PDA

View Full Version : Elections Dems to Run against Bush in 2010....again?


talastan
05-22-2010, 09:08 AM
Obama campaigns against Bush - again

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37631.html

By CAROL E. LEE | 5/22/10 7:50 AM EDT Text Size-+reset.

The W.H.'s mid-term election strategy is becoming clear: pit the Dems of 2010 against Bush-era Republicans.
AP
Digg/Buzz It UpDigg this Story!Buzz it up!Add to LinkedIn.POLITICO 44

President Barack Obama is trying to ride the wave of anti-incumbency by taking on an unpopular politician steeped in the partisan ways of Washington.


It doesn’t matter that George W. Bush left office 16 months ago.


The White House’s mid-term election strategy is becoming clear – pit the Democrats of 2010 against the Republicans circa 2006, 2008 and 2009, including Bush.


It’s a lot to ask an angry, finicky electorate to sort out. And even if Obama can rightfully make the case that the economy took a turn for the worse under Bush's watch, he's already made it - in 2008 and repeatedly in 2009.


It’s not clear that voters still want to hear it.


“If you’re the leader of a large corporation and you’re in power for a year and a half and you start off a meeting with your shareholders by blaming your predecessor, that wouldn’t go over very well,” said Merle Black, a political science professor at Emory University. “This is a very weak approach. ... And I can’t imagine it having an impact on these very swing voters.”


Some Democrats would like Obama to shift his argument.


“The president needs to indict not simply Bush or even Republicans. He is a visionary thinker, and his rhetoric should reflect that,” said Democratic strategist Paul Begala. “I want President Obama to make a consistent, compelling indictment of conservative ideas.”


The first glimmers of Obama's 2010 message came in New York last week where he rallied the party faithful with a charge that Republicans drove the economy into a ditch, obstructed Democrats’ efforts to pull it out and now want back the keys. “Sounds like he wants to run against George Bush one more time, doesn't it?” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell quipped when shown the clip on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”


Obama cranked up his indictment of the GOP in Ohio this week, criticizing “the ‘just say no’ crowd” and the Republicans’ “selective memory” of the economy in January 2009.


The message is layered. A shot at Bush (without mentioning his name.) A jab at congressional Republicans (although rarely saying “Republicans.”) A defense of the actions he’s taken so far.


It’s a striking approach for a president who often talks of looking forward not backward. But Obama’s aides believe that explaining how the economic crisis occurred and what happened since is a fair argument to make and an important contrast to draw.


“I don’t necessarily think of it as blame,” said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.



Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37631.html#ixzz0offgDWJv

Chocolate Hog
05-22-2010, 09:12 AM
It's obvious the Democrats don't have much.

notorious
05-22-2010, 09:21 AM
They know what's coming. Panic is starting to set in.


I just hope that the huge swing is not going to let the Pubs think that they have free reign just like the Dem's thought.

Ebolapox
05-22-2010, 09:28 AM
ROFL

seriously? jesus tapdancing christ.

talastan
05-22-2010, 09:40 AM
It is necessary for them to assert blame and remind people of why, in their opinion, the Economy tanked. Especially since everything they've tried since then hasn't done jack squat.

banyon
05-22-2010, 09:53 AM
Many of these congressmen running aren't new. They were the same people who supported terrible policies 16 months ago.

Are people just supposed to forget who they are and what they supported? As if they'll conduct themselves differently this time? Our electorate is only allowed to discus events in the last 5 months!!@!1

SNR
05-22-2010, 09:55 AM
Many of these congressmen running aren't new. They were the same people who supported terrible policies 16 months ago.

Are people just supposed to forget who they are and what they supported? As if they'll conduct themselves differently this time? Our electorate is only allowed to discus events in the last 5 months!!@!1Do you agree with this statement?

“If you’re the leader of a large corporation and you’re in power for a year and a half and you start off a meeting with your shareholders by blaming your predecessor, that wouldn’t go over very well,” said Merle Black, a political science professor at Emory University. “This is a very weak approach. ... And I can’t imagine it having an impact on these very swing voters.”

Seems like a fair criticism of the approach to me.

talastan
05-22-2010, 09:57 AM
Many of these congressmen running aren't new. They were the same people who supported terrible policies 16 months ago.

Are people just supposed to forget who they are and what they supported? As if they'll conduct themselves differently this time? Our electorate is only allowed to discus events in the last 5 months!!@!1


The Dems had nothing, I repeat nothing, standing in their way during 2009 to keep them from completing their/Obama's agenda. With the supermajority in congress they could've done whatever they wanted to "fix" the economy. So while I attribute the Economy tanking to both parties, 2009 is all on the Dems IMO.

petegz28
05-22-2010, 09:59 AM
The blame Bush tactic is old and done. People are already sick of it. The Dems have had control of congress since 2007 and the White House now for the over a year.

banyon
05-22-2010, 10:07 AM
The Dems had nothing, I repeat nothing, standing in their way during 2009 to keep them from completing their/Obama's agenda. With the supermajority in congress they could've done whatever they wanted to "fix" the economy. So while I attribute the Economy tanking to both parties, 2009 is all on the Dems IMO.

