Posted on 07/21/2009 10:57:37 AM PDT by Kaslin
Democrats ran against Herbert Hoover for decades. Republicans ran against Jimmy Carter for years. Can Democrats make 2010 another referendum on George W. Bush, or at least use the unpopular former president to demonize Republicans in competitive races?
Democratic operatives assert that running against the former president next year isn't going to be the focus of their efforts, but they are obviously more than willing to fall back on an anti-Bush message when they think it is effective.
Last week, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee released a Web video, "Insider," and an accompanying press release hanging the former president around the neck of former Rep. Rob Portman (R-Ohio). Democratic insiders say that the video was a response to Portman's invitation for voters to look at his record.
The DSCC video comes after a recent Quinnipiac University poll in the Buckeye State showed Portman, the favorite for the GOP Senate nomination, gaining ground on Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher (D) and Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner (D) in the state's open-seat Senate race.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
“Can Democrats make 2010 another referendum on George W. Bush, or at least use the unpopular former president to demonize Republicans in competitive races?”
No...
I think this is a bad gamble. Not only will conservatives not fall for it, by next year Bush will be looking pretty good to many Democrats too....
hh
” but they are obviously more than willing to fall back on an anti-Bush message when they think it is effective. “
...but they are obviously more than willing to fall back on an anti-Bush message when they are confronted with facts refuting their silly positions.....
[there - fixed it]
The truth is that it is now Obama’s economy, no more blaming Bush.
George who?
George W. Bush is “unpopular”? He was far from perfect, but he is a hell of a lot better than the clown we have now. I think Bush gets more popular every day, especially when he is compared to the Muslim Marxist.
No.
Besides, Obama is now more unpopular than Bush at this comparative time. They may be running from him.
I think you got it partially right.
After 2 years of President Obama whining about everything he inherited from Bush, the Dems will look just as childish if they try to use that in the mid-terms.
The Dems can thank Obama for turning the anti-Bush message into a tantrum by immature non-leaders.
Well, in some cases, the GOP had damn well better learn for THEMSELVES how to run against Bush on Bail-outs, massive spending, and illegal invaders.
If Obama had been more deliberate in his economic moves, the Dems could have still blamed Bush. But the moves have been too swift. For the average unattentive, uncaring American, even they know the economy is Obama’s baby now.
What Democrat’s don’t understand is that Bush left office on shaky terms with the base of the party. Forget the elites holding political office. Conservatives were and still are deeply unhappy with many thing he did especially the second term. So this is a situation where if the politico’s on the GOP aisle run for cover that they are worried how their base will react. We may not respect them for it, but we aren’t going to raise much noise either.
We’ve moved on. We moved on while he was in office. the rest of the country is moving on too, cause he’s the past and they are worried about their lives now. Even activists in the Dem’s own party have moved on. To Sarah. LOL But Sarah won’t be holding office so that decreases her effectiveness for a tool to hit the Gop with. Besides, she’s actually popular in these conservative districts the Dems will try to defend.
That leaves attacking bush on a personal level. People don’t dislike Bush personally. Except for the unhinged that are a minority. That won’t work either. Add to this he, unlike Obama, did do a few things people like such as with the Supreme Court, war, taxes...and Bush will end up looking better in contrast to him. Hell, he even pitches better.
They easily will and it will easily work
Bush is as unpopular today as he ever was. Democrats can run against him, like they did Hoover, for the next 30-40 years
Republicans better learn how to run against Bush in particular with Bush socializing prescription drugs for the elderly, the asinine spending (farm subsidies, NLCB), the amnesty bill he was forcing down on us and the awful bailouts which gives this President more then enough political cover for their massive spending.
Until conservatives and Republicans learn to run against GW Bush, there will be no electoral success
And of the Bush "over-spending", what spending bothered you the most? Security? Defense? Abstinence only?
The one Bush "bailout", TARP, was only half spent so that Obama could use the other half at his discretion. Over 120 billion remained unspent when Obama got his first stimulus.
At least attempt honesty.
I doubt in another 6-12 months you’ll be able to find anyone who even wants to admit they voted for Obumbler.
“I doubt in another 6-12 months you’ll be able to find anyone who even wants to admit they voted for Obumbler.”
