US-led war may have impact on 2004 US presidential election

• duotiga83

  26 Mar 03, 14:22

  http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/americas/view/35795/1/.html
  
  First created :
  26 March 2003 1359 hrs (SST) 0559 hrs (GMT)
  Last modified :
  26 March 2003 1359 hrs (SST) 0559 hrs (GMT)
  
  US-led war may have impact on 2004 US presidential election
  
  By US Correspondent Catherine Drew
  
  Now that the war in Iraq is underway, support for the US military action, and President George Bush's approval ratings have risen in the United States, as is traditional in times of national crisis.
  
  Opinion polls show around 70% of Americans favour the war, and the same percentage approves of President Bush's performance.
  
  But when the numbers are broken down further, it would appear that Republicans overwhelmingly support the war, while Democrats are far more ambivalent.
  
  This creates particular problems for President Bush's political opponents, who may be opposed to the war, but are reluctant to speak out for fear of alienating mainstream voters, while their party faithful bitterly oppose the conflict.
  
  The most senior Democratic politician in the US Congress set off a howl of protests when he said he regretted that lives would be lost in conflict because President Bush's diplomacy had failed.
  
  "Well I stand by my statement, I don't know that anyone in this country could view what we've seen so far as a diplomatic success... diplomatic success is what we saw in 1991," said Senate Democratic leader, Tom Daschle.
  
  Republicans loudly protested that the Democrats should not criticise the President at a time of war. But Senator Daschle stood by his remarks.
  
  Mr Daschle is not running for President in 2004, but plenty of his political colleagues are.
  
  Many senior, well established Democrats in the Presidential race, are supporting the war.
  
  Others are vehemently opposed, and resent the suggestion that speaking out means they are unpatriotic.
  
  "There are some that say we should not question the President's decision to go to war, when troops are on the ground. First of all no one loves the troops and supports the troops more than us, as the troops are our brothers, our sisters, our cousins, our nephews. They don't have to lecture us about loving the troops. We loved the troops before they left home," said Democratic presidential candidate, Rev. Al Sharpton.
  
  Polls show only about 50% of Democratic voters support the war, while 93% of Republicans do.
  
  Minorities, women and labour groups, all traditional Democratic voters, have been represented heavily in the large anti-war demonstrations. They are outraged not only by the preemptive strike, but the money being spent on the war, and say funds are urgently needed for education, healthcare and other domestic priorities.
  
  "I don't agree with it, I'm not going to get any of that oil money so I mean, it's not for me, and it's not for my community. We still have to go to the gas pumps and pay a lot of money for gas, so it's not for me, or my community," said Susan Curry, a community activist.
  
  Both political parties are only too aware that President Bush's father had fought a war supported by both Republicans and Democrats, but had lost a presidential election because of his perceived lack of attention to domestic issues.
  
  While engrossed in the Iraq issue, President Bush has continued to highlight his domestic agenda, trying to address concerns that a costly war could send an already weakened economy into a tailspin.
  
  "As well, we discussed the need to make sure we have plans in place to encourage economic vitality and growth," said President Bush.
  
  But some senior Democrats foresee political capital to be made, from domestic concerns.
  
  "We want to make sure we're the kind of country that those young people are fighting for and dying for. That means, that means my friends, that when they come back from serving over in Iraq, that they are going to have their younger brothers and sisters getting a good education, and seeing that there is no child left behind. They're going to come back and they should come back to a sound economy where their brothers and sisters are going to get decent jobs, and not get pink slips, and get laid off from jobs," said Democrat Senator Edward Kennedy.
  
  However divisions within the Democratic leadership, and an image of being reluctant to deal with overseas threats, may hurt the Democrats as they prepare for the next presidential and congressional elections in 2004.
  
  While the President and his war policies are riding high in the opinion polls, there is concern that a prolonged bloody conflict in Iraq, or lack of hard evidence that the country has weapons of mass destruction will prompt more Americans to oppose the war.
  
  Both Republicans and Democrats are watching closely, to see how the US economy will be impacted.
  
  History suggests that that issue alone could be the deciding factor in the 2004 vote.
  
  
• duotiga83

  26 Mar 03, 15:28

  Public's Confidence in War Success Drops
  31 minutes ago
  
  By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer
  
  As suddenly as surrendering Iraqi soldiers dropped their white flags and opened fire, the reality of this war struck Americans, with hopes of swift victory giving way to the prospect of a longer, tougher campaign.
  
  The first bodies have been flown stateside. American POWs were interrogated on Iraqi TV. An Apache helicopter was downed by enemy guns, and friendly fire took more lives.
  
  Now come homefront questions about resolve: Can the public weather a war potentially far more lengthy and deadly than the brief conflicts of the past two decades?
  
  Polls and the stock market have reflected a week of soaring hopes and sudden doubts. But in interviews around the country, Americans said that — while disheartened by some of the war's initial turns — they'll remain steadfast.
  
  "I keep in mind a lot that we're over there to help these people," said Karen Sehlhorst, a nurse sitting with her fiancee on a bench overlooking Toledo, Ohio's Maumee River. Americans now see war's realities, she said. "It's not just a movie anymore."
  
  Like many others interviewed nationally, the 52-year-old nurse said news of Iraqi resistance and U.S. casualties shook her hopes of easy triumph, but not her support for the war. Still, she and her fiance, Mark Sarka, wondered how swiftly public opinion could change.
  