So, they didn't "fix" the worst recession since the Depression in 1 year and it's all their fault? Is that the campaign you'd like them to run?

banyon
05-22-2010, 10:09 AM
Do you agree with this statement?



Seems like a fair criticism of the approach to me.

I think if your predecessor got your company on the verge of bankruptcy and you were struggling trying to get out of it, it might be relevant to refer to that fact once in a while, for the people like in this thread with short and selective memories.

I'm pretty sure if we run through Ford (F)'s transcripts, Alan Mullaly is going to refer to the deep hole they are working their way out of, isn't he?

It's particularly relevant, if one of the people who got the company in the mess is coming back to the board and campaigning to get back on because "he'll do better this time, honest!"

It's like Bernard Madoff running for CEO of Goldman Sachs to replace Blankfein and demanding 'NO!, we can only talk about what happened this year with Goldman, what I did in the past isn't relevant!"

talastan
05-22-2010, 10:28 AM
So, they didn't "fix" the worst recession since the Depression in 1 year and it's all their fault? Is that the campaign you'd like them to run?

I didn't say they had to fix it completely. What my question was how do they think they will succeed on this election strategy and yet ignore the fact that they have had the ability and time to make a difference in the economy. Job reports continue to be bad, the markets are just as shaky as they were in 2008, and we've incurred a comparable amount of debt in one year of Obama and the Dem-controlled Congress to 8 years of Bush and the Repubs.

banyon
05-22-2010, 10:40 AM
I didn't say they had to fix it completely. What my question was how do they think they will succeed on this election strategy and yet ignore the fact that they have had the ability and time to make a difference in the economy. Job reports continue to be bad, the markets are just as shaky as they were in 2008, and we've incurred a comparable amount of debt in one year of Obama and the Dem-controlled Congress to 8 years of Bush and the Repubs.

The job situation is better than it was. The market is better than it was. Not it's still not good. The debt is the main issue with how they've handled it, you've picked that out correctly, but the fact that they didn't have a magic wand shouldn't be (but probably will be) an issue with swing voters. But I think Dems should be "allowed" to point out that they don't have a magic wand to fix the crisis they were in as well.

SNR
05-22-2010, 10:47 AM
I think if your predecessor got your company on the verge of bankruptcy and you were struggling trying to get out of it, it might be relevant to refer to that fact once in a while, for the people like in this thread with short and selective memories.

I'm pretty sure if we run through Ford (F)'s transcripts, Alan Mullaly is going to refer to the deep hole they are working their way out of, isn't he?

It's particularly relevant, if one of the people who got the company in the mess is coming back to the board and campaigning to get back on because "he'll do better this time, honest!"

It's like Bernard Madoff running for CEO of Goldman Sachs to replace Blankfein and demanding 'NO!, we can only talk about what happened this year with Goldman, what I did in the past isn't relevant!"Did you see Todd Haley come in on day one of his job and say, "Herm Edwards REAALLY fucked things up in here. Holy shit. Guys, this is bad. Real bad. I've been on bad teams before, but nothing like this. It's going to take all my strength and energy to fix THIS one." More importantly, do you see him blaming Herm Edwards to this very day? After all, he "took office" around the same time as Obama.

Why do you think he isn't doing that? Could it be that he's in a position of leadership, and that crying about the hand you were dealt when you APPLIED FOR THE GODDAMN JOB doesn't exactly scream "honorable" in people's minds? No matter how true it may be that Bush caused this recession (realistically, some of the blame needs to be put on Clinton and his administration, but I don't see Obama pointing fingers at something up to nearly 20 years ago) it simply doesn't inspire confidence in shareholders, customers, voters, fans, whatever fucking analogy you want to use.

George Bush ISN'T coming back. If Obama wants to point to the cause of this crisis, he should point fingers at Bush AND Clinton. Both of them saw legislation pass in their terms that were harmful to this.

Plus, Obama already profitted from being anti-Bush. Hell, he won simply because he wasn't from Bush's party. And he reminded us that he wasn't Bush, nor from Bush's party CONSTANTLY in that election. And he's done it in 2009. And 2010. And he's going to do it in the upcoming elections. Do you think he'll continue in 2012? Probably.

banyon
05-22-2010, 10:54 AM
Did you see Todd Haley come in on day one of his job and say, "Herm Edwards REAALLY ****ed things up in here. Holy shit. Guys, this is bad. Real bad. I've been on bad teams before, but nothing like this. It's going to take all my strength and energy to fix THIS one." More importantly, do you see him blaming Herm Edwards to this very day? After all, he "took office" around the same time as Obama.

