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 ...
HAHAHAAAA!!!
Oh man, that is FUNNY!
That is freaking scary.
Really, now what was the name of that ding bat he wanted to appoint????
Jimmuh is the happiest person in America these days.
I have my problems with bush like he refused to take illegals seriously BUT.
At least Bush loved our country whereas the “magic negro” hates America and whitey.
Like any true conservative, it was maddening to watch GOP leaders including GWB go along with government expansion.
However, there is several important things to keep in mind (and is probably the thinking of the actual conservatives in Congress): 1. there was never a majority of hard core conservative members to radically cut the size of government, or even to keep it the same; 2. The American people had been subjected to 40 years of journ-o-lism, and had bought into European style social programs.
It’s different now because Americans are experiencing the harsh realities of debt spending (and it will get worse). But at the time, true conservatives were risking a wipeout had they advocated measures to begin reeling this government monstrosity back. Sometimes you can do only what you can do. The American people had to suffer the consequences of Peak Government before the “got” it. They still haven’t “gotten” it full, yet, but the light bulb is going on slowly.
It wasn't that Bush tried and failed to do this, he just didn't try at all.
Have you got a source for that table? I am surprised it shows Carter creating more jobs than anyone...I recall unemployment INCREASING under Carter.
Suprised me too. I am trying to find the site I copied that fron, In the meantime here is another similar chart from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms
That will get you another copy but not the original source. I am still looking.
No wonder I couldn’t find my source. I got it at post 71 here:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2451468/posts?q=1&;page=51
Maybe jet jaguar can cite a source.
I’ve long believed, since he won the nomination in 2000, that the reason why George W. Bush did so well and won was that after years of Clinton scandals, people regretted voting his father out after one term. If the Obama presidency turns into scandal-central, which it easily could with a Republican Congress with the power ot set the investigative agenda, then expect Jeb’s name to come up more and more.
“Really, now what was the name of that ding bat he wanted to appoint???? “
I speak of his actual appointments, not his potential ones.
Yep. I expect Jeb’s name not to come up until 2016 after Obama finished his second term. Its interesting because the last time the Republicans won without a Bush on the ticket was back in ‘72.
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.