****
1. Those who voted based on race will still defend him.
2. The media will still defend him.
3. “Intelligent” liberals and moderates will still defend him because they can’t admit they made a mistake by voting for him.
I think that’s what I said. No worry.
Unlike them, we learn
Remember they ran against President Bush in 2006 and in 2008, even though he wasn’t running. They just never learn
Exactly, and to me he will always be the best President of this century
I don’t know how old you are but this all played out once before. Obama is Jimmy Carter 2.0 WITHOUT any patches or fixes.
Very well said. I am tired of the Bush bashers blaming President Bush on the illegal immigration issue while at the same time ignoring that the rats want to grant amnesty to illegals and want to give them free health care, yet want to cut legal immigrants of from getting health care
The Bush administration already seems remote after months of Obama on TV all the time. By 2010 the Bush administration may seem as far away as the Ford administration.
There are a lot of unpredictables--the unemployment rate in summer/fall 2010, the state of health care (depending on the success of the Obamacrats' takeover attempt), foreign crises, natural disasters, etc.
We have to hope there won't be any successful terror attacks on US soil, but if there are, will the media be able to persuade the public that Bush rather than Obama is to blame?
Holder seems determined to have show trials of Bush administration officials, probably including Cheney, but that may backfire, or he may back off if public reaction is hostile.
There’s one on every thread.
Methinks President Bush will come off looking VERY good by comparison.
Sometimes I wonder. For the most part I think you're right. But there are those who never will.
Amazing << Hear this. Feel this, and tell me that this isn't music.
Oh, dear...
Running against President Bush will most certainly work.
In combinataion with the activities of ACORN, it will be a winning tactic.
IMHO (there is the sincerest hope that it is wrong.)
Sometimes, more often than not, I even wonder if there will be any elections in 2010 or if we’ll all be in chaos...
Won’t work!
Bush: 4.5% unemployment
Obama: 10% unemployment and probably 15% by 2010 elections.
Bush over spending is easy
1) Farm subsidies went out of control under his watch
2) The boondogle known as NLCB. Didn’t conservatives once want to abolish the Department of Education? Bush give it a nearly 100 billion dollar budget. Why did he have Ted Kennedy write the bill?
3) The biggest entitlement program since LBJ, Medicare Part D. Passed by a Republican Congress, signed by George W Bush
4) TARP. 700 billion allocated so that Paulson, Geithner, Summers and all those Goldman Sachs hacks could take our money and run with it
George W. Bush was one of the worst things to happen to the conservative movement. His biggest problem was his rhetoric was all “free market” and “conservative” but his actions were never anywhere close to it.
I wish farm subsidies had been double that. How the Hell can protecting the producers of our food be a problem for you?
What part of making the schools and teachers responsible for the success of students is a problem for you? Are you one of the loons who hates testing and measuring a child's knowledge? And Kennedy didn't write the final bill. All the things Kennedy's staff tried to stuff into it was removed in conference. Kennedy hasn't stopped complaining about it.
I suppose you would have preferred the Democrats version of Medicare Part D? Bush watered down what he couldn't strip out and did the best he could.
Do you just have your little list of twaddle with no knowledge of the actual issue or what was going on at the time?
The TARP bill was to shore up the financial institutions so the entire economy didn't collapse taking the World with it. Bush spent only half of it and it has been paid back at record speed by the banks...just like it was intended to do.
So you can quit whining and take your bogus list of misinformation over to DU where you will be applauded.
Lol.
Deb, you clearly have little knowledge of economics. Subsidies in particular are some of the worst forms of policy in this country, in particular when it only goes to big Agribusiness. You know, peanut farmers like Jimmy Carter, who have no peanuts nor a farm. Its an antiquated policy from the FDR years which is no longer needed in the 21st century
Conservatives at one point opposed federal government intervention in the school systems. In fact part of the Contract with America involved reducing the role of the Department of Education. President Reagan wanted to get rid of it.
And you clearly support expanding it by endorsing the awful NLCB bill passed and signed in 2001.
Democrats version of Part D? LOL are you serious? The Dems had 0 power in Washington when Medicare Part D was signed. Why on earth were so called conservatives like George W Bush signing into law a new entitlement? Please explain to me how socializing prescription drugs is conservative at all?
And the most laughable assertion you make is that the 700 billion dollars Bush and Paulson gave away to the banks was necessary or else the world would have ended. That is the type of language Obama uses “crises crises!”
