[MadIvan]

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

Another thing this doesn't mention is that the Democrats have an extraordinarily "weak bench".

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

Bump!

[clintonh8r]

Also, national security was not an issue in 1992. The first Gulf war was over, the Soviet Union had crumbled, Eastern Europe was free and we had not been subjected to terror. Things are different now. Security trumps all other issues and the RATs are decidedly weak on security. They even seem to be proud of it!

[gcruse]

" Another thing this doesn't mention is that the Democrats have an extraordinarily "weak bench". "

The Democratic bench in 1992 was a heck of a lot weaker.
No one wanted to run. How weak is that? Poppy's 90%
ratings scared off all the real candidates, leaving us a choice
between a Hill-Billy hillbilly, Ross Perot, and an incumbent
who tossed his can't-lose campaign off to his Sec State, who
lost it.

GW knows the lessons of his father's hubris. I just hope Americans understand how little the presidency has to do with the ups and down of the economy.

[sd-joe]

>> "Another thing this doesn't mention is that the Democrats have an extraordinarily "weak bench"."

I agree with you on that, but remember Bill Clinton came out of nowhere, when most of the other Demo's had given up, and pulled out a win.

The Repub's can not take anything for granted and MUST play hard hardball.

[YankeeReb]

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.

Two words...ROSS PEROT. Without him we probably wouldn't have had 8 years of the bent-one

[Southack]

I just want to know how many times in a row that the media can repeat the "Bush II will lose like Bush I" mantra before Joe Average gets pissed off about hearing it.

But since that's the *only* thing that Democrats possess (what, like Democrats have made some sort of proposal to do anything new and popular in the last 40 years??), I guess we're going to find out.

[JustPiper]

I love your finds Ivan ;)

Carpentry, ah. My hubby first began school back in 1987. Then the recession hit, top that with Chicago weather. Now he finally became a journeyman, excellent money, then what happens again, wintertime, again. He is had 4 career changes since 88' and canot earn much and we are in a big city!

[KellyAdmirer]

Flukes like 1992 do not repeat. My favorite example is the 1973-1974 Mets. In 1974 in mid-summer, the Mets were about a dozen games back and looked dead. Suddenly, they put on a closing run and finished first by the skin of their teeth. The following year, same time at mid-summer, the Mets were about a dozen games back, looked dead, but people were going, "Well, time for them to do it again." They finished in last place.

The Democrats counting on winning in 2004 just because they won in 1992 are most likely to be, as Daschle would put it, deeply saddened.

[rface]

now, I remember back then.....and I remember my comments about Old Man Bush. I also remember my theories about that election.

Old Man Bush did have the country behind him after the Gulf War, but when election/campaign time came rolling around I had the sense the Old Man Bush just didn't want to be President again. He didn't have his heart in the campaign. HIS lack of enthusiasm translated ito a lack of enthusiasm for the GOP: for his campaign workers and for his constituents. I think Old Man Bush was just Burned Out. He was VP under Reagan for two terms and he was the Big Cheese for one term.

I know the mantra was, "Its The Economy Stupid!", and maybe I am mis-remembering but the economy isn't why I thought he lost in '92. I thought it was because Perot excited a big chunk of the electorate, and Old Man Bush just bored the crowd, and Clinton won with his wanker staying out-of-sight.

I voted for Perot because Old Man Bush didn't want to be president - Perhaps Old Man Bush did lose because of the economy, but I am not convinced (although Perot did pound on Bush because of the deficits)

Its interesting for me to remember that Newt and the GOP back then co-opted Perot's list of priorities and relabeled them as the "Contract with America". I may not know the whole story, but I like the "Little General" more than I like Bush 41.

I don't think W. will let the "Economy" be his downfall....and now its the 'RATs who have to worry about a 3rd party spoiler. The 'RATs are split right now - and if they're licking their chops anticipating the self-distruction of this President Bush, then they will find that they have ignored the signs that foreshadow their own defeat in 2004.....(watch Rev. Al Sharpton)

[Professional]

People so conveniently forget to mention the Ross Perot factor of the 92 election. Unless someone siphons off about 10-12% of GW"s vote, he shouldn't have a problem, especially with the bozos the dems are running. We can all thank, and I'm serious, Buchanan, for defunding the Reform party. Now, be a good soldier and give some money to the Greenies. A little Ralph Nader doesn't hurt OUR cause...

[TommyDale]

This Bush had the cajones to get the job done. He never waffled, and so far has not raised taxes. The only issue that will matter in 2004 is NATIONAL SECURITY.

[The Hon. Galahad Threepwood]

I'm no expert on partisan politics (I have no idea how the masses' minds work), but even I can strategize this one for Bush: Just keep repeating, over and over and over, the simple fact that the Democrats cannot be trusted with national security.

Try to enact good domestic policies too, of course, but just keep hammering the Dems on national security.

[Happygal]

I suggest the Republicans run a series of advertisements..with Hitlery kissing Mrs. Arafat, Clinton embrassing Gerry Adams...

And then show a the scenes of liberation in Iraq, with the message...

"it's not just the economy, stupid".

And then 'READ MY HEART....America powerful, progessive, and SAFE'

[Skooz]

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

If conservatives have learned nothing since 1992, the answer is "yes."

Many Republican voters stayed home in 1992 because GHW Bush failed their purity test by breaking his "no new taxes" pledge. If conservatives refuse to vote for GW Bush because he fails a similar test (assault weapons ban, amnesty, whatever) then they will only have themselves to blame for President Hillary or President Dickie G.

If Bush loses in 2004 because conservatives don't believe he is "conservative" enough to earn thier precious vote, they better not rear their holier-than-thou heads around here. The mother of all flames will be coming from this direction and I will probably end up being banned.

I have no patience with the purists who would rather usher in the imperial reign of Her Royal Hillaryness than hold their nose and vote for a Republican less "pure" than they.

[RightWhale]

Big difference is that Dubya is one of us, while his dad was some kind of father figure. That might work otherwise in other countries, but in America it helps to be nearer to part of the current and active generations.

[El Gato]

President Bush gave the first of a series of speeches promoting a tax cut package worth a minimum of $550 billion

What helped kill the economy in after DS was the violation of "read my lips" "no new taxes" pledge. "W" is not making that mistake, although the Dims will huff and puff and strain mightily to get him to do so. Instead he's trying to help get the economy moving by cutting taxes. If it was a Dim in office, they'd be trying to raise spending, even more than they raised taxes.

Democrats have an extraordinarily "weak bench".

Classic British understatement there, Ivan.

[raybbr]

I, for one, am very disillusioned by GW. He is, by today's definition a republican/conservative. However, he is a democrat by the definition of 15 years ago when the the last true conservative president (Reagan) was in office.

[AlGone2001]

One of my aunts is a liberal. She proudly voted for Bill Clinto wo times. She always looked for an opportunity to create an argument, simply to defend him.

She just told my mother a few days ago that she will vote for President Bush in 2004, because she is proud of him. If she has turned, you can be sure that there are many other dems who will do the same. There are many democrats in DC shaking in their boots right now.

[The Wizard]

GWB is going to win by such a margin that dasshole will be in shock

[Verginius Rufus]

So Pvt. Jessica Lynch is now America's most famous ex-POW? Eat your heart out, John McCain!