Will the Anti-Bush platform work this election cycle?

[Corbett]

Title pretty much sums it up. We saw in 2004 how the democrats ran against Bush and failed. Since then, Bush has gotten almost everything he has wanted, dragging the democrats along with him. He stayed tough on terror while dems were consistently calling Iraq a quagmire and a war that was "already lost". Nevermind the fact that almost all of them were against the Surge (Obama included), which has now been proven to have successfully turned around the war in our favor.

Dems took over Senate in 2006 and called it a major victory showing the country was sick of Bush and was becoming more liberal when in fact it was more of an ousting of power hungry and corrupt republicans who needed a reality check. Since then, dems have failed to get our troops out of Iraq as they promised, have failed to pass any major piece of legislature, have failed to stop the corruption in washington as they promised and have even fallen into it in some cases (Wiliam Jefferson, Sweetheart mortgage deals, multiple sexual scandals). Furthermore, the economy has gone into shambles on both the dems and Bush's watch and neither are willing to take responsibility. Oil prices are rising and the dems wont support any drilling to show the M.E. we aren't going to put up with this.

So now here we are, 2 months before the election and dems are STILL running a campaign of "change" ie "not bush" without giving any depth to that message. They've nominated another weak candidate who can give a good speech but cant give a good answer to a question.

So what makes them think the "anti-Bush" strategy will work this time around? I'm suspecting we will hear the same answers we did last election cycle suggesting people are sick of Bush and his counterparts (McCain), but that didnt seem to pan out too well for the critics last elctions cycle either.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I don't think it was the message of the campaign that failed in 2004 so much as the chosen candidate.

Obama is quite a bit more likable than Kerry, and while I think his positions are vague, he's a MUCH stronger candidate than Kerry ever could be.

 

[RightIsWrong]

A couple points that I would like to bring to your attention:

1. There is very in depth plans/agendas out there if you are willing to stop listening to GOP talking points and just look
2. The person running this year is slightly more appealing than the person running in 2004
3. The Repubs have not shown themselves to have learned any lessons from 2006

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
I don't think it was the message of the campaign that failed in 2004 so much as the chosen candidate.

Obama is quite a bit more likable than Kerry, and while I think his positions are vague, he's a MUCH stronger candidate than Kerry ever could be.

QFT

 

[imported_Infidel]

I disagree with all of your presumptions and your question is inherently flawed.

 

[jpeyton]

Americans were hesitant to change the CIC only a year into the Iraq war. Now we have five years of solidly poor leadership in Iraq, the economy is in the shitter, the credit crisis and housing crisis have affected a wide swath of Americans...Bush did far more damage after 2004 than before it. That's why it will work like a charm.

 

[retrospooty]

You know Corbett, it takes a long time to effect change - and having congress for 1 1/2 years with an un-cooperative prez is not an easy way to do it.

Prez Clinton said it best the other night. - In 2000, for the first time in modern history the reps had the house, the senate and the oval office, giving them the ability to enact the policies they have been pushing on us for the past 30 years... and LOOK WHAT HAPPENED!!! - They turned a fat economy to a flat one, they turned the first budget surplus in the past 50 years, into a record deficit, and lost nearly all of our international credibility.

There is NO argument to come back from that statement. - I cant wait until the debates and we will see Obama pounf McCain with that, and watch him stutter, unable to find a decent response.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Title pretty much sums it up. We saw in 2004 how the democrats ran against Bush and failed. Since then, Bush has gotten almost everything he has wanted, dragging the democrats along with him. He stayed tough on terror while dems were consistently calling Iraq a quagmire and a war that was "already lost". Nevermind the fact that almost all of them were against the Surge (Obama included), which has now been proven to have successfully turned around the war in our favor.

Dems took over Senate in 2006 and called it a major victory showing the country was sick of Bush and was becoming more liberal when in fact it was more of an ousting of power hungry and corrupt republicans who needed a reality check. Since then, dems have failed to get our troops out of Iraq as they promised, have failed to pass any major piece of legislature, have failed to stop the corruption in washington as they promised and have even fallen into it in some cases (Wiliam Jefferson, Sweetheart mortgage deals, multiple sexual scandals). Furthermore, the economy has gone into shambles on both the dems and Bush's watch and neither are willing to take responsibility. Oil prices are rising and the dems wont support any drilling to show the M.E. we aren't going to put up with this.

