Posted on 05/04/2003 6:24:06 AM PDT by RJCogburn
For Democrats looking through the haze of President Bush's soaring postwar popularity to the 2004 election, there are few more comforting thoughts than the memory of the 1992 campaign for president — when the first President Bush was defeated by Bill Clinton.
Indeed there are many reasons to believe that the 2004 presidential contest is going to be far more competitive than opinion polls suggest, starting with the fact that the nation remains, as it was in 2000, split right down the middle.
But a number of people are beginning to turn away from the once conventional view that the way to understand 2004 is to study the rise and fall of Mr. Bush's father, in 1992.
Yes, the story line is almost irresistible in its symmetry: two presidents named Bush, two wars involving Iraq, two economies in distress and once again a concern about rising health care costs. And who can blame Democrats, understandably morose after defeats in 2000 and 2002, for grabbing this lifeline?
But the world is a different place than it was when the first President Bush saw his postwar popularity collapse under the weight of economic turmoil. These are two very different presidents, and two very different White Houses, particularly when it comes to politics. Not incidentally, the field of Democrats in this accelerated contest does not seem to include a candidate of the political caliber of a Bill Clinton.
"It would be a mistake of the first order if the Democrats counted on the rhythms of 1992 to recur in 2004," said James Carville, who was Mr. Clinton's campaign manager. "The rhythms of 2004 are different than 1992, and if you try to dance to the rhythms of 1992, you'll be out of step."
For all the ostensible parallels in these two postwar Americas, many political analysts say it is unlikely that voters will be as quick to turn away from international concerns this time. The 1991 war in the Persian Gulf was a distant battle. Foreign policy discussions seemed increasingly esoteric, assuming they took place at all. (The issue barely came up in the Clinton-Bush presidential campaign.)
By contrast, since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, American soil has become part of the battleground, and foreign policy has become anything but academic. Americans are reminded of their vulnerability with numbing regularity in the form of security alerts from the Bush administration's Department of Homeland Security, and the president said last week that the war against terrorism will march on across the globe.
"After the first gulf war, national security basically went away as an issue," said Robert Shrum, a Democratic consultant who is advising one of the Democratic presidential candidates, Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts. "This time, I think national security will be a fundamental threshold issue that anybody challenging Bush is going to have to meet."
Beyond that, Mr. Bush's advisers have been studying the same history books that the Democrats have, and they argue that their president is in a less assailable position on the economy than his father was at a similar point in his presidency.
Matthew Dowd, a senior adviser who oversees polling for the White House, said that the public was unhappy with the first President Bush's handling of the economy through much of his term, a perception that persisted even when his wartime popularity soared.
Managing the economy is hardly viewed as this President Bush's strong suit. A CBS News poll last weekend found that 45 percent of Americans disapproved of his handling of it. And the unemployment rate jumped to 6 percent on Friday, a point below the 7 percent reached under Mr. Bush's father.
Still, Mr. Dowd argued that there was nowhere near the persistent and deep unhappiness with this president on the economy as there had been in the early 1990's.
"This was something that sort of stuck with Bush 41 through the end of '90 and '91 that he never dealt with," Mr. Dowd said, using a nickname for President Bush's father. "This president has not had a negative economic rating for more than a month or two. He doesn't have the same economic disapproval problems that his father had.
"The comparison, I think, stops at the last name."
That difference in voter attitudes extends to the economy itself. Mr. Dowd said that in 1991, during the gulf war, a Gallup Poll found that 81 percent of Americans described the country as being mired in a recession; today, just 45 percent feel that way.
No less striking is the apparently enduring boost of public attitudes toward Mr. Bush since Sept. 11, 2001. Democrats and Republicans say that Mr. Bush's leadership addressed what had been a central concern of voters when they elected him: that he did not have the depth to weather a foreign crisis.
