Democrats & Liberals Archives

The B Word

Sometimes, something is so obvious, so taken for granted as part of the landscape, that we don’t even notice we’re overlooking it. Like Poe’s purloined letter, a glaring fact dominates the political landscape of this upcoming election, yet no one has even mentioned it.
The B word.
By B, I mean the Boogey Man, the most recent Republican president, George Bush.
Whoa! Did a dark shadow just swoop in front of the moon? It seems to happen everytime I mention George Bush. Anyway, this shadow continues to cast its darkness upon the political landscape, but we’ve lived so long in its gloom, we no longer bring it up. Republicans will not mention him. Absolutely, positively not. No one seeks his endorsement. No one expects to see him on the campaign trail. This B word causes an aggrieved reaction, as if the B word was some kind of uncalled-for low blow; an actual physical appearance by the Boogey Man would result in a conservative spontaneous human combustion. And that radical avoidance tells us something very very important:

Both Democrats and Republicans continue to hold Bush responsible for the current state of the country.

And that tells us something else very important:

The GOP is about to get smoked in November.

Posted by phx8 at January 31, 2012 12:12 AM
Comments
Comment #335410

Romney held up a baby at a campaign rally, and a heckler called out, “Are you going to fire the baby?”

Posted by: phx8 at January 31, 2012 1:46 AM
Comment #335413

How do the 2010 elections fit in to your theory above?

The GOP has seemed to move on to Tea Party vs. RINO vs. Conservative in which Bush fits squarely in the RINO camp. That doesn’t mean that the party is not viable or will get smoked. Hec, in my State we don’t have a Democratic Party anymore.

Posted by: George at January 31, 2012 8:09 AM
Comment #335414

Phx8: “The GOP is about to get smoked in November.”

If the Generic Congressional Vote is any indicator things aren’t headed in the right direction for the GOP.

George: “How do the 2010 elections fit in to your theory above?”

That was then. This is now. It’s lose-lose today in Florida. There are two camps as you point out. One of them gets mad today. When Romney won New Hampshire the TEA Party and the Birchers all went nuts taking to the airwaves and the press and the Internet to decry the nomination of Romney. When Gingrich won South Carolina then the mainstream Republicans, the moderates, those the radical right have tried to silence, did the same decrying the insane notion of Gingrich for President. It looks like Romney will win today so get ready for another week of outrage from the TEA Party.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 31, 2012 8:43 AM
Comment #335415

Phx8
By smoked, do you mean the leftists will once again control all three branches? Or are you speaking of them just keeping hold of the Whitehouse House?

Posted by: kctim at January 31, 2012 9:33 AM
Comment #335416

Kctim:

In my view if the election were held today President Obama would win a second term and the Democrats would take control of the House. The Senate by it’s nature is harder to gain a lot of ground in so the Democrats might own it but maybe not.

The election isn’t today though of course but that just gives even more time possibly for the public to continue turning on the GOP and for the economy to continue improving. The only valid argument the right has is that the economy isn’t growing like it did under Reagan so every time good news comes out that the economy isn’t sliding into a “Democrat” caused recession then that argument grows weaker. That argument is already on life support but this could be the year we pull the plug on it altogether.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 31, 2012 9:48 AM
Comment #335418

Adam Ducker, the same polls (your link) had Republicans over Democrats by 6%, 16 days ago. So are we living by the day to day polls now, or do we just listen to the polls when they give the Democrats the edge?

“In my view if the election were held today President Obama would win a second term and the Democrats would take control of the House. The Senate by it’s nature is harder to gain a lot of ground in so the Democrats might own it but maybe not.”

So you are basing you conclusions on data that is gathered when the Republican Primary is taking place, when Republican candidates are attacking each other, and when Obama is traveling around the country promoting his State of the Union talking points. I will concede that Obama’s approval has jumped a little, as it always does after a State of the Union speech, but when all the flowery promises fade away and people face the reality of life, the polls once again drop. The way I figure it, this election can go one of two ways for the Republicans: either the party is irreversibly split due to conservative verses establishment, or Republicans can unite under whoever is nominated. The greatest fear of the left is the latter.

