With the way he drove Jeffords away…his campaigning as a moderate yet governing as a conservative. Is he destined to follow in papa Bushs’ footprints?
Of course he is.
Well, it’s only six-and-a-half months since the last election. A lot of stuff can happen between now and the next one.
Remember that Big Bush had some of the highest approval ratings ever during Desert Shield. It was unfortunate for him that S. Hussein didn’t decide to wait a year before nicking Kuwait. The next fire-starter might not be so clever.
Furthermore, one can never underestimate the Democrats’ propensity for self-destruction in the face of a sure thing. For the next three years, their job is to make sure that Shrub’s power is restricted and that he doesn’t get anything particularly damaging (or useful, depending on which side you’re on) done. That’s not the most enviable position to be in. On the other hand, Congressional Republicans spiked Clinton’s guns for six years and nobody seems to hold them accountable, so you never know.
And then there is the problem of a candidate. Do you re-air all of Gore’s dirty laundry again in the hopes that America has heard it all before and will tune it all out? Or do you take the risk of trying to find a magnetic, yet clean candidate from elsewhere?
And let’s not forget the Republican ability to, um, make sure that the presidential election falls to them. Three of the last four elected Republican Presidents (Nixon-Watergate; Reagan-October Suprise; Shrub-Florida) got or kept the office through illegal, questionable, or unusual means.
I thought the term “lame duck” referred to a pres. who couldn’t even run for office (like Clinton in his 2nd term). If that’s true, then no, he’s not.
The bizarro NY Times had an editorial to this effect this morning. They ought to change their name to the Mars Times, because they don’t seem to be concerned with affairs here on earth.
They appear unaware that W called himself a “compassionate conservative,” which is a type of conservative. He said he wanted a $1.6 trillion tax cut, a focus on education, free trade in the Western Hemisphere, and social security reform including some investment options. Since his inauguration, he has actively pursued these goals. One can disagree with them, but he has pretty much done what he said he would.
Regarding W’s re-election, he has a couple of big advantages:
-
Dems don’t appear to have a good candidate (although that could change). BTW, who do you posters think the Dem’s best candidate would be?
-
In 2004 the Dems lose a big issue; it won’t work to accuse Bush of not being up to the job, lacking foreign policy expertise, etc.
For these reasons, I expect Bush to win easily.
December…
Just what is a compassionate conservative?. As for his tax cuts, they are based on money not yet collected. They are based on the economy staying as hot as it was. And we can see already, the economy has cooled way down.
Just what expertise does duhbya have? He can’t even handle his own party.
As for the dems presidential candidate in '04…let me throw a name at ya…
John McCain.
Of course, four years ago George Bush was not considered a presidential candidate. Nor was John McCain, nor Bill Bradley.
History demonstrates again and again that it’s silly (at best) to try to predict Presidential nominees three years in advance.
It can also mean an incumbent with no real hope of re-election, as the OP obviously meant it. But it’s true a lot can happen, and the electorate’s memory is notoriously short.
It’s also true that I don’t see anything Bush has done to convince any of the majority that didn’t vote for him that he was the better choice after all. He has, however, done quite a few things to harden his opposition, worry and even antagonize his own moderates, and reveal that he really isn’t the “compassionate…uniter” that his calculated campaign persona would have it.
That said, now that he has to deal with a Senate controlled by the party that represents the other half of the country, he will be forced to become the bipartisan leader he promised to be, if he can. That is of course the nation’s broader interest, and the reason we’re inveterate ticket-splitters (who now have a split-ticket result, although not thte one we chose). If not, then yes, he’s a lame duck. Unfortunately for him, I don’t see any evidence he and his team can make the stretch.
Ask again in 2 years, though.
december, are you trying to say that Dumbya didn’t make himself out to be a conservative? If you are you’re fooling yourself. I remember hearing throughout the election how he would bring Democrats and Republicans together. He was a uniter, not a divider. After saying all this he had some extremely questionable cabinet appointees. Ashcroft for one, and that Secretary (of Labor?) that was anti-union. These are hardly moderate actions. Instead of being smart enough to realize that his being in office is, at best, shady and being grateful, he proceeded to thumb his nose at the country and appoint/nominate cabinet members from the far right.
So yes, I think Bush (at least for now) better try to get done whatever he wants, because he won’t be back for a second term (thankfully).
Damn it, that should say moderate.
Well, I think he’ll lose, but, then, that’s because I think he’s an idiot and that he’ll never be able to fully overcome that. Of course, as has been pointed out, it’s ridiculous to try to predict the outcome of the 2004 Pres. election today. Who would have though during the Gulf War that Bush Sr. would have lost to some stupid Spendocrat?
Mario Cuomo!
I&f I thought my fellow citizens were mature enough to deal with it, I’d love a chance to vote for Barney Frank. I don’t carry any particular enthusiasm for gays, but damn!, the man’s got guts!
Cuomo’s got the fire in the belly that Algore lacks, delivers a hell of a speech, and actually believes.
