(Exton, PA) Voters' talk shows Bush retains support

By Dick Polman
Inquirer Staff Writer

Douglas Grunklee might be the Democratic Party's worst nightmare.

An independent voter and Catholic school teacher, Grunklee complains that President Bush "lied to get us into Iraq," that he is "allowing too much corruption," that he is "taking care of the top one or two percent" of rich people at the expense of everyone else, that his tax cuts have not stoked the economy, and that his attorney general, John Ashcroft, is "crushing the Constitution."

Grunklee's preferred candidate for 2004? President Bush.

<snip>

The focus-group voters were most scornful of the Democratic candidates who serve in Congress. Anissa Mitchell, a Democrat who works as a human-resources officer, said Washington insiders were "spoiled." Grunklee said the insiders were already corrupted, and Fernandes said "new blood" would help the party. That way, "maybe there would be less lying," he said.

They strongly assailed two veteran insiders, Connecticut Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman and Missouri Rep. Richard A. Gephardt. They summarily dismissed Gephardt as a "typical politician." And they don't see Lieberman as a strong figure. Moto said Lieberman seemed "fragile in his demeanor and his face. He looks like he's breakable." (The worst moment for Gephardt came after Hart posted his picture on the wall. One voter thought it was a photo of an astronaut.)

The grumbling about insiders would seem to be good news for Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has surged since the spring by trumpeting his outsider credentials. But, as evidenced the other night, having Dean as the party nominee might alienate swing voters who dislike the Vermont law that legalized gay civil unions.

more...http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/7079353.htm

:puke: :eyes: :crazy:

People's discontent with bush* does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that they will vote for a democrat or even not vote for bush*. Most people will adopt a "devil you know" approach. The chest puffing and jubilation people on here get when they hear or see anything anti-bush* by regular joes or through personal encounters is much ado about nothing as far as I'm concerned.

Call me negative, but I think we've all earned the right to underestimate people.

rather than right and weak.

Good point.

keep chipping away at Bush until impeachment proceedings become imminent. The Bush supporters will never accept that they were wrong about what they believed in when they voted in the last election. So they will continue to expound on their mistakes, rather than to change course.

And what can I say about the Dem leaders? The only Dem leader that would be worth his salt, is someone who is strong enough to take Bush on and push for the investigations. Lieberman should step down. He allowed many opportunities to slip away -- so much so that I'm convinced he's a plant. And I think the argument against Dean that his state has a pro-gay law is very lame. No swing-voter that gets icky about gay rights is truely Democratic, in my opinion.

And btw, I make these observations not committed to Dean. The field is still open, as far as I'm concerned. But the candidates who are running should be aware, that they're not going to run this country by themselves. Those who can assemble a tight team will stand out. And what better goal than to bring out the truth about 9/11, the Enron investigations and demand justice for what has been done to this country.

That could be it. Polls continue to show that the two-thirds of the voters can't identify any of the Democratic candidates. It's not that they don't like these guys -- they just don't know who they are.

Even in times when the American media acts responsibly and tries to inform voters, an incumbant President running for re-elecion just needs to make decisions and go on a foreign tour in order to dominate the news. For example, Nixon's China visit was made during primary season. Who paid attention to where Humphrey, Wallace and McGovern stood on the issues while Nixon was lifting glasses with Chou En-lai and Mao Tse-tung?

These days, one can't be sure whether the journalists, especially television journalists, are busy covering Bush or willfully ignoring Democrats the same way they willfully ignore Bush's blunders and misdeeds.

Do the Democrats need a pre-defined candidate? Perhaps so. However, time is running out for Al Gore to enter the fray.

Haven't really come out in favor of any of 'em yet. They all have their problems. But I think Clark is exactly the antidote to the phenomenon you so accurately describe. The piece in Salon makes that point very powerfully:

A 34-year-old who works for a hedge fund says, "Bush could be doing a better job, but he could be doing a worse job." One 25-year-old investment banker in a blue suit and gray tie says his support for Bush "ebbs and flows," and though he thinks the administration's unilateralism has harmed America's prestige, he believes the president was acting in good faith. Strident attacks on Bush's legitimacy, the kind that thrill the Democrat's activist base, don't excite him. "I don't want to vote for a candidate because I loathe the opposition," he says.