Posted by: Kathy at January 31, 2012 10:21 AM
Comment #335419

Interesting look at things, Adam.
I guess if the people deserve what they get if the ‘it’s all Bushs’ fault’ line still works and Dems take over again.

I need a new washer and dryer, so I hope you are wrong.

Posted by: kctim at January 31, 2012 10:31 AM
Comment #335422

It’s not “all Bush’s fault” but the GOP counter argument is that Obama’s been president so it’s all his fault if it’s not going well by now and don’t dare bring up President Bush. They bank on the public having a short memory. In 2010 the public gave the GOP another chance but we’ve seen them quickly return to the same stupid politics they were doing in 2006 when we kicked them out before. A vote for Republicans is a vote for a do-nothing-Congress. That’s exactly what we got.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 31, 2012 12:01 PM
Comment #335423

Good point about the 2010 midterms, and I think it supports my overall point. In 2010, the GOP underwent a rebranding effort in the form of the Tea Party. The GOP could not run on its policies of 2000 - 2008, or count on the endorsement of George Bush (dark shadow swooping, possibly a Nozdrul); in fact, the Tea Party painted itself as an independent wing that was primarily concerned with the debt and deficits- symptoms of Bush era policies (did I just hear a Nozdrul ride past the gate?). The B word was not to be heard from the Tea Party. They couldn’t push it far enough away. However, the Tea Party came from the same GOP strongholds in the south and midwest, with the same GOP make-up of older whites, and as it turns out, the same ‘conservative’ program as Bush (earthquake in Mordor).

Now, the Tea Party supposedly supports various Not-
Romneys. No one even pretends they are anything other than the same conservative Republicans who voted for Bush (Mt Doom erupts). The Tea Party died to the extent the rebranding effort failed, and the party reverted to being the same old GOP people who supported Bush (the Eye of Sauron blinks). Election successes proved short lived for the Tea Party when the agenda became a massive union busting effort, and a spectacular fail in their effort to damage the economy during the debt ceiling debacle.

And yet, after all this, conservatives will not willingly mention the B Word. NOthing and no one from the period of 2000 - 2008 will be publicly acknolwledged. And once again, that tells you something. The conservative policies of He Who Shall Not Be Named are anathema to the GOP and the electorate as a whole. It means, in all of our hearts, we still blame Bush (A faraway voice hisses “what has it gots in its pocketses”). And that spells a landslide for the Democrats.

The other difference between now and the 2010 midterms? This time, it’s a presidential election. That makes a big difference, because it personifies the parties, and concentrates the issues on national concerns.

kctim,
In practical terms, a landslide would mean Obama, a Democratic House, and a Senate that could go either way. Since 23 Democrats and 13 Republicans are up for the vote in November, the math obviously heavily favors the GOP.

Posted by: phx8 at January 31, 2012 12:10 PM
Comment #335424

Kathy:

“…the same polls (your link) had Republicans over Democrats by 6%, 16 days ago. So are we living by the day to day polls now, or do we just listen to the polls when they give the Democrats the edge?”

Yes indeed, but that was one poll. My outlook is more about the trend. Look at the average going back to the debt ceiling debate in October that nearly pushed our economy into a recession. The blue line is above the red and that trend has grown as the GOP has continued to be simply an instrument that obstructs the President at a time when we need all our politicians working on solutions to boost our economy.

“So you are basing you conclusions on data that is gathered when the Republican Primary is taking place, when Republican candidates are attacking each other, and when Obama is traveling around the country promoting his State of the Union talking points.”

Again I’ll point to the trend. This is not a new trend related to the primaries or the SOTUA. You have to go back to July to find the GOP holding a consistent advantage in the Generic Congressional Vote polling.

“The way I figure it, this election can go one of two ways for the Republicans: either the party is irreversibly split due to conservative verses establishment, or Republicans can unite under whoever is nominated. The greatest fear of the left is the latter.”

