Will George W Bush really suffer his father's fate?

The Sunday Telegraph ^ | April 20, 2003 | Julian Coman

[WOSG]

As conventional wisdom has it, the first President Bush lost the peace because unemployment was rising, economic growth was sluggish and federal deficits were alarming. With his eyes on the desert horizon, the commander-in-chief had failed to attend to, or even notice, the most important battlefield in American politics: the domestic economy.

The NYTimes created this 'conventional wisdom' by continuing to harp on the 'poor economy' in 1992 well after the recession had ended... this was doubly effective, because the people's perception was jarred by bush's comments that things were improving (they were, but people didnt believe him) which made Bush seem "out of touch". When Clinton won in nov 1992, he won on a 'weak economy' -- AND THE ECONOMY'S GNP GROWTH WAS 4% THAT QUARTER!!

I have no doubt the NYT will play that card again, if they can get away with it...

[gcruse]

"Are you an idiot?"

If you mean am I insulting someone while hiding behind a keyboard, the answer is no.

[WOSG]

Time for an FR poll on the matter.

I simply cannot abide letting the Presidency go to Democrats over something like this - so much else at stake. OTOH, if you want to fight RINOs in primaries over this issue, be my guest.

[FrankR]

I don't think the "red" zone will be taken by surprise again. I think a lot of the trouble with Elder Bush was that everyone thought he "couldn't lose" with his war success and high ratings...and they weren't paying attention and many didn't bother voting.

But, look what that got us...cLINTON. We don't want that to happen again.

Plus a lot of tide-turning has happened since then, exposing the democRATs for who they really are.

Now, having said that, there is no doubts the RATS will try the same tired, worn-out cliches on W that they tried on his Dad...but I don't believe they'll stick.

Also, the liberal, mainstream press has been exposed to the light of day and they won't get the foothold they got back in '91. People will know they are biased and therefore will not but into the anti-Bush rhetoric so easily.

That's just my opinion, and I hope I'm right.

[Timm]

Life is complicated, but too often people seem to think that some simple formula will predict political events, if they just look for it. E.g., the economy bad = Republican president outed.

To state the obvious, it's not 1991. The Telegraph is right that W is not going to be perceived as ignoring the economy, even by the sizeable number of people who don't agree with his policies. National security is a more important issue than in 1991, too, an advantage to the R's.

Two things the Tele didn't mention: Bush is deeply and broadly supported by Republicans, something his father couldn't say. Clinton was also an especially effective politician, someone the likes of which the Dems don't have this time round.

Bear in mind that 41 lost only by a few percentage points, too, despite his problems. It was close enough that the famous Democrat victory would have been reversed if there had been no tax increase in 1990.

So, while it wouldn't suprise me if it were a close fight in 2004, Bush still is the man to beat. The idea that there are simple patterns to election cycles, cycles that repeat come what may, to the dismay of prideful Republicans, is for dolts. And Democrats.

[alphadog]

"If you mean am I insulting someone while hiding behind a keyboard, the answer is no."

Whatever...but this fact remains, if the AWB by (omission or commision) remains in effect Bush II is a one termer.

[SuziQ]

I doubt President Bush is complacent, nor is he as tired as his father was in 1992

He'll only lose if WE allow him to!

[nopardons]

Actually, for all you want him to be, no, he shan't be. Live with it. :-)

[Gracey]

I call it wishful thinking. Most of the Demoncrats running are close to being UNAmerican, IMO.

[El Gato]

(They are the ones who know their Abrams tanks better than the Abrams tanks operators!)

You might be surprised at how many of them are current or former Ambrams operators. Or designers, come to that.

[El Gato]

(They are the ones who know their Abrams tanks better than the Abrams tanks operators!)

You might be surprised at how many of them are current or former Ambrams operators. Or designers, come to that.

[El Gato]

you have been steady losing! Will you deny it?

Yes I will, other than the machine gun ban, slipped in lierally in the dead of night at the very last minute, the Gun Owners Protection act brought many positive gains, or at least take backs, for gun owners and those who believe the constitution means what it says. Signifigent reductions in the worst BATF abuses, removal of some really dumb ammunition purhcase requirements, protection against hoplophobic local laws when you are just passing through. Lots of gain there. Passed during RR's administration.

[El Gato]

"Bush wants to ban guns!"

Well, that's what his deputy press secretrary said he wanted to do. If he and you don't want others to say the same thing, maybe you could convince him and his staff to stop saying things like that.

[philetus]

Will George W Bush really suffer his father's fate?


No, I don't think he'll marry his mother.

[raybbr]

Wherd, in my post did I say I was going to sit out the next election?

I may vote for Buchannan. I have to see who's running.

[Joe_October]

Ross Perot and CNN.

CNN was credible back then. No more. They were as looney Left as they are now, but now the people know it.

[Godebert]

" Can you give me the exact instance of this. At least the speech saying so? Please? Otherwise you sound like my Godchild...'I want it now!!! Because my daddy said so!!. That little three year old got her arse reddend from me. So You prepared to elaborate?"

That Bush has said he supports the AWB is not even under debate. You're not even a US citizen and can't vote in our elections, so your opinion on the Constitutionality of the AWB is really quite irrelevant. BTW....your little analogy makes no sense.

[BlackbirdSST]

The 2nd Amendment issue, whatever one thinks about it, is a loser issue! In the past 100 years you have been steady losing! Will you deny it? My sympathies, but I must note that the bitterness shows. You're not winning any new converts, and you're not holding your own. As of the day the Iraqis have more rights in this area. Best of luck anyway!

Your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance. King George only won in 2000 because of loyal albore states gave him their vote over the single issue of GUNS. Check with your GOP experts TROLL! You surely picked the right screen name, my guess is "Dumbasdirt" was already taken? Blackbird.

[eeriegeno]

Two words...ROSS PEROT

Never, ever underestimate the 'divide and conquer' tactics that the DNC is willing to use (along with their liberal democratic accomplices in the media) to win an election.......

[CWOJackson]

I don't think so; despite the best efforts of the democrats and fringe right.