There’s a fundamental difference between the two–Reagan was a brilliant reader of scripts, Bush is not. Reagan’s acting days paid off when he could read off of a script brilliantly and actually inspire people. Bush is hardly inspirational. Also, Reagan took over in a recession and won the midterm in a period of growth. It looks like it’ll be vice versa for Dubya.
I sense a lot of bitterness in this thread… 
Bush/Cheney '04!
If you think there’s a lot of bitterness in this thread, go to the one dedicated to hating me and my handle:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=83871
Let it be noted that the OP in the thread you link to was partially in response to your thread about whether women can have an emotionally satisfying relationship with their Republican husbands. Lets not fool ourselves and go ahead and admit that the first shot was fired by you, my friend. 
You even admit it’s a partial response. And I wanted to know if this was true, what can I say? Also that thread evolved into something that was pretty good, it talked about relationships and how politics get involved. It’s interesting. Listen, we could go back and forth about who started it, but you have to admit both sides have things to be bitter about.
Bush got elected because he’s the luckiest man alive. He’s like the guy on “The X-Files” who couldn’t lose at anything.
To start with, he was born into a family of some prominence, and his father happened to become President a few years before he did.
He came to national prominence at a time when Democrats were trying to re-build their credibility and were constantly on the defensive. Al Gore did everything he could to separate himself from the previous administration, which had never lost its high approval ratings and which had generally been considered positive, blow job scandals aside.
Both candidates grabbed for the center, and while the Far Right didn’t have a candidate to inspire and unify them (neither Buchanan nor Browne had the “oomph”), the far left had Ralph Nader. He was able to siphon off the liberals that Gore had left behind.
Then, in an election that came down to several very questionable calls, every single one of them went his way. Whenever an ultimate decision had to be made, the one to make it was clearly in Bush’s corner.
Of course, this leads us to wonder–will the unholy streak of luck continue, or has he used it all up? I lean toward the latter, and agree with those who believe the shitstorm is just over the horizon.
Dr. J
Go to that thread and we read the following…
Sounds as if you desire for bitterness and hatred to be aimed at you, almost as if you are requiring justification to be bitter and hate-filled in return. Gore lost the election because he lost Tennessee, and thats the Gods honest truth. I live in Knoxville and I must tell you that the Gore effort in this state was pathetic. By the time of the election Bush bumper stickers outnumbered Gore bumper stickers by at least 5-1, signs by 3-1, and etc. One Saturday morning in September, I left the local Bush HQ, where 40 people were coordinated to pass out literature during the Tennessee/Florida game, while another 15 or so would work at the office. The phones were ringing, copiers were humming, and things were getting done. I then left there and went over to the Gore HQ where about 7 people were drinking coffee and filing envelopes. We didn’t see too many of them at the game, they had the big intersections covered, but they weren’t near as thick as our people were.
No man who can’t win his home state deserves the Presidency.
Woodrow Wilson didn’t win his homestate of New Jersey in his reelection effort in 1916 and he navigated us through WWI. I guess you would’ve liked to lose it then.
Here are two other words to explain why Bush won:
Al Gore
Let’s be clear - he would not have won the most electoral votes if the Supreme Court didn’t decide that he won Florida. To say he won the election the same way that every other President did, is prodigious spin.
The Great Gazoo:
First of all, it looks, from the media-sponsored recounts, that that isn’t true.
Second of all, Gore would not have even had a chance at further recounts if not for the decision of the State Supreme Court of Florida to a) extend the counting deadline past what what was previously legislated, and then, b) force Katherine Harris to accept recount results that arrived past even that contrived deadline.
Must be nice to pick and choose which court decisions you feel are worth honoring, eh?
I think the proper screenname would be gorelostfla since he did lose. In no way did he “Win” Florida because he wasn’t announced the winner by the Secretary of State. The winner/loser is only decided by the rules of the game.
It’s like saying OJ was guilty. He wasn’t guilty. You may have thought he murdered them but guilt is a legal term and legally, he was not guilty
But it’s Gore’s fault anyway. As pointed out, if he had won his home state Florida would have been moot. SOrry, but if a guy who’s father was a legendary senator and he himself was elected Senator a couple of times and is the sitting VP in a non recession, then he doesn’t deserve to complain.
.
Here is my question:
I voted for Bush and you didn’t. What percentage of your rebate check am I entitled to? If Gore won, we wouldn’t have gotten jacksh*t back. Since my vote got you your money back, don’t I earn some sort of commission??
Junior might not be the brightest of the 1000 points of light but at least I can again after 8 years watch the news w/o barfing at the soundbite of my presiden’s voice.
I can again after 8 years not be embarassed to have a political conversation with someone outside of the U.S.
I can again after 8 years know that public policy won’t be for sale to the highest campaign contributor (well, let me restate that…)
I do know that for the first time in 8 years a damn liar isn’t running our country. Gore would have made it 12.
-
-
- Party politics aside, Clinton was a poor president. By the time Pardongate broke, not even Barney Clark would publicly defend Clinton anymore. - MC
-
You picked a great day to bring that up:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/08/27/bush.budget/index.html
Are you also willing to pay our future increased taxes to
pay the higher interest on the higher national debt?
Then I’ll take you up on your deal.
Spot on, gorewonfla. A Gore/Edwards ticket would have swept Gore into the White House. There were fears that Edwards was too young and inexperienced, but that was no reason to nominate ol’ bluenose Joe Lieberman. Lieberman was an awful choice, and I was disappointed with it from the getgo.
But Gore/Edwards in 2004? I dunno. If they run Gore again, that would be a better way to go. Personally, I’d prefer Edwards to Gore as the candidate. I would prefer still John Kerry or Bill Bradley, but I understand that candidates nowadays are nominated with deference to the southern Democrats; northern Democrats just don’t seem to get elected these days.
Embracing Bill Clinton would have been a good move, and I’d bet that we’d have a President Gore right now if he’d done so.
I have a hard time imagining Gore, running on the environmentalist platform that he did, advocate oil drilling in the ANWR or refusing to sign the Kyoto treaty (effective or not, it’s the image that counts). I also can’t quite imagine Gore proposing to jettison the ABM treaty and pushing forward with a rigged-and-still-ineffective missile defense system either.
All Gore wanted was one manual recount, as allowed to him under Florida election law. Blame the Republicans and the conservative majority of the USSC for not giving him his legal right.
Though I’ll also say that I’m not sure if Gore should run again; I think it may be better for him to slip into quite retirement as the election victim and let someone else be the Democrat flag-bearer for 2004.
Orignally posted by bup
**Are you also willing to pay our future increased taxes to pay the higher interest on the higher national debt? **
Instead of passing the burden onto me, the American taxpayer, why not demand, as George W. seems to want to do, that Congress restrict spending to equal inflation. All Bush has asked for is a decrease in taxation on all taxpayers and for Congress to restrict increases in discretionary spending to equal inflation or about 4% per year. Why is it that we should continue to pay more and more and more every year? Taxes as a percentage of GDP are higher now than at any time since WWII!! How is this not an outrage?? But this is too easy, so you suggest that I pick up the tab.
That alone won’t work. The standing debt is the reason why.
Most of us don’t, except in nominal terms. That is, most
of us see taxes go up in dollars, because our incomes go up,
but our tax rate stays the same or goes down.
The tax base needs to remain high because Reagan and Bush
the Elder quadrupled the deficit.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by thermalribbon *
**Taxes as a percentage of GDP are higher now than at any time since WWII!! How is this not an outrage??
Because the increase is almost entirely from the richest
taxpayers:
http://www.cbpp.org/4-10-00tax-rev.htm
What’s too easy?