  A new poll from the Pew Research Center reflected worries about the war's progress — 38 percent said the conflict was going well on Monday, down from 71 percent Friday. Still, overall support for the war and President Bush (news - web sites)'s stewardship remained high at 70 percent.
  
  The stock market reacted, too — the Dow Jones industrials dropped 300 points as the week began, the worst performance of the year. It followed the best week in two decades, as the war started and victory seemed easy.
  
  Investors' expectations were understandable, some analysts said, given decades of brief conflicts for the United States — such as the successful campaign to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan (news - web sites), the 1991 Persian Gulf war (news - web sites), and invasions of Panama and Grenada.
  
  "They have been used to quick victories or bloodless victories," said William Nash, a retired Army major general who commanded an armored brigade in the 1991 Gulf War.
  
  But "the American public's got the stomach for hard fighting if the objectives and the purpose are explained and understood," said Nash, now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "People understand we're in a fight."
  
  That understanding, however, could shift if fighting bogs down and strategy is questioned, said Sean Wilentz, a Princeton University history professor. In any democracy, casualties and slow progress can create "corrosive" doubt, he said.
  
  "Unless the war is won quickly and according to plan, then the question marks come back to bite you ... and bite you hard," Wilentz said. Bush, with his contested presidential victory, may be particularly vulnerable, he said.
  
  The American people can sustain a drawn-out conflict like World War II, or they can grow restless as they did with other conflicts long before Vietnam, such as the Civil War and the War of 1812, both of which caused significant dissension, he said.
  
  For war opponents, the latest news didn't change any minds, but rather confirmed their expectations. "It solidifies my antagonism to it," said Sheila Zachman, an attorney in New York. "I think mainstream support is going to erode."
  
  But a World War II veteran who spent 1 1/2 years as a POW in Germany said unrealistic visions of a parade to Baghdad will give way to a more practical view.
  
  "Accept the fact that this is war. It's not a party. It's not a kissy-kissy group," said Robert Leavenworth, state commander for the Arizona American Ex-Prisoners of War. "If we accept that, we have it made."
  
  Though she opposed the war and still does, Sally Carter in Atlanta said now that the nation is in Iraq (news - web sites) it must see the war through to victory, despite casualties.
  
  "If we're there, we're there. We need to do it and do it right," said the 55-year-old state administrator. "I don't understand people who support a war and then when soldiers get killed or captured, they say, 'Hey, that's not what we bargained for.'"
  
  http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=540&ncid=736&e=8&u=/ap/20030326/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_opinion
• duotiga83

  11 Apr 03, 20:16

  http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0411politics11.html
  
  Bush in gear to quickly shift from war to re-election mode
  Ron Fournier
  Associated Press
  Apr. 11, 2003 12:00 AM
  
  WASHINGTON - When war ends in Iraq, President Bush will quickly shift focus to his 2004 re-election campaign and the issue that kept his father from winning a second term: a weak economy. The money, message and much of Bush's political machine are already in place.
  
  After weeks of planning, the White House hopes to convert postwar political momentum into successes for Bush's domestic agenda and ammunition for re-election.
  
  The elder Bush failed to capitalize on his popularity after Operation Desert Storm in 1991, a mistake no Republicans want to see again.
  
  "I believe the president will emerge from the war with enhanced ability to stimulate the economy," said House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., a close ally of the White House.
  
  "And that's not only the right thing to do but, obviously, it's the element that has the most potential to have an impact between now and 2004," Blunt said.
  
  Democrats, on the other hand, are looking forward to a shift from war to relative peace as a chance to erode Bush's high job approval ratings.
  
  "Clearly, this president's record on domestic issues will be a major factor in the 2004 election," Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe said.
  
  Democrats point to the 2 million jobs lost since Bush took office, as well as a long drop in the Dow Jones industrial average. Republicans predict the economy will start motoring as soon as the shooting stops. And if that doesn't work, they want Bush to get credit for trying.
  
  While the elder Bush proposed a modest postwar domestic agenda, this Bush is talking big, starting with a $725 billion package of tax cuts.
  
  In a rare retreat, the White House has suggested it would accept less from Congress than Bush proposed, but that may be a dodge. Some advisers predict that the afterglow of war will boost Bush's popularity and help him squeeze concessions from lawmakers.
  
  Some of his efforts are cosmetic.
  
  Hoping to avoid the hands-off criticism that hurt his father, Bush stages frequent economic events at the White House and across the country. He met with supportive business leaders Thursday, then dispatched them to the front lawn to discuss his economic plan with reporters.
  
  "What the Democrats are missing in this whole thing is this president is great at getting on message and staying on message and the entire White House is perfectly happy with following the script," GOP strategist Rich Galen said.
  
  Bush is also proposing a $400 billion overhaul of Medicare, a program once thought politically untouchable for Republicans.
  
  In outlining his agenda nearly three months ago, Bush also promised new money for research into fuel-efficient cars, a sign that he would not cede environmental issues to Democrats.
  
  The economy may dominate, but the war on terrorism will remain a significant issue in Bush's campaign.
  
  "All he's got to do is remind voters that this is a dangerous age and that Democrats, at best, have a lukewarm support for the military," GOP pollster Whit Ayres said.
  
  Though fighting could end soon, White House officials said there is no guarantee that Bush would declare the war over. It could take months to secure Iraq, said aides who pointed out that Bush has never called an end to the Afghanistan war.