Posted on 07/25/2010 9:09:37 PM PDT by thecodont
Reporting from Washington — As campaign foils go, George W. Bush was a very effective one for Democrats in 2006 and 2008, even though his name never appeared on a ballot. But now, as the party seeks to defend the majorities it built based in part on Bush fatigue, Democrats find that invoking the former president's name doesn't pack quite the same punch.
New polling shows that Bush's standing among the electorate remains weak, and that voters for the most part still fault him for the nation's ailing economy. But as President Obama's popularity has stagnated, Democratic strategists say that drawing simple comparisons between the two leaders is not a surefire strategy to move voters their way.
"Our current data brings into question the notion that you can run against Bush and win," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "Obviously Bush is not popular. The question is: Does it help Obama to run against the past in debating the future?"
A Quinnipiac survey last week found that Obama's "political honeymoon ended," and put his job approval rating at a new low of 44%. When voters were asked whether he was a better president than Bush, 42% said yes, and 32% said no. The gap was narrower among voters who identify themselves as independents, a potentially troublesome finding for Democrats.
A survey from Gallup released last week found that Bush's personal favorability rating had increased 10 points since the last such poll in 2009. At 45%, it was just 7 points behind Obama's, bringing into question whether attacking the Bush legacy would be very effective.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
"All elections are about the future. If Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi [D- San Francisco] doesn't understand that, she might as well hand over the gavel right now," said Scott Stanzel, a former deputy press secretary for the Bush White House.
Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?
Hell no!
Bush’s popularity?!?!?!
I had no idea he was still in office, or running for anything...
All they have had is Bush and the race card. Now all they have is the race card. Fun, fun, fun!
They’re beating a dead horse on this issue. The bad economy was brought on by the DEMS in Congress, but, Americans are too stupid to realize that.
The two greatest hoaxes of the last 20 years are:
1. Clinton was responsible for the prosperity of the 90’s and........ 2. Bush is entirely responsible for our current financial woes.
“The two greatest hoaxes of the last 20 years are:
1. Clinton was responsible for the prosperity of the 90’s and........ 2. Bush is entirely responsible for our current financial woes.”
Eleven percent of Americans say they have "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress, down from 17% in 2009 and a percentage point lower than the previous low for Congress, recorded in 2008The 110th Congress was sworn in on January 4, 2007. The Democrats were elected into the majority in November of 2006 and thus took control of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Those with confidence polled were probably sitting in Congress and voted for themselves. ;)
Too funny
Easy case to make (despite the media) is that the economy wss fine until the Marxists took over Congress on Jan. 20, 2007. Why don’t republicans and the truthful media ever state that case?
Bush was good enough to win a 2nd term. His downfall was immigration reform which hurt his status with the mostly right. The left hates him just like we hate Obama’s policies. Immigration reform lost the base.
The MSM did it and purposely split the right just as Hillary had foreseen would happen.
Bush's unpopularity among voters starts to fadeThat's reassuring since (heaven forbid) Bush isn't running for any office...
Miss me yet?
Immigration reform lost the base.His passion for immigration (amnesty) was huge but the truth is "the base" was duped before that.
Prescription drugs, spending, etc.
Other than the first days of the war on terror, literally days, He never lived up to what "the base" expected of him.
There's no doubt a lot went on behind the scenes that kept us safe, but did we really need a whole new (Homeland Security gag!) bureaucracy? The war on terror on the surface in Iraq and Afghanistan was and is a huge costly flop and now so is "Homeland Security"...
Sorry, but that's the way I see it.
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.