I don’t think the party will be split but a bad candidate will erode the numbers in each of the key demographics the GOP needs to beat Obama. The GOP has no hope of winning any significant chunk of minority voters and this is of their own doing. You can’t have primary candidates blowing racial dog whistles and smearing immigrant communities and expect these groups that tend to be conservative to actually vote conservative in the end.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 31, 2012 12:12 PM
Comment #335425

phx8 perhaps the B word should be expanded to BACC. Bush and Conservative Congress, because it wasn’t just Bush that pushed the country to the edge in the ‘00’s. Voters want to move forward not bacc. The party that wins will be the party that convinces voters of the direction we will be heading in 2013.

The dems are terrible at getting the facts out on why we are where we are today. The repubs are excellent at keeping the facts of why we are where we are today from the voters.

The repubs are good at pounding home the message that we need a businessman not a community organizer to get the economy going. The dems don’t seem to realize this is even going on or if they do are not responding as they must see this as a negative. They need to tell the voters what we need is not a businessman as they think to short term to run an effective government.

The dems need to tell the voters what we have, not what we need. Obama has shown he is more than a politician, and much more than a community organizer. Obama is a Statesman or well on his way to becoming a Statesman. The repubs cannot field a Statesman as they have shown in the primaries.

The repubs need to get rid of Gingrich as soon as possible or the sad truth about the repubs will be exposed to those who follow the primaries. The dems need to hire Gingrich as their propagandist, to get their message not. He is much better than anything the dems have at this point. He can compete with the Rove and the Luntz propaganda machines.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 31, 2012 12:44 PM
Comment #335427

j2t2,

“The repubs are good at pounding home the message that we need a businessman not a community organizer to get the economy going.”

The republicans are good at ignoring the fact that St. Reagan wasn’t a businessman. True he ran SAG, but that was more like a union than a business.

Bush W had an MBA from Harvard, and we all know how well that turned out.

America isn’t a business, it’s a union.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at January 31, 2012 1:03 PM
Comment #335428

I’m not making a case based on polls or the eventual GOP presidential candidate. It’s just a matter as plain as the proverbial nose on the face. There is an unspoken assumption that what happened between 2000 - 2008 was terrible, and that it was the fault of You Know Who and the conservative GOP.

Gingrich certainly revealed Romney’s weakness, his glass jaw. Gingrich attacked the core of Romney’s candidacy, his business experience, and turned it into a huge liability.

Only one thing is saving Romney. Money. He’ll drown Newt in negative advertising. Like a drowning man, Newt may go down three times, but Romney will keep throwing negative attack ads at him, and eventually Newt will not come back up for air.

Candidates run the way they will govern. The Romney campaign against Obama will feature one and only one thing: a prlonged negative attack on Obama, backed by enormous amounts of corporate money.

Posted by: phx8 at January 31, 2012 1:11 PM
Comment #335429

Adam
Ever since he was elected, The obama has been running for re-election by constantly blaming the previous administration, the current Republicans not doing things his way and vote for me and I will give you this or that.
That works for the diehard leftists and obama has fixed nothing so it’s his fault, works for the diehard righties.

2010 was a response to the health care fiasco, where Republicans and Tea Party reps were voted in to stop or at least slow down such government intrusion into personal lives.

You could very well be right and 2012 will be a response to Republicans stopping or slowing The obama and more liberals will be elected to give the voters their promised ‘freebies.’ If that happens, then you will have been correct, and I will have to wait a few more years for that washer and dryer. No biggie.

Phx8
The Tea Party is not rebranding the entire Republican Party. The Democratic Party has its liberal wing and the Republican Party has its Tea Party wing. The majority of both parties are moderates.
Kudos to the Democratic Party and the media for constantly suggesting ALL Republicans are the Tea Party type.
Brilliant job.

Posted by: kctim at January 31, 2012 1:18 PM
Comment #335432

kctim,
I think most Democrats would suggest there are two wings of the GOP today: the establishment/corporatists, and then the rest (Tea Party/social conservatives/evangelicals/libertarians). Most of the rest are the exact same Republicans who supported Bush 2000 - 2008. They just don’t like to talk about it. For good reason.

Posted by: phx8 at January 31, 2012 1:39 PM
Comment #335433

Phx8
Liberal Democrats, around 20% of the Party, and the media are the ones who suggest that. Non-Stop! The average Democrat is not out there calling their neighbors ‘corporists’ or ‘racists’ or ‘rednecks.’