It is clear you are no conservative, but instead are a cheerleader and have no factual knowledge of basic economics nor any knowledge of conservative history involving the department of education. How you support doubling farm subsidies and calling yourself a conservative is beyond me
www.dailykos.com is the place for you :)
You Bush-bashers are all the same and if you spent as much time going after the Democrats as you do spewing your DNC generated dirt at Bush, what a great World we would have.
Re-writing history hardly helps your flatulent cause.
See, the difference between you and me is that I actually understand what it means to be a conservative. I don’t cheerlead and I am willing to call out our own in order to make our side better.
You can keep cheerleading and watch the conservative movement get continually pushed away as our country becomes more and more socialist.
Please do explain what was conservative at all about Bush’s spending
In a word “NO” because I think people are beginning to think back of the Bush years and realize they weren’t so bad. Afterall they had a house and a job then.
They can try, but they’ll look pretty lame.
you sure sound like a cheerleader...for the Democrats and liberals...
how exactly are you helping 'our side' by complaining about the past??
they are indeed and I predicted that
Easily. By holding our own side’s feet to the fire when they don’t follow conservative principles
You don’t see me bashing Bush on Iraq or Afghanistan do you? Or on national security in general do you?
No, I go after the guy where he betrayed us as conservatives, and that was his awful fiscal policy
If you are willing to let that slide, go ahead and vote for Romney in 2012
your silence about the current political scene, which far overshadow anything Bush ever did, says alot about your real agenda...
I have commented plenty on the current scene.
However, I do not need to do that on this particular website, being that most everyone else here does a damn good job of it :)
I’ll give you an example. I am a huge sports fan and follow a few teams very closely and post on their message boards
For example, I am a big Redskins fan. I generally don’t post “hail to the redskins” on a Redskins message board because, well, everyone else is and it is assumed that you’d be a Redskin fan.
I instead tend to poke and prod and try and get discussion going on why hasn’t the front office built a team that can contend for a Super Bowl like the Redskins did back in the 1980s.
I apologize that I tend to be argumentative and skeptical by nature, but thats who I am. If you wish to follow my posts on other message boards where I go after liberals on Obamacare, the stimulus debacle, Joe Biden’s gaffe’s or the apology tour, I’ll be happy to provide links
Doing it on FR is pointless because well everyone else has that covered just fine and I don’t really need to point out whats obvious. That Barack Obama’s policies are leading this nation to 100 percent disaster. I know that, and all the other Freepers know that
What we need to debate and discuss more so is how to move conservative principles forward, how to sell our principles, how our movement can improve itself and do better next time we are in power so that 8 years later we don’t end up with an Obama and Democratic Congress again.
And part of that IS looking back on the mistakes that were made by our guy when he was in power.
If I was digging up liberal talking points on the wars, on the Patriot Act, on MIHOP LIHOP, the CIA etc, you’d be correct in your assertion which is that I am some liberal apologist.
But I am criticizing the President, and those in the conservative movement on where they stray from our principles. And NLCB, large farm subsidies, Medicare Part D and a huge increase in discretionary non-military spending IS STRAYING from governing as a conservative.
Protecting our nation is not.
And I apologize for the insults, but I am simply not going to stick my head in the sand and pretend everything is or was OK in our tent. 4 years ago we had a so called conservative Republican President, a healthy majority in the house and 55 Senators and blew that historic opportunity.
Essentially it comes down to this: I’ll criticize liberals right to their faces or on turf where I actually debate with them, saying it on FR really does nothing for me. On FR, I enjoy the debate with conservatives on fixing our past errors where we strayed from conservative principles (Bush’s spending) and debating with my fellow conservatives on how to move our way of governing forward and who best it is to lead that movement
The truth is refreshing after one smells the stench of irrational hatred.
How exactly does one hold President Bush's feet to the fire at this point in history.
We have a MARXIST in the White House who is stealing our liberty and our money every single day, for heaven's sake. What are these people missing???
Hard to see how they can run against Bush when Obama is doing all the things for which they cursed Bush and doing more of it plus doing things so insane that Bush never would have even considered them. Anyone who voted for Obama and hasn’t regretted it yet just doesn’t have a clue what is going on.
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.