So now here we are, 2 months before the election and dems are STILL running a campaign of "change" ie "not bush" without giving any depth to that message. They've nominated another weak candidate who can give a good speech but cant give a good answer to a question.

So what makes them think the "anti-Bush" strategy will work this time around? I'm suspecting we will hear the same answers we did last election cycle suggesting people are sick of Bush and his counterparts (McCain), but that didnt seem to pan out too well for the critics last elctions cycle either.

2/10

I won't bother to dismantle this line by line. Suffice it to say the most accurate part of your troll is your verbatim parroting of RNC propaganda points. "Corbett wants a cracker. Squawk!"

Too many 2004 voters were still cowed -- or maybe "sheeped" is a better word -- by the incessant "Terrah! Terrah! Terrah!" fear-mongering from the White House. Couple that with an epic smear campaign against a pitiful Democratic candidate, throw in a few polling shenanigans in key battleground states, and Bush edged out a narrow re-election victory. The Dems pulled their heads out of their asses and picked a much, much stronger candidate for 2008, plus by now all but the most brain-washed partisans can see what a disaster BushCo has been. Now we'll just have to see if the Republican smear machine and dirty tricks squad are still up to taking Obama down. (In a better world, the Repubs might actually try winning by selling the virtues of their candidate, but why depart from the tried and true? Stay the course ... )

 

[winnar111]

You see, this time they have a so called 'inspirational' leader! The idea is to scream out Inspire! Inspire! Inspire! from the rooftops and figure some people might actually believe it.

Makes you wonder why the Messiah didn't just run in 2004 rather than sit around doing nothing in the Senate for 4 years.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: retrospooty
You know Corbett, it takes a long time to effect change - and having congress for 1 1/2 years with an un-cooperative prez is not an easy way to do it.

Prez Clinton said it best the other night. - In 2000, for the first time in modern history the reps had the house, the senate and the oval office, giving them the ability to enact the policies they have been pushing on us for the past 30 years... and LOOK WHAT HAPPENED!!! - They turned a fat economy to a flat one, they turned the first budget surplus in the past 50 years, into a record deficit, and lost nearly all of our international credibility.

Except...the economy wasn't fat in 2001.

 

[manowar821]

No, I think they're going with the anti-prick method... Like in 2004.

 

[kranky]

The Dems absolutely need to turn away from Bush-bashing and do a better job of articulating what exactly they are for. This election is theirs for the taking if they do that. Pointing out where the Repubs screwed up does not work for them, it's been demonstrated over and over.

Remember the "Contract with America"? That was very effective in getting people elected even though it hardly panned out afterwards. People like someone who says I believe X and therefore I will do Y and Z. They want leadership, and there's no leadership in saying "John Doe Sucks, so elect me."

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Topic Title: Will the Anti-Bush platform work this election cycle?

Topic Summary: They tried it in 2004 and failed miserably. They're trying it again this time!

No it will not work especially with a hot VP

The country will stay the GOP course.

God rest America's soul, it is dead.

 

[Lemon law]

In 2000, GWB was an unknown quantity, and no one dreamed he would turn out so rotten, in 2004, GWB was still riding the last of the wave of 90% popularity, and Kerry was pro Iraq war, and tried to run as a smarter GWB. IMHO, Kerry just failed to connect with the American people, and it was better the devil you know than the Devil you do not know. But in early 2005, GWB rapidly found out this country did not trust him when he tried to mess with social security. Now GWB has long been mired at a 30% approval rating and could not run for dog catcher and win even if he ran unopposed.

But therein lies the rub, GWB is not running and McCain is. And now we have one Presidential candidate running against the war and the other willing to stay in Iraq for a 100 years. And there the choices could not be more stark between McCain and Obama. And after eight years of benefit only the rich spend and borrow economic policy, the economy is in crisis mode. And while Iraq may or may not stay quiet, Afghanistan is now becoming a complete crisis because troop death figures there now exceed pre surge levels in Iraq.

With only 67 days until the election, both Obama and McCain are both saying they are the cure for what ails America, and IMHO, McCain may stand a chance of winning, but in 67 days any one of many of GWB brainfart chickens may come home to roost big time, and if so, McCain will not stand a snow flakes chance in hell. No news is good news for McCain.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

i do not hold Bush responsible for the state of the economy.
economic cycles exist whether you like it or not.