And of course Bush supporters don’t like to talk about it, I totally agree with you. Why the hell would they talk about somebody who has been singled out because of his politics and demonized by the left and the media for the past 12+ years? What kind of strategy would that be?

Posted by: kctim at January 31, 2012 1:58 PM
Comment #335438

kctim,
The liberal Democrats are the active Democrats. The vast majority of people, regardless of political affiliation or lack thereof, do not follow politics. Most will not even tune into politics until six weeks or so before the election. Between now and then, the active followers of politics will attempt to frame the narrative and define the candidates.

Obama has been defined. He’s a known quantity. It’s the one thing that limits the possible effectiveness of Romney’s negative attacks. Repainting Obama in 2008 terms didn’t work then, and there’s no reason to think repeating the effort will result in a different outcome.

One thing is certain. Romney will never associate himself with George Bush or the cast from 2000 - 2008.

Posted by: phx8 at January 31, 2012 2:48 PM
Comment #335441

Kctim:

Obama hasn’t been running for re-election any more or less than any president has done in his first term. It’s all about the agenda for a President and a vision for the country. Most of the time that vision involves getting four more years to work on it so somebody else doesn’t get credit for your accomplishments. It’s funny how important a 2nd term is in defining a president. Reagan and Clinton’s first term was pretty standard and they seem to be defined by their second. Bush had a strong first term and a sad, sorry second term that might make a lesser president regret ever signing up for four more years.

Also, I’ve never been convinced that 2010 had much to do with Healthcare any more so than other issues. That was certainly a motivating factor for Republican voters but as for the reason the Democratic base eroded I’d say it was mostly the fact that the recovery wasn’t even being felt yet and people were feeling major pain. The right tried to make it a referendum on Obama and health care because they were so angry it got passed but I haven’t seen evidence to suggest that was the factor.

Why you holding off on a washer and drier anyway?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 31, 2012 3:26 PM
Comment #335442


The right wing already has it’s next Bush. Some are begging him to jump into the contest and some of their politicians are seeking his endorsement. Unlike George, and his power behind the throne, Jeb is a true neocon and an acceptable social conservative.

The game won’t be to demonize Bush as much as the demonetization of failed Republican policies that came out of the Bush Administration and a Republican controlled Congress. Policies, many of which, are being promoted by the tea party House and the Republican candidates.

growing inequity = Republican policies

Americas troubles = Republican policies

That will probably be the Democrats approach while the Republicans will continue to demonize Obama.

Romney has been gaining support from Republicans while his catering to right wing issues is eroding his support among independents.

Romney is going to have a hard time claiming the center which Obama has already staked out. Despite all the attempts by the right wing to portray Obama as a radical leftist, the majority know that he has been a centrist.

The Right wing, with it’s conservative media outlets, and especially the tea party Congress has done a superb job of letting the country know their disdain for leftists, centrists, and even Republican moderates. Using that tea party Congress and various governorships, the right wing has tried to force policies on the country that a majority disagree with.

It isn’t just Bush that Republicans want to avoid. The list included several controversial Republican governors as well. We are having the Florida primary and the candidates have been begging for the Jeb Bush endorsement, not the governor Scott endorsement. Romney is furious that Union adds are tying him to Scott. Did Scott go on vacation during the Florida primary?

Posted by: jlw at January 31, 2012 3:37 PM
Comment #335444

Adam
All the “it’s the previous admistrations fault” lines are why it seems like The obama has been running for re-election since day one, moreso than others.

IMO, the HCR fiasco had a very large part in the 2010 election going the way it did. I had neighbors, family and plenty of people around the polling places telling me they rarely do mid-terms but they had to get Republicans in to stop or slow this latest intrusion. Most of them had helped Claire get in office, but will not be helping her in 2012. She had better hope the cities pan out for her.

To me, some of the liberal base didn’t show up because they did not get their ‘free’ health care in one way or another. Public Option, Medicare for All or universal health care. They probably thought Obama could do whatever he wanted and got pissed when he did not give them their freebies. I believe fear of the end of the world if Republicans won brought out the majority of liberals to vote.

Regarding a washer and dryer, I have not and will not make any major purchases that would support policies that are unfair and harmful to our nation.

