“My question is, how much of a negative effect do you think the Bush administration has had on the current standing of the GOP in the minds of voters,”
In general, I think Bush II has been a catastrophe who has adversely impacted the perception of Republicans towards their own party as well as the perception of independent Americans.
“and the resulting electability of GOP candidates?”
Hard to say. A lot of campaigns are based solely on local issues. But the current state of the economy and the perception that the Republican Administration is mainly to blame, instead of Bush and the liberals in Congress together, is probably the view of most unsophisticated voters.
” Is the current negative perception the fault of the administration, or does it have more to do with the mantra that the media has consistently spewed towards all things Bush related,”
Both. They started to team up on Bush as soon as he was elected. But I think he has lost credibility because instead of fighting them, he has gradually come around to their views on many subjects, e.g. global warming. Part of this I believe is Bush's very poor communication skills which demonstrate a lower level of intelligence than most prior Presidents. Both he and Gore flunked several courses in College and both had low cums in the mid 70’s.
No brain children there.
” or is it due in your opinion to a perceived do-nothing congress when the GOP had control? “
Definitely contributed. The Republicans blew it when they had control of Congress. They failed to deliver the Contract for America that Gingrich used to gain control during the Great Stain-Maker’s regime.
“Based on how you answer these questions, my second question is do you think it was even Bush at all that started the slide, or had the slide already started before Bush was elected in 2000? If so, do you think it started with Daddy Bush, or even earlier with Reagan? “
I think it started with Daddy Bush - the VEEP Reagan never wanted. If they had persisted in the philosophies of Reagan and Goldwater, the Republican Party would be a viable, thriving political organism today instead of a rotting carcass that hasn't realized its dead already.
Why would people vote Democrat Light when they can have the real product if they are socialists?
And why would conservative Americans continue to prop up a decaying edifice whose best answer to the Bolsheviks in the Democrat Party is John McCain?
I think the talking points memo says that he was selected, not elected.
There is a difference between conservatism and the GOP. The GOP is the party that claimed conservatism as it’s own. IMO, the move away from conservatism towards the middle started under “read my lips Bush-I, and accelerated off the ramp onto the highway under Bush II.
The current GOP is no longer Conservative. They are just a less liberal than the democrats.
On second thought, you’d better be careful. FR shows up well in google searches and if your professor checks, you’d better have written your tern paper with enough changes so you don’t get nailed.
In before the zot?
I personally think John McCain, Chuck Hagel, Arlen Specter, to name a few of the loser RINOs in our Senate, have had a far more detrimental effect on the GOP by acting like Democrats .
the GOP is strong...it’s the mindless independants and democrats that get their information in 10 second sound bites that have a problem. If you can’t do a little research and find out what is actualy happening then you shouldn’t be allowed to vote!
Bush 41 wanted to be friends with the Dems, so he left the Reagan revolution and joined the Dems in raising taxes and signing gun control, causing a prompt loss of what should have been an easy reelection to an Arkansas grifter.
Bush 43 and Republicans had it all in 2002, they controlled the White House, Senate, House of Representatives, State Governors and State Legislatures, Republicans now only have the White House, with a very good likelihood of losing that as well.
Bush 43 also deeply split the Republican Party when he chose to stand with the Mexican government and their illegals, against fellow Republicans and America.
Yes.
Conservative still listen to the MSM, regardless of how much they say they don't.
You need to find an Obama sticker and place it over your mouth.
"If the Democrats introduced a bill to burn down Washington, DC, the Republicans would counter with a compromise to phase it in over five years."
How do approval numbers for the Democrat Congress compare to approval numbers for President Bush? Why so? Did the downward trend start with Tip O’Neill? Discuss.
Hmmmm...
To zot, or not to zot, that is the question.
“I’ll hang......”
Ok..
There was plenty of blame to go around, and the Republicans deserved to lose in 2006. They only reason they didn't lose me is because as bad as the Republicans have been, the democrats are 1000 times worse.
(1) In extemporaneous settings, Bush commonly lacks the ability to articulate a coherent line of thought in defense of his policies. This often leaves him seeming to be a dullard unable to cope with the demands of his office. Bush's weakness as a salesman extends to the virtues of his party and its philosophy.
(2) Bush has a tendency to clown around in public in ways that diminish his stature as President. Recall, for example, the butt bumps at the West Point graduation ceremony. Can you imagine any other President doing that?
(3) Bush's passive personality and dislike of confrontation has often left his administration mired in unresolved feuds and conflicts. this has had devastating consequences in Iraq and is contrary to the “energy in the executive” that is essential to the Presidency.
(4) Bush has a weak staff and a tendency toward cronyism and misplaced loyalty to faltering appointees. The inept and unqualified Gonzales as AG and Brown at FEMA are but two examples among many. Presidents do not have the luxury of treating their appointees and staff as their pals but must ruthlessly pitch them overboard as needed.
(5) Bush failed to check the excesses of the Republican Congress in spending and ethics issues. Bickering with Congress and vetoing bad things is part of the President's job, even when Congress is of his own party.
(6) Bush has an appalling attachment to bad policies like lax immigration and unrestrained domestic spending. I surmise that if a bad idea lodges in his head, he will pursue it to the point of self-destruction. Both policies were against public sentiment and his and his party's interests. And,
(7) Bush gives all appearances of being lazy as to his duties in office: more vacation days than any other President; sitting in Crawford as New Orleans was drowned and suffering a faltering rescue and recovery effort; and inert as the US Army was failing in Iraq. I wish that Bush had devoted himself to his duties as much as his exercise regimen.
In sum, Bush combines many of the faults of Warren Harding, Jimmy Carter, and James Buchanan (without the buggery).
Comments?
Does your mother know you're a jerk?
Am I IBTZ?
The tone in your post makes it clear you are zot bait.