Cuomo versus “Landslide” George? Massacre!
I’m amazed at all of the hub-bub and the “Bush is dead!” talk.
The fact is, the Republican control of the Senate was known to be weak. The Democrats demanded- and got- great concessions in terms of power-sharing due to the 50-50 split. None of Bush’s major agenda was passed based upon a strict party-line vote- there were always a few Democrats that voted for it, and a few Republicans that voted against it.
What exactly does the switch change? The Democrats now control the commitees, but they don’t actually have any more floor votes than they did before, nor any less of a chance to filibuster as they could before.
In fact, the switch may be a serious blow to the Democrats. Prior to this, the Democratic leadership could pose whatever solutions to problems they wanted, under the auspices of “well, if we actually had any power, we’d do something, but the Republicans control everything, so we can’t do a thing”. Now that they ‘control’ the Senate, there’s going to be actual pressure upon them to come up with real solutions and alternatives. Whether they can actually do so remains to be seen.
So for all of the Democrats laughing that Bush is a lame duck, just remember- the Republicans were laughing about Bill Clinton as such following the '94 elections.
Sofa King:
I’m not going to get into re-hashing the Bush-Florida arguments, and I don’t know enough about the October Surprise to start an intelligent debate on it. But are you serious that Watergate was responsible for Nixon’s victory in 1972? For crying out loud, that election was (not counting Washington, who ran unopposed) the biggest landslide in electoral college history!
And on top of that, wasn’t Watergate a botched robbery?
As for the OP, no, I don’t think Bush has become a lame duck. First of all, he managed to do quite well in Texas with a Democratic legislature. Second of all, you’re forgetting that he still has the House. Yes, the Senate is important, but, except for matters relating to appointments or treaties, the Democratic majority there will still need to hash out with the Republican H of R on a bill Dubya will sign.
Reeder:
Are you kidding? He may be at odds with the Republican leadership at the moment, but he’s still pro-gun, anti-abortion, etc.
He’ll probably run as an independent, but there’s no way he’d go Democrat, and if by some odd chance he did, there’s no way he’d survive the Democratic primaries.
Who’d be the Democrat most likely to beat Bush in 2004? Probably a governor with a good track record, but I’m not sure which Democrat best fits that description. It ain’t Gray Davis, that’s for sure.
Chaim Mattis Keller
but if I understand it correctly, control of the committee itself can be a very powerful tool. For example, the whole issue of judges
You are confused, my friend. Presidential powers (and the restrictions of) come from the U.S. Constitution, Article II. Democrats and other political parties hold little sway over that particular document. Unless, of course, you are advocating a Democratic effort to toss out, or radically re-write the Constitution. Oddly enough, that document also defines the “job” of member of the legislature. No where in it does it say “The Congress shall have the Power To Enact Legislation to Restrict The Duties of the President of the United States.” Maybe what you meant, is that you believe the Democrats efforts should be directed at thwarting Bush’s agenda.
Also, I too, would like to hear more about supposed positive effects of Watergate on Nixon’s re-election in 1972.
Finally, I almost didn’t bother posting to this thread. With all the silly perjorative and repetitious bastardizations of George W. Bush’s name, it’s apparent you guys have no real interest in legitimate debate. Hopefully though, you’ve got that out of your systems for the moment and we can continue in a more civilized fashion.
It’s to the right of a lenient liberal or a merciful moderate and to the left of a responsive reactionary.
The burglarizing of the Democratic Party Headquarters at the Watergate complex was carried out by agents of the Committee to Re-Elect the President (can I call it CREEP, or will I be accused of bastardization of of a Republican name?).
Nobody’s saying the subsequent cover-up of 1973-74 helped Tricky Dick in any way, shape, or form. The claim being made here is that Nixon and his henchmen were attempting to dig up information that would hurt the chances of a Democratic nominee in the 1972 presidential election.
No, the claim made was that Nixon “got or kept the office through illegal, questionable, or unusual means.” This wording states that the Watergate break-in was a cause of Nixon’s reelection. Just as with Reagan, Nixon was elected by a huge electoral and popular margin, to the extent that any single issue was not a deciding factor.
There is only one intelligent answer to the original question:
“Maybe. I dunno. We’ll see.”
I think anyone who gives any other answer is out of his mind. However, if you have a different answer, let me ask 3 questions:
-
At the depths of the 1981-82 recession, did you predict that Ronald Reagan would be-re-elected by a landslide?
(Me neither.) -
In the aftermath of the Gulf War, when George Bush enjoyed approval ratings approaching 90%, did you predict he’d be whipped in 1992? (Me neither.)
-
In November of 1994, when Bill Clinton looked like a bumbling rube, and the Republicans had just captured both houses of Congress, did you predict that CLinton would win re-election handily? (Me neither.)
If you can honestly answer “yes,” to all 3 questions, I’ll hear you out. If not, join me in a non-commital shrug.