 

[nageov3t]

McCain's favorable rating is like 20+ points higher than Bush's... my gut says no, and I don't see the 'McBush' line of attack working.

an anti-republican platform sure could, though.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
i do not hold Bush responsible for the state of the economy.
economic cycles exist whether you like it or not.

So you actually believe that the un-necessary war in Iraq wasn't a drain on the economy?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Nevermind the fact that almost all of them were against the Surge (Obama included), which has now been proven to have successfully turned around the war in our favor.

Yes, it has been so successful that not more than 3 weeks ago our U.S. commanders were saying that any withdrawal right now could throw the whole country back into chaos. And not one single politician or commander, Republican or otherwise, said last year the surge would take just one year to turn the war around and get timetables for withdrawal. Dems (and smart people generally) have been calling for withdrawal for a while now, and for a while now they've been right. The Iraqi government agrees.

Dems took over Senate in 2006 and called it a major victory showing the country was sick of Bush and was becoming more liberal when in fact it was more of an ousting of power hungry and corrupt republicans who needed a reality check. Since then, dems have failed to get our troops out of Iraq as they promised, have failed to pass any major piece of legislature, have failed to stop the corruption in washington as they promised and have even fallen into it in some cases (Wiliam Jefferson, Sweetheart mortgage deals, multiple sexual scandals). Furthermore, the economy has gone into shambles on both the dems and Bush's watch and neither are willing to take responsibility. Oil prices are rising and the dems wont support any drilling to show the M.E. we aren't going to put up with this.

Dem Congress has been pretty damn bad, I agree. But it certainly was far superior to the garbage Republican Congress we saw between 00 and 06, which was one of the worst in U.S. history.

So now here we are, 2 months before the election and dems are STILL running a campaign of "change" ie "not bush" without giving any depth to that message. They've nominated another weak candidate who can give a good speech but cant give a good answer to a question.

Dems won with it in 06 and will win with it in 08. Obama's been leading in the polls the whole way, after all.

 

[Specop 007]

Same ole message.

"Well, at least its not Bush!"

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
i do not hold Bush responsible for the state of the economy.
economic cycles exist whether you like it or not.

So you actually believe that the un-necessary war in Iraq wasn't a drain on the economy?

Wars generally stimulate the economy.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
i do not hold Bush responsible for the state of the economy.
economic cycles exist whether you like it or not.

So you actually believe that the un-necessary war in Iraq wasn't a drain on the economy?

Wars generally stimulate the economy.

This must be the exception though it did enrich a few of Bush and Cheney's cohorts.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
i do not hold Bush responsible for the state of the economy.
economic cycles exist whether you like it or not.

So you actually believe that the un-necessary war in Iraq wasn't a drain on the economy?

Wars generally stimulate the economy.

Not this one. See oil prices and GDP growth since 03.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo
i do not hold Bush responsible for the state of the economy.
economic cycles exist whether you like it or not.

So you actually believe that the un-necessary war in Iraq wasn't a drain on the economy?

Wars generally stimulate the economy.

Only short-term through increased govt spending. Long-term, a war must be victorious, meaning that new economic or political resources were acquired to more than offset the cost of the war, or else it will weigh heavily on the economy.

If you look back on every war the US has ever fought, they have always been followed by economic recession and inflation.

 

[Vic]

I'm curious what the OP means by 'failed miserably' when Herman Kerry only missed the White House by the narrowest of margins, and the Dems have since been able to rebuild their majority in Congress.

 

[KGB]

Originally posted by: kranky
The Dems absolutely need to turn away from Bush-bashing and do a better job of articulating what exactly they are for. This election is theirs for the taking if they do that. Pointing out where the Repubs screwed up does not work for them, it's been demonstrated over and over.

Remember the "Contract with America"? That was very effective in getting people elected even though it hardly panned out afterwards. People like someone who says I believe X and therefore I will do Y and Z. They want leadership, and there's no leadership in saying "John Doe Sucks, so elect me."

Tar & feather me because I agree with Kranky on this.

Except for the "Contract ON America" comment, I agree completely.
Even though there is alot of Bush-bashing that is justifiable, the message gets shrill. Merely repeating it countless times doesn't make it any less shrill. The D's need to clearly articulate their positions and plans while deflecting the FUD from the other side. Again, one can broach the topic of bashing without sounding shrill as in "Are you better off now than you were X years ago?". It goes down much better.