Posted by: kctim at January 31, 2012 4:06 PM
Comment #335445

Kctim: “Regarding a washer and dryer, I have not and will not make any major purchases that would support policies that are unfair and harmful to our nation.”

You should just buy used. It will be win, win. You’ll get a nice upgrade and you won’t pay so much money that you’ll stimulate growth in the economy so that Obama looks better.

Posted by: Adam Ducker at January 31, 2012 4:30 PM
Comment #335446

The political tides are turning pretty quickly these days. The tide that swept Obama into office three years ago we completely turned around two years ago when the Dems were whipped in the midterms. The economy hadn’t improved much and the Tea Party’s “if you can’t beat them with logic and facts, beat them with sheer volume” tactic worked. But it elected a group of people incapable of effective governance. The Tea Party folks, Morgan “Moron” Griffith, my congressman included came riding into town like the Beverly Hillbillies and not only accomplished nothing because of their ineptitude and stubbornness but they succeeded in wrecking the GOP. Now the economy is clearly headed in a better direction and the political conversation about taxes and gay marriage opposition has been replaced with the OWS conversation about wealth and fairness. Now the GOP is going to nominate the poster boy for financial unfairness as their candidate. I think I’d have a better chance than he does of getting elected. Things couldn’t have been served up any better for Obama this fall. If the economy tanks again then this will all change.

What’s stunning to me is that both sides think that their elections were a mandate from the people to pursue there most extreme agenda. Well, they were wrong. Obama got elected because America was tired of Bush and the economy was tanking. The GOP won in the midterm because the economy was still in the tank. Obama, to his credit, tried to work with the GOP but they spit in his face. The Tea Party cabal in the GOP wasn’t interested in anything but destroying Obama even if they had to take the whole country with them. That didn’t work out so well. If Obama gets re-elected it won’t be as much a mandate for liberalism as a rejection of the noobs brought in two years ago.

Obama, I think has played this first term pretty shrewdly. He hasn’t trumpeted his successes as his party hoped in 2010 because these things have a limited lifespan and the things you publicize too early don’t help you a year later. Now we are going into an election against a guy who makes money off of money and doesn’t really do anything and pays a lower tax rate than anyone who actually has to go to work. The DOJ is going to be going after the Wall Street crooks that caused the crash, the economy will still be improving, the Iraq was is over, Afghanistan’s end is in sight, we haven’t had a significant terrorist attack, no new wars, and the Tea Party has been pretty marginalized. Things are looking pretty good for his re-election.

Posted by: tcsned at January 31, 2012 4:57 PM
Comment #335447

Food and fuel Adam, food and fuel.
Luckily, when Obama first came onto the scene, I pretty much knew he was a lock, so I was able to be prepared and ready for when things didn’t get better.
I’m sure I can keep the old washer running for at least a few more years :)

Posted by: kctim at January 31, 2012 5:14 PM
Comment #335449


I paid 50 bucks for my washing machine, three years ago this March.

Ah, the good old days of Clinton food and fuel prices.

Posted by: jlw at January 31, 2012 6:10 PM
Comment #335450

tscned, I am waiting on Obama to start campaigning on the passage of obamacare. His greatest accomplishment.

Posted by: Kathy at January 31, 2012 7:20 PM
Comment #335451

Since this conversation has digressed to washing machines…I just heard that 5400 people have been killed since Obama’s Arab Spring, by government troops, in Syria. Obama has done nothing on this one, but….why did we go into Libya???

Posted by: TomT at January 31, 2012 7:26 PM
Comment #335455

Kathy,

On the issue of Obamacare, I think it is going to be moot issue. It is nothing more than a carbon copy of the principal Republican contender’s Mass. health plan (Romneycare).

Even his closest rival, Gingrich, advocated a similar plan for over 20 years.

Neither Romney not Gingrich could explain the differences between Romneycare and Obamacare in the Republican primary debates when pressed by Santorum. Do you think it will be any different in the general election?

Romney says that the Mass. plan is good for Mass. but not for the nation. Why?

He says that the individual mandate demonstrates personal responsibility and the avoidance of “free riders” by Mass. citizens. Do you think that the general US citizen is less responsible than the citizens of Mass.?