Why do you think he isn't doing that? Could it be that he's in a position of leadership, and that crying about the hand you were dealt when you APPLIED FOR THE GODDAMN JOB doesn't exactly scream "honorable" in people's minds? No matter how true it may be that Bush caused this recession (realistically, some of the blame needs to be put on Clinton and his administration, but I don't see Obama pointing fingers at something up to nearly 20 years ago) it simply doesn't inspire confidence in shareholders, customers, voters, fans, whatever ****ing analogy you want to use.

George Bush ISN'T coming back. If Obama wants to point to the cause of this crisis, he should point fingers at Bush AND Clinton. Both of them saw legislation pass in their terms that were harmful to this.

Plus, Obama already profitted from being anti-Bush. Hell, he won simply because he wasn't from Bush's party. And he reminded us that he wasn't Bush, nor from Bush's party CONSTANTLY in that election. And he's done it in 2009. And 2010. And he's going to do it in the upcoming elections. Do you think he'll continue in 2012? Probably.

I think your NFL analogy is a little misplaced. NFL teams ROUTINELY go from last to first in the division/make playoff runs with new coaching/a ew new players. OTOH, no president/government in history has transformed a severe recession into a booming economy by magic in a year. that's why the Alan Mullaly analogy works and the Haley one doesn't. Mulally can't trade for Carson Palmer and Ray Lewis and expect really different results for his company instantly.

SNR
05-22-2010, 11:08 AM
I think your NFL analogy is a little misplaced. NFL teams ROUTINELY go from last to first in the division/make playoff runs with new coaching/a ew new players. OTOH, no president/government in history has transformed a severe recession into a booming economy by magic in a year. that's why the Alan Mullaly analogy works and the Haley one doesn't. Mulally can't trade for Carson Palmer and Ray Lewis and expect really different results for his company instantly.You're right. It doesn't work. Todd Haley gets held accountable for his mistakes, and doesn't get a guaranteed 4 years in his job, with a good chance he'll get 8.

Which means it's even more puzzling why Obama thinks blaming Bush is a good idea. Nobody can touch him for a few years.

If this is about keeping seats in both houses, he'd be a lot more effective following what Begala said in the article. Explain why your opponents policies and beliefs are ineffective and bad. That's totally legit. Doing a blame game isn't exactly what I expected from the guy that wanted to bring together both parties and change discourse in government, and have everything be positive. I would mock his message of "change" but I don't have one of Mad Crapper's images handy that he's posted 3,485 times.

Silock
05-22-2010, 11:13 AM
So, they didn't "fix" the worst recession since the Depression in 1 year and it's all their fault? Is that the campaign you'd like them to run?

They should be looking forward, not backward.

No one expected them to fix it, but it hasn't appreciably improved, either.

Icon
05-22-2010, 11:21 AM
President Bush was a below average President hamstrung by a God-awful Congress. Obama was right to focus the voters thoughts towards Bush's failures; however, two years into his own administration, Obama needs to take ownership in our current political/economic situation. I'm growing tired of Obama blaming the previous administration for every problem. Obama needs to start leading this country not just his party.

The Mad Crapper
05-22-2010, 11:30 AM
It is necessary for them to assert blame and remind people of why, in their opinion, the Economy tanked. Especially since everything they've tried since then hasn't done jack squat.

Sure it has; it's made things 100 times worse.

bobbymitch
05-25-2010, 09:35 AM
Watching the Senate Energy Committee hearing on the BP oil spill. And yep, it didn't take too long - it's Bush's fault!

The Mad Crapper
05-25-2010, 09:37 AM
President Bush was a below average President hamstrung by a God-awful Congress. Obama was right to focus the voters thoughts towards Bush's failures; however, two years into his own administration, Obama needs to take ownership in our current political/economic situation. I'm growing tired of Obama blaming the previous administration for every problem. Obama needs to start leading this country not just his party.

Don't hold your breath.

HonestChieffan
05-25-2010, 09:53 AM
What would you do?

Run on the record Obama has established?

or

Try to use Bush to paint all republicans in hopes no one sees you have been a colossal failure and have done huge damage to the country...on purpose and with a plan. Divide on race basis at all costs and use payoffs to unions and leftist groups to establis the base of the discontent and non productive at the polls.

blaise
05-25-2010, 09:57 AM
Hope. Change. Previous Administration.

thecoffeeguy
05-25-2010, 10:05 AM
Watching the Senate Energy Committee hearing on the BP oil spill. And yep, it didn't take too long - it's Bush's fault!

And just how exactly are they trying to blame this on Bush?

BucEyedPea
05-25-2010, 10:06 AM
It's obvious the Democrats don't have much.

They absolutely LOVE Bush apparently—their favorite whipping boy to gain and consolidate their power.