain, is "McSame". Especialy if it's the "Obama Change Crew".

"How effective will it be?"

If the 2006 midterms are any indication of new voting trends... very...

1. Bush had ideas? Who knew?

2. Well, what else does Bush have to pass on to McSame? A robust economy? Peace in our lifetime? A budget surplus? A respected image abroad? An America safer than it was before September 11, 2001?

No. No. No. No. No. Thanks for playing.

3. You've given us a statement of fact BoF rather than a question. What Bush's 30 percent approval rating means is McSame will need Bush to go before hand-picked Republican crowds and fatcats to raise money and try to get them interested in showing up in November. Everywhere else he's about as popular as Mad Cow disease.

4. He can't. McSame has been kissing up to Bush for eight years now in a failed attempt to ingratiate himself with the right-wing base. If he wants to inherit Bush's war and carry on with it, then he can and should be framed as what he is: A Continuation of the last eight years, not a Change from it.

5. Stay tuned. Tweedledee has several months to figure out how to cut himself free from Twiddledumb.

Bonus Answer: The Democrats will hang the Iraq War around John McSame's neck and try to strangle him with it. If he wants to continue on with a war a majority of Americans want an exit strategy out of, then hang it on McSame and choke him with it.

Figuratively, not literally, of course. The man is a war hero after all.

The Real Clear Politics statement was supposed to be a preface to the next question, which remains No. 4, if we eliminate question 3. But hey, it’s **snowing** in Texas, and it’s March 6th. No wonder I can’t get going.

It should have been:

According to Real Clear Politics, Bush’s popularity remains stalled in the Lower 30% range.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

4. How can the McCain campaign use Bush’s endorsement without appearing to carry on the Bush “legacy” of unpopularity and perhaps failure?

Speaking of the devil...

And that’s exactly my point of contention with McCain and Bush. Our involvement in Iraq is MORE dangerous to our national security. Bush made the link for many but not all, that Iraq was part of our ‘war on terror’. I disagree. You and I differ on Iraq and the surge, but I respect your opinion.

However, when our invasion opened the door for actual terrorists to enter Iraq, and when the majority of our ‘enemies’ in that country are far better described as nationalists, than terrorists or extremists……I believe that linking Iraq to the war on terror is a charade. I don't believe my concerns for national security come second to anyone's.

McCain has linked his foreign policy goals inextricably with Bush’s foreign policy record, and he’s going to have to take the lumps and tough questions that come with that linkage. McCain’s rhetoric falls flat, with me at least. What does he even mean when he says that he will not ‘surrender’ to Al Qaeda? Is he implying that the Democratic nominee will? What does it even mean to ‘surrender’ to a terrorist group? You hand them the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania? Its meaningless fear mongering rhetoric, the sort that I believe has been responsible for turning many conservatives into independents.



I’m not disagreeing that we are the most comfortable and well fed chattel, but we are chattel nonetheless. That’s why I laugh at the promises of ‘change’ coming from both ‘mainstream’ parties. I understand that I am probably a wild eyed radical for suggesting that for all the bleating of ‘freedom’, we really aren’t. We maintain a level of freedom that is far better than most nations, but every two, four and six years, we reaffirm our subservience to the machine.

Had McCain come forward with a fresh, somewhat non-imperialistic approach to foreign policy, I would have been much more inclined to vote for him.



Quick question [no pun intended]; Are the Iraqi’s who fight against us because they want to determine the course of their own nation – extremists?

1. Agreed. Linking Iraq to the War on Terror was bogus from the beginning. How anyone believes that fighting the folks who strap the bombs to themselves in Baghdad and surrounding areas in Iraq keeps us safer in the U.S. is beyond my understand. Can these suicide bombers afford plane tickets to come to the U.S. and do it? If so, why are they wasting their time and lives in a predominantly Muslim country when they could just come and give the "Great Satan" their own little version of hell? By the way, wasn't there another bombing in Baghdad earlier today that took out a whole bunch of people and injured scores more? I hope you weren't anywhere near that, DTOM.

2. I also find it interesting that it is McCain who is the only one talking about "surrender". It's a nice try to spin the talk of bringing our troops home alive instead of leaving them there as targets in a carnival booth for jihadists who don't value their lives or anyone else's. If McCain is waiting for a clear-cut victory, I would challenge him to define it. His Buddy Boy Dubya hasn't managed to so far. In the meantime, enlisted people get extended tours and get to come back to beautiful Iraq again and again and again...Is that the stuff of victory?

3. Apparently if it isn't Bush's or Condi's idea it is extremism on the part of Iraqi nationals who actually want self determination. Yeah, "we" want democracy for the Iraqis, but on the terms of the Bush administration. A "my way or the highway" approach to diplomacy doesn't leave much room for negotiations.

In order to get votes from diehard Bush supporters, McCain has to sound Bush-y. However, it is the very thing that will cause many of us to reject him. I did notice that McCain didn't sound thrilled even at the President's endorsement speech about the prospect of Dubya being seen with him on the campaign trail. The President "being very busy" came up several times in what McCain had to say, presumably giving Bush a convenient out from showing his "pretty face" at McCain rallies.

The fact that they fight against american intervention is irrelevent to wether they are extremists or not. It depends on what course they want to take their country down. If that course leads to totalitarianism, opression and theocracy, then they are extremists, no matter how noble or justified you may consider the cause of self-determination.