Constitutional questions aside, each of the contenders for the 2012 election have advocated the exact same principles and mechanisms which guide Obamacare and Romnycare.

Posted by: Rich at January 31, 2012 8:25 PM
Comment #335456

Since obamacare is a lightning rod issue and a majority of Americans want it repealed, then I guess it boils down to who promises to repeal it. Romney and Gingrich have both said thy would repeal obamacare and I doubt Obama will…so, what does it matter about Romneycare?

But my question was whether Obama will campaign on his crowning accomplishment.

Posted by: Kathy at January 31, 2012 8:35 PM
Comment #335458

Kathy,
Can’t bring yourself to mention Bush, can you.

TomT,
Can’t bring yourself to mention Bush, can you.

Go ahead, you two. Try it. B. B-B-B-B.
B-U-U-U. Come on now. You can do it….

Posted by: phx8 at January 31, 2012 9:10 PM
Comment #335459

After 3 years and you still got Bush on the brain? Sad phx8 very sad.

Posted by: KAP at January 31, 2012 9:19 PM
Comment #335460

Kathy,

Since the major provisions of “Obamacare” haven’t even been implemented, it is hard to see how anyone could evaluate its effectiveness or satisfaction. If Romney is correct, the majority of people will eventually support it, if the Mass. experience is correct.

Romney said in the debates that 2/3 of the citizens of Mass. approved of Romneycare after its full implementation. He said that he would make some changes but is unapologetic about its overall effectiveness and satisfaction.

Romney says that he will repeal Obamacare (as if the President had such power) without explaining why he would do such a thing if his essentially identical plan is working so well in Mass. Santorum repeatedly asked him this question in the debates without an answer.

I don’t know what Obama will campaign upon in the general election. I do know, however, that if Obamacare is a “lightning rod” then Romney or Gingrich will be hard pressed to answer why they are now advocating repeal of a health insurance concept that they promoted for many years and Romney claims is working in the interests of the citizens of Mass.

Posted by: Rich at January 31, 2012 9:30 PM
Comment #335461

KAP, GWB was the gift that kept on giving. We need to remember he left the financial meltdown as a parting gift. We also need to keep in minds this was no ordinary business cycle recession. Those that forget our history are doomed to repeat it, why would you want to do that?

I guess I wonder why those on the right would forget so soon the damage that developed during GWB’s 2 terms as president. The unfunded wars, the taxes cuts while we were at war. The medicare “reform” that left the government unable to negotiate drug prices and the unfunded plan B. Perhaps this memory loss is why those on the right are wanting to go back to the same thing, but for many of us it just doesn’t seem right to leave the grand kids with our tab.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 31, 2012 9:38 PM
Comment #335462

Kathy and T,
Let’s give this a try. I’ll help.

We should repeal Obamacare because health care was better under Bush. Health care costs more than doubled between 2000 - 2008, and that’s good, because it shows the free market is working.

Ok, let’s try another example.

Obama isn’t doing enough enough about Syria, so we should do what Bush did in Iraq, and invade. It will help Israel and spread democracy.

There. That wasn’t so hard.

KAP,
Do you disagree with my premise? I think it is remarkable that we’re in a presidential election year, just three years from the most conservative leader we’ve ever seen, and Republicans will not even mention him. Absolutely, positively not. I think it means more than just embarrassment. I think it means Americans as a whole, regardless of political persuasion, hold Republicans responsible for what happened even to this day. And that has tremendous implications for the upcoming election.

So. Do you disagree?

Posted by: phx8 at January 31, 2012 9:40 PM
Comment #335463

After 3 years Bush is irrelevant. He raised our debt to 10 trillion in 8 years but Obama in just 3 short years has him beat. So we are going to keep blameing Bush even in to Obama’s possible 2nd term. When is it time to quit and blame the guy that holds the presidencty now. You going to blame Bush if Obama gets beat????

Posted by: KAP at January 31, 2012 9:55 PM
Comment #335465

By the way we heard this same BS during the midterms. When the republicans have their pick for president we shall see. All I know is I’m not happy with either party and so are a lot of others.

