Alex,
The original statement was that the presidency of 43 is following 41 "repeat almost to the day". Then when presented with the fact that they are quite different you are explaining why they are different but why they are bad. So we agree. Bush II is quite different than Bush I. Correct? It's nice for us to agree for once. ;-)
Trying to dismiss those obvious differences by statements of what one hopes might happen in the future is a different ballgame entirely than comparing past events with past events. We're now going to compare future possibilities to past events that have actually happened? Ok. I think everytime one plays the "this MIGHT happen game" based on their hopes and dreams it always turns out a little whacky.
Last time we played this game, Americans were turning sour on the war, turning sour on Bush, and the US was heading into a quagmire in Iraq. What happened?
About people only looking at the economy, forgetting huge international gains, etc. This has nittle basis in history. In fact, that's just using the presidency of George Bush Senior as a catch-all template. Also, it ignores the simple fact that homeland security is a domestic issue. A huge one and everyone is aware of it. Compromising with congress on a budget is normal. Bush, Clinton, and Reagan all did that. How do you turn a normal thing into a negative? No one's going to hit Bush in the campaign for compromising with congress. That's preposterous. That's what politicians are supposed to do. The smart ones do it within the limits of their promises and Bush has certainly done that whereas many others haven't. Compromise and break a promise and you broke a promise. Compromise without that caveat and you're doign your job.
You love the Bush I comparison chart. Not a good comparison. Their presidencies are quite dissimilar. Bush Senior was the rare case of a winning war-time president losing an election. He broke a campaign promise and ran into the Clinton/Carville team which in my opinion was top-notch. Carville is a campaigning genius. How many times did we see the image of the Bush mantra "no new taxes" on commercials? Clinton came out of nowhere in the '92 election. He was a darkhorse. The democratic field at the time was considered weak at the time and then he emerged. Similiar situation today. Will a new horse appear? Will the Democrats put Mondale
II or Clinton II out there?
Most voters do NOT look at increased debts. Take a look at the record. The biggest landslide in history was won by a president with the largest debt when we left office. Clinton and Reagan both had huge four year deficits and each won re-election.
Biggest tax cut for the rich was passed by Reagan. How'd he do in re-election?
I think you're crazy if you think Bush will raise taxes by the end of his administration. What evidence is there he would?
You ask "who does economics" in the Bush administration? Well, in the US monetary and fiscal policy is set by the Treasury Department and the Fed. Do you know the name of the Fed Chairman? Who "did economics" in Clinton, Bush, Reagan, or Carter administration?
"Who does domestic policy"? What cabinet position is that?
Medical industry reform? This isn't Europe or Canada, Alex. Recent history shows campaigning about medical industry reform is a way to embarass yourself politically.
I agree with you that the economy will be a very important issue at election time. If the economy were stronger right now, Bush would be even more popular. Will it get stronger or weaker? Even right now, there are signs that point in both directions.
Check the approval ratings. Most people right now in the US are pro-Bush. If the election were today, Bush would win. The conservatives and the middle roaders are pro-Bush. Only the left side of the democrats is not and even some of them are. Where does the approval rating go from here? Depends on what happens in the world. You can skip the Bush I comparison chart. It's not applicable. There are 42 other presidential comparison charts you should check up on. We don't know what the future of the world or the economy will be in the next 500 days.
I myself reserve judgement on the Bush presidency. I think he's had a very strong two years and shows no signs that he's going to slow down. He may. Maybe he'll get lame duck syndrome.
I was watching television closely the past few weeks to see how Bush would emerge from the war. I wondered how we could come out. What I see is that he's on television every day talking about the economy. He's in tune. You have to see that.
Last edited by Colin at May 9 2003, 06:31 AM
|