Michael Dukakis was plenty-weak on his own.
Posted on 09/10/2012 9:15:21 AM PDT by WilliamIII
Conventional wisdom holds that elections are about the future. Or about the personalities of the candidates. Or at least about voters’ perceptions of the last four years. But a quick glance at history shows that’s not always so. Republicans won every election between 1868 and 1880—not because Ulysses S. Grant, Rutherford B. Hayes, and James Garfield were such fabulous candidates, and not because their Democratic opponents were so awful. Nor did they win because of the conditions in the country at the time. They won because when Americans thought about the Republican Party, they thought about Abraham Lincoln. And when they thought about the Democrats, they thought about Jefferson Davis.
The same thing happened after the New Deal. In 1948, Harry Truman was personally unpopular and Americans were in a foul mood. But Truman won in large measure because of the way Americans felt about the Democratic and Republican parties, impressions created less by him or his GOP opponent, Thomas Dewey, than by two guys named Roosevelt and Hoover, who had faced off in 1932. The same was true in 1988, when George H.W. Bush, a weak candidate in his own right, made his race versus Michael Dukakis another referendum on Ronald Reagan versus Jimmy Carter.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
The Ghost of George W. Bush ought to be fairly weak compared to the harsh reality of a B.ObaMao.
Michael Dukakis was plenty-weak on his own.
Reaed “Family of Secrets”, by Russ Baker.
>The Ghost of George W. Bush ought to be fairly weak compared to the harsh reality of ObamaMao.<
But he is an interested precursor.
This may be partially true. Remember that Bush did nothing to counter the Dem lies that he lied us into war, or that he was responsible for the housing crisis that led to the “Great Recession.” Bush took a Republican Party that was in control of all three branches of government and, by refusing to dirty his hands with politics, let the Dems define the Republicans for years.
Bush is probably more of a ghost for Republicans and conservatives. We supported him — for many good reasons — but overlooked his horrible record on domestic spending and entitlements. Now we have to pay the price since Republicans have lost all credibility on spending issues.
Sad but true.
If GWB left office with a booming economy, and controlled deficit and victory in both wars (peace and withdrawl both countries and an new economic base) GWB would have been a key speaker two weeks ago and in fact Obama wouldn't have ever been elected.
The reality is that this Republican party is controlled by that same group as 2008, Boehner and McConnell and yes Ryan who went along with it all , with Romney stepping in for GWB without much obvious differences.
Claiming that GWB left us with a great situation, or that he was not responsible after 8 years didnt fly in 2008 and it wont fly today. If GWB was not responsible after 8 years then how can Republicans convince voters that Obama is after only 4? This is their trap.
Here's a question : Would any of the R candidates run on “I am not like GWB” ??
The reality is, it’s time to remove me from your ping list.
 |
John Derbyshire: Eight Wasted Years...Margaret Thatcher used to talk about the “ratchet effect.” When the Left gets power, she said, they drive everything Left; when the Right gets power, they slow the Leftward drive, perhaps even halt it for a spell; but nothing ever gets moved to the Right. U.S. politics in the 21st century so far bears out this dismal analysis. What does the Right have to show for eight years of a Republican presidency? I supported George W. Bush in 2000 because I thought he had a conservative bone in his body somewhere. I supported him in 2004 because I thought him the lesser of two evils. At this point, I wouldn’t let the fool park his car in my driveway. Bruce Bartlett was right, every damn word...Bill Gertz interview on Hannity and Colmes Gertz: Well he casts himself as a compassionate conservative and I argue that he's neither. That his administration is neither. He's done tremendous damage to the conservative movement... |
Bush Was a Statist, not a Conservative April 10, 2010 by Dan Mitchell
True, but you'd be hard-pressed to find any Republican in elected office who didn't go along with it all.
Those who didn't play "follow the leader" were likely to be attacked as Paulite isolationists or RINOs and aren't going to be put forward as candidates for higher office.
Anybody who was in Congress and likely to get a presidential or vice presidential nomination probably carries similar baggage.
"Staunch conservatives?" "Staunch Bushbots" is more like it. I know you didn't write that sentence :)
Claiming that GWB left us with a great situation, or that he was not responsible after 8 years didnt fly in 2008 and it wont fly today. If GWB was not responsible after 8 years then how can Republicans convince voters that Obama is after only 4? This is their trap.
True, for those who think about it that deeply. Some may accept as sufficient Bill Clinton's equally deranged arguments about Obama ("O's policies are the same as mine, and the economy today is the same as the 90s.")
Or even....
Ryan the invented conservative fiscal budget wizard hero is a perfect example of this. He is and always was a party first man which is why Romney selected him.
On Sunday he was on CBS MTP and was questioned about the 2010 budget control Act automatic spending cuts and he was forced to make a ridiculous argument, that he voted for the bill and praised it on TV for its deficit reduction (he really piled it on at the time) but he says not the military spending cuts in the bill. He says he opposed those, but he only mentioned that part this year.
This is just another disaster, that he has to go on TV and deny what he did and said last year in such a way when there is no way he can get away with it.
Then he was asked about the Romney budget plan and it was even MORE painful to watch. These folks are drowning.
Ahhh yes,
Clinton claims that Obama raising taxes on the rich will result in wonders now because he (Clinton) did it and it worked great in the 1990s. But :
1) Clinton raised taxes in his first year 1993 with a D congress majority, didn't wait till he lost the congress and then demand that Newt House raise taxes as Obama is doing with Boehner. That is ridiculous but Republicans cant point it out.
2) Clinton did raise taxes on the rich but the real revenue came from the gasoline sales tax increase included in the SAME bill. The real money comes from us. No talk of that at the DNC.
Democrats wont point this out
Republicans wont point this out
SOL WILL point this out!
Naw, 2008 was just 4 years ago and is still fresh in peoples minds. Clinton was 12 to 20 years ago so he can claim anything now, and he did. Good thing that Honey Boo Boo beat his DNC speech out that night in viewership.
The argument that many/some still claim here (including one here on this thread pinged me) is that Bush fixed the bad economy yet he has no responsibility for it's disaster in 2008 after his 8 years in office, yet the same ones say that Obama is responsible for the current bad economy after 4 years, This pair together is such a stretch that most people pick it up. It's like trying to get the Titanic in a bathtub.
There are still Republican/Bush loyalists who make these crazy arguments and we will never know if they truly believe this nonsense or they just figure the ends justify the means and they must lie. I do get many replies that indicate the latter.
The bottom line is it isn't working. It cant work.
But I see a certain fondness of the past for GWB even with many here that defies reality. They long for a GWB who will not be crucified and they hoped it would be super-businessman Romney. After all Romney was NEVER critical of GWB.
They go about day by day posting how great things were under Bush, having taking flak from many sides for it for years, but now the ABO movement revives it again as with 2008 McCain.
What does it take for them to face reality?
2006?
2008?
Another beating in 2012? Will that work?
LOL, exactly. Ideology is is more important than the truth. Reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut's "Cuckoo Clock from Hell" in Mother Night.
But in a way, things are somewhat better than 6 years ago, when both of us would be blasted for posting about GWB as we did in this thread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.