Standing off to the side of the room, Nicomodos Sy Herrera, a 31-year-old Republican lawyer in a well-tailored suit, seemed almost surprised to find himself at a Democratic event. A pro-life hawk who'd been "a big Bush supporter" in 2000, he'd grown alarmed by Bush's inability to "balance the hard and soft power of the U.S." Now, he was considering changing his party affiliation in order to vote for Clark in the primary. "Bush was seduced too much by the hard right's insistence that it had to go alone," he says. "He made that bed, he has to sleep in it." Still, while he says he doesn't think Bush could win him back, he also says Clark is the only Democrat he would support.

"Those are exactly the kind of people you want," Teixeira* says of these Clark fans. "The people who hate Bush 24/7, those voters are not the Democrats' problem. The Democrats' problem are the people who say, 'Goddamn it, he did a pretty good job after 9/11, but he's really doing a lousy job now.' That's the sweet spot. Those are the voters you're going to need to get in droves."

*Ruy Teixeira, co-author of "The Emerging Democratic Majority,"

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/10/23/clark">Check it out--it's well worth sitting through the promo.

...the White House "plumbers" were arrested at Watergate, and six months after the NY Times began publishing the Pentagon Papers.

Here's the chronology:

Watergate Chronology
<http://www.watergate.info/chronology/1972.shtml>

since before day one. Ed Herman has devoted an entire web site to pointing out their obvious pandering and right-wing bias. The site is at

www.inkywatch.org

before they'd allow a Dem "outsider" into the fold. The current Dem leadership has much more in common with Bush than with Dean or Kucinich.

...so if a Dem nominee can mount a campaign that hammers and hammers at these weaknesses, instead of all this polite deferral crap, then voters like this can definitely be swayed...

I've been saying for ages that positive always trumps negative in American policy, and while you have to fight back--and more importantly, be SEEN to be fighting back--if you're perceived as predominantly an "anti" candidate, you don't have a chance. I think this is even more true now, given that ShrumpCorp has been feeding, and feeding off of, negative emotions of fear, anxiety, yelling "terror" all the time, declaring orange alerts. Someone who really hits people as a positive alternative, with real firmness of character, can wipe the floor with these scowling, snarling, shifty eyed, bullying, arrogant bastards.

nt

according to 2000 figures. I live in Chester County; it is heavily Republican all over. Even the schools are filled with Repub teachers. It boggles the mind. Many don't belong to the unions, and yes, they do get the benefits when new contracts are negotiated. Shameless.

Nevertheless, because Ches. Co. is so Repub. I wouldn't take the remarks of its residents as any real feeling among typical Dems. We're so few and far between that we speak in whispers.

because Chesco only voted 57% for * in 2000, and we don't want * getting much more than that.

These people's attitudes remind me of a woman being wooed by two suitors. One is an unemployed, lazy, spoiled, alcoholic abuser; the other works, is sober, and generous. She loves them both, but knows both have faults. Why, WHY, would she marry the first guy?

But she's insecure and she's scared and the abuser makes her feel safe because he's a "tough guy." And her brother and father like him better because they're feeling put upon from everyone else getting "special privileges" and her unemployed, lazy, spoiled, alcoholic abuser lover just wants to go out and kick some ass -- and so do they.

:shrug:

BTW: C-SPAN will be airing this focus group. It would be interesting to watch.

HA! I thought this was gonna be some kind of "swing voters aren't buying the Dem's position" or some crap like that. But, hey...I kinda like that guy! And I'll bet he's gonna like Howard Dean, too!

for Bush in 2004, a woman realtor.

The rest seemed to be on the fence....

Many wanted to see plans for the future...there was mention that people didn't know where Bush was going, that he was shortsighted..One said he wanted to see Step 5, instead of Step 1 (sic)

when it's always "kill so-and-so"

Just give them someone else to vote for.