Mr. Shrum said that "there is not a chance in the world that George W. Bush could be elected president in 2004 with the résumé that he brought into the 2000 campaign" — an argument he did not try to make about the considerably different George W. Bush the Democrats face today.
Other factors played to Mr. Clinton's benefit in 1992 that are absent this time. Mr. Bush's father was weakened by upheaval on the right, in the form of a challenge by Patrick J. Buchanan, and the third-party candidacy of Ross Perot, which Republicans say was decisive to Mr. Clinton's victory.
If this White House has its way — and it has demonstrated that it almost always has its way in matters of politics — it seems unlikely that Mr. Bush will have to deal with similar problems in 2004.
This does not by a long shot mean that Mr. Bush is guaranteed a second term; every poll shows that he remains vulnerable, as many Americans continue to dispute the legitimacy of his election and quarrel with his policies.
While Mr. Perot may be gone from the stage, the issue that earned him so much currency — the deficit — has returned. Democrats have seized on it this time, and portrayed Mr. Bush as an irresponsible financial manager. "His son's economy is bad and getting worse than his father's economy," said Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic National Committee chairman.
Still, Mr. Carville had a word of caution for Democrats who turn to 1992 to look for hope for 2004. "Shut up — you are wrong," he said. "Successful Democratic campaigns will have to create their own dynamics."
The NYT begs for Hillary to run.
The NYT begs for Hillary to run.
Hillary! does not have political caliber. National stature, yes, but she doesn't have Slick's political gifts. Not even close.
Let the Democrats think 43 is 41 and '04 is '92 all over again. They are in for a rude surprise.
Thank God.
Actually, Hillary is engineering a scenario where she replaces the failing RAT candidate in October 2004.
This Adam Nagourney piece was certainly planted by HRC operatives.
The NYT isn't begging Hillary to do anything-they're just another tool in the toolbox.
Women from Upstate NY (Red Country) elected her.
Don't bet their Red Country sisters in the other 49 won't do the same.
This writer is in denial. It's not just Republicans who say Perot gave the election to Clinton. Or maybe he thinks Perot voters were closet democrats?
in the NYT news room. The rest of America has moved on.
Besides, there's more at stake in 2004 than the White House. If we're ever to seat any conservative judges on the federal bench, we need to widen our majority in the Senate to forestall these cursed filibusters.
It's not time to crow yet.
The democrats had eight years to do something about this and all we got was flimflammed Hillary Care! The healthy economy they rode in on was Reaganomics, not anything they had done or did and they spent that legacy like drunken children. The democrats are already running their campaigns by polls and screeching about an economy they don’t know anything about, obviously Dick Gephardt doesn’t and he wants to be president also. They rail against the Bush tax cut when they don’t even understand that it is the little business’, the Mom and Pop stores that this will help most; still they say that only the top 1% will get the tax cut. Flat out lies from the get go. Only 40% of us pay Federal Income Tax in the first place, so only 40% of us will realize a tax cut and that is just one edge of the Bush plan. The democrats will raise your taxes so the government can take care of you; bigger government.
Our economy is healthy and those looking for jobs are not looking for work per-se, they want that top dollar job and will wait for it while accepting pay for doing nothing. As for the legitimacy of President Bush’s election, it was just that – legitimate! He won Al, get over it! Never has such election fraud been perpetrated on the American voter as was proven by many and 99% of it was from the DNC the other 1% was human error. This next election will be no different unless we voters as Americans work hard beginning now, to clean up dirty election people in our towns and cities. The media is a willing accomplice to the lies and spin of the Left; if we remain silent when this occurs, then we get what we deserve. It has been a long time since America has had a leader for the people and by the people – lets not loose this man to limp, one party politicians and laziness on our part.
Hillary is busy ingratiating herself with her new look at the military and by suddenly having some good things to say about the Bush administration – she is fooling no one; keep reminding all as to her shadowy past. Her election to the senate is questionable; she will do and say anything to gain a vote. NO TO HILLARY!
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.