Posted by: KAP at January 31, 2012 10:04 PM
Comment #335466

KAP,
When will it be time to quit blaming Bush? We’ll know that time has come when Republicans willingly talk about Bush. The very unwillingness of anyone to even mention him- even the people who voted for him twice- tells you Bush still gets the blame. When Republicans are able to say “Bush” out loud again, we’ll know Obama will truly be on the hook for the credit or the blame.

That inability to discuss Bush manifests itself in the entire Republican campaign. It’s virtually nothing but negatives. No one can stand up for anything favored by Bush, and so, that negativity shows itself in attack ads. Big corporations like Romney the best becaues he will do their bidding, so he receives the most money from them, hence he has the most money for negativity. Romney swamped Newt with negative attack ads in FL, something like $15 million to just $4 million. That will continue during the GOP primaries.

The situation will be very different in the general election, and Romney will pay a heavy price for the negativity among independents. It defines Romney as a negative guy and dirty campaigner.

Posted by: phx8 at January 31, 2012 10:32 PM
Comment #335467

O and you guys run clean campaigns and what about Obama’s campaign money I’m sure he got all his money from all you little people. Bush isn’t running for president he had his 15 minutes of fame and now he is irrelevant. Why would anyone want to discuss Bush? He made his mistakes just like Obama has and I am sure the republican candidate will capitalize on those mistakes. So now it is republican candidate against Obama not Bush against Obama. So phx8 can’t you bring yourself to say Bush is irrelevant. You can say it, I do. Just like if Obama gets evicted from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in November. He will be irrelevant.

Posted by: KAP at January 31, 2012 10:53 PM
Comment #335468

KAP,
But that is precisely my point. Bush is not irrelevant. Bush is extremely relevant. And the very fact that his relevance cannot be acknowledged by his supporters tells you just how much that relevance affects the upcoming election.

Ordinarily, a recent president would be a major factor in an election, throwing his support behind a candidate, stumping on the campaign trail, appearing constantly on the airwaves. His (successful) policies would be trumpeted to the heavens.

The policies of the GOP candidates are virtually identifcal to the policies of the Bush administration, yet no one will even mention Bush. I think that’s significant, that it tells you something about the state of mind of the electorate, and I am identifying this as a major factor in the upcoming election.

Posted by: phx8 at January 31, 2012 11:25 PM
Comment #335469

Could be he’s waiting until after the primaries and the republican convention to voice his support. There are 4 candidates but I’m sure there will be less soon and when we find out who the republican candidate is Bush will speak. Maybe this is a ploy to get all you Obama supporters nickers in a bunch LOL.

Posted by: KAP at January 31, 2012 11:42 PM
Comment #335470

Rich and phx8, I don’t care about Bush (I didn’t vote for him), I don’t care about romneycare (I’m not from Mass), but I did ask, will Obama run on his crowning achievement (obamacare)?

There has been a continuous 50-60% of Americans who want obamacare repealed, ever since Obama signed it. The people who want Obamacare repealed only care about one thing; will the next Republican president repeal Obamacare? I realize the president cannot repeal it by himself, but it will not require a 2/3 rd majority to over ride a veto, if the president supports repealing obamacare.

Posted by: Kathy at February 1, 2012 8:55 AM
Comment #335475

Kathy: “There has been a continuous 50-60% of Americans who want obamacare repealed, ever since Obama signed it.”

I thought you didn’t trust polls so where do you get your facts?

Posted by: Adam Ducker at February 1, 2012 9:28 AM
Comment #335481

Kathy,
Please cite your source. Depending upon how the question is phrased, I could be counted as someone who opposes Obamacare- because I want universal health care, Medicare for all.

The GOP has made repealing Obamacare as a priority, but I’m pretty sure they’re overestimating the popularity of the idea. Even opponents concede there are good aspects to Obamacare that would have to be kept even if the overall plan was rejected, elements such as not rejecting people for pre-existing conditions, covering family members until the age of 26, and preventing recission (which is where the insurance company dumps you if you get really sick).

Posted by: phx8 at February 1, 2012 11:31 AM
Comment #335513


Bush has decided to wait until the Republican nominee is chosen before endorsing the candidate.

Posted by: jlw at February 2, 2012 12:58 AM
Post a comment