[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

[Lancey Howard]

Great post!
BUMP

[Captain Shady]

Well ,the economy is bad like it was in 1991.However this Bush was smart enough to put Saddam Hussein in the unemployment line if not the morgue.

[SeeRushToldU_So]

From Rush himself.

There Will Be No 1992 Redux

April 17, 2003

The Democrats, ladies and gentlemen, plan to attack President Bush on the economy in the coming months, in the hope that his postwar surge in the polls will plummet when voters refocus on job losses and weaker business activity, according to Donald Lambro in the Washington Times. This is a continued takeoff on the whole notion that the Democrats are hoping and praying for a rerun of 1992. All they have is a hope that history repeats itself.

"Bush's irresponsible tax plan, continued job losses, rising costs, and diminishing hopes for a quick economic recovery have had a disastrous effect on our nation," said the DNC chairman, Terry McAuliffe. "We have nine experienced presidential candidates blanketing the issues, and the economy is going to be at the forefront of these issues."

Now to counter this, Terry Jeffrey has a piece, entitled, "Is Bush Unbeatable?" He compares the circumstances in 1992 to the circumstances of today and what he finds is really devastating for the Democrats. If they're hoping for a replay of 1992, they are not going to get it. You can hear me read this to you in the audio link below, as Jeffrey catalogues differences. But then he gets to a very interesting paragraph:

"Third, Clinton blamed Bush I for a bad economy. Even though the economy grew throughout 1992 and was growing at a 5.4% pace on Election Day, Democrats then had virtually the entire national broadcast media except Rush Limbaugh backing up their economic mythology. Now, Limbaugh is flanked by conservative voices all over national radio and TV."

This is the root of my optimism, my friends. People always say, "Rush, why are you so optimistic? The Democrats are making hay. Look at the media. The media takes everything the Democrats say and reports it as true." The fact is that back in 1992, this program was it, in terms of national conservative media.

Now look at what's out there. All of talk radio is conservative. We have the Fox News Channel, and there are conservative magazines and websites that didn't exist then. It's gotten so bad that the Democrats think they've lost control of the media. Things are not as they were in 1992, folks. Yet the Democrats are praying for a rerun that cannot happen.

[Tall_Texan]

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

It's more than a weak bench. It's a rotting bench.

[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...

[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.

[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!

[philetus]

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


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

[CWOJackson]

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

[MissAmericanPie]

The Demoncrats have no viable candidate to run against Bush, but Bush has alienated a whole lot of rock ribbed conservatives, like myself, who will either write in a candidate, or go fishing on election day.

So the question of his winning again is as open as is his cryptic statement that he may not run again in 2004.