In 2010 Dems Will Run Against Bush

[red states rule]

Since Dems will have NO accomplishments and successes to talk about, the 2010 midterm election will see Dems running against Pres Bush

Like my liberal co worker, Obama supporters never want to talk about all the hope and change they were promised - but they jump at the chance to talk about Pres Bush and the former Republican Congress



snip

The literary look back will be supplemented by other reminders, large and small, of the Bush era, from the groundbreaking for the George W. Bush library, also scheduled for the fall (although right now that’s likely to be in November, presumably after Election Day), to the outcome of the Justice Department’s CIA interrogation probe currently under way.

The question is: What effect, if any, will all of this have on voters’ perceptions of the two parties and their candidates?

The Democrats’ reaction was not hard to predict.

“The more flashbacks of the Bush era we have, the more people will be reminded about the huge mess that Barack Obama and the Democrats inherited,” says Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “So it will remind them of why they voted for change and remind them of why they don’t want to turn back the clock.”

Democratic National Committee spokesman Hari Sevugan agrees. “This will only serve to further emphasize what they continue to see from the Republican Party, which is more of the same,” he says.

“To tweak a phrase, it’s come to a point where it’s fair to say, ‘If it’s Sunday, it’s Dick Cheney.’”

The Bush montage plays right into the hands of Democrats, says Democratic strategist Douglas Schoen, who predicts that the midterm elections will be a battle between those who will try to make it a belated referendum on the Bush administration and those who will try to make it a premature referendum on the Obama administration.

“I think Obama is going to run against George Bush, as a means of deflecting attention from an incomplete agenda,” Schoen says, noting that November 2010 will likely be too soon for voters to see concrete results on the economy, health care or other Obama policies at home or abroad.

As for the Republicans, he says, their “best case is to make the election a referendum on Barack Obama, and to the extent that there are unpleasant or uncomfortable reflections, facts, inquiries, coming out — whether about the U.S. attorneys, torture, memoirs, whatever — they’re going to be employed inevitably and inexorably by the Obama administration, which is going to say, ‘Look: They’re worse.’”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091014/pl_politico/28261

[Insein]

“To tweak a phrase, it’s come to a point where it’s fair to say, ‘If it’s Sunday, it’s Dick Cheney.’”

I don't get the quote nor the one that its supposed to paraphrase. So, yea, go ahead and run on that platform right there. No chance you can lose with that strategy :rolleyes:

[red states rule]

I don't get the quote nor the one that its supposed to paraphrase. So, yea, go ahead and run on that platform right there. No chance you can lose with that strategy :rolleyes:

I talked to Blue States Rule (my car pool buddy) this morning, and as usual all he wanted to talk about was Pres Bush

He says that is why he will not post here again. We are to "partisan" and never want to give Obama credit for anything he does right

I ask him what that might be, and he blows a gasket :laugh2:

[Jeff]

I talked to Blue States Rule (my car pool buddy) this morning, and as usual all he wanted to talk about was Pres Bush

He says that is why he will not post here again. We are to "partisan" and never want to give Obama credit for anything he does right

I ask him what that might be, and he blows a gasket :laugh2:

:laugh2: Kind of hard to praise someone who has done nothing :eek:

[CSM]

Sounds like a great opportunity for a third party to step in and run on the real issues. Might work if it could stay away from the same old crap and really have a platform that isn't based on "hope" or "bash Bush".

[red states rule]

:laugh2: Kind of hard to praise someone who has done nothing :eek:

There you go Jeff - showing why BSR will not honor us with his presence. You have to stop being so partisan and find good things to say about Pres Obama

You have to remember he took over the "worst economy since the Great Depression" (Never talk about the Carter economy with BSR - that does not count)

He is "trying" to solve a mega crisis according to him. So you have to support him in his efforts even if you do not agree with his methods according to BSR

[avatar4321]

I talked to Blue States Rule (my car pool buddy) this morning, and as usual all he wanted to talk about was Pres Bush

He says that is why he will not post here again. We are to "partisan" and never want to give Obama credit for anything he does right

I ask him what that might be, and he blows a gasket :laugh2:

I have given Obama credit when he does something right. I completely agree with his assessment on Kanye West being a Jackass. Other than that, I havent seen anything he is doing that is right.

[sgtdmski]

We do not need to wait until 2010 to see if this is a verifiable tactic. In 2009 there will be two gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey to see whether the 2010 election will be about Bush or Obama. Right now it seems that Republicans are leading in both races which clearly means that the 2010 election will be about Obama, the Democratic Congress and their lack of anything.

Thus far we have seen neither change, hope, nor any major accomplishment. Healthcare is a non-issue, so many oppose it already that if the Democrats push it through without Republican support it will be a death knoll on the party.

They can try to blame Bush all they want, but if they do, it will only go to prove the lack of any achievement on the part of the Obama administration. I mean come on, 18 months and it is still Bush's fault. That means that Obama has not been able to accomplish a thing despite majorities in both the House and Senate. Which means piss poor leadership. All talk and no fraking walk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

dmk

[red states rule]

I do enjoy pointing out to Dems and the Obama supporters the following facts

1) They have a 40 seat majoirty on the House

2) They have a veto proof majority of 60 in the Senate

3) They have overwhelming support in the media to push their agaenda on the voters in the paper, the networks, and on the radio

4) Up until Obamacare, Obama got everything he demanded - and more - from the free spending Reid/Pelosi Congress

Yet they have made things worse, they can't even win over their fellow Dems to pass Obamacare - yet as Dems fail to deliver on their hope and chamge promsisies all they can do is try to shift the blame to Pres Bush

I doubt of it will work, and the 2010 midterm could be a bigger defeat for Obama then it was for Clinton

[red states rule]

Over the weekend all I saw from Dems on the Sunday talk shows was 1) attacking Fox News, and 2) It's all Bush's fault

The Dems are proving to be more pathetic then even I thought they were

We are about a little away from the mid term elections, and Dems are trying to pass the buck for their failures, and my liberal friends are all but dismissive over Obama's failed policies

It is like they do not want to hear the facts, they refuse to check the facts, and act like it is another vast right wing conspiracy that is out to undermine Obama

[sgtdmski]

And this will be the game plan for the next year. It is all Bush's fault that Obama had to triple the deficit and it is all Fox news fault that we cannot pass major reform.

I wonder, if they lose the House and possibly the Senate in 2010, will it still be the fault of Bush and Fox news??

dmk

[Kathianne]

Call me naive, but many did when I put forth the idea that writing, showing up for representatives, calling would make a difference. All those things are and have been going on, they've made a difference. Rahm Emanuel is avoiding the private option. Health care in itself is on which revision and barely made it out of committee, with Snowe the sole 'bipartisan' vote. Even she stated that was to get it out of committee and was a one-time vote.

I do not think that blaming Bush is working or will work. The Democrats are sinking their own ship, the Republicans may or may not be beneficiaries of the Democrats actions. The Republicans need to get conservatives in the races, not just spend thrifts, light.

[red states rule]

And this will be the game plan for the next year. It is all Bush's fault that Obama had to triple the deficit and it is all Fox news fault that we cannot pass major reform.

I wonder, if they lose the House and possibly the Senate in 2010, will it still be the fault of Bush and Fox news??

dmk

You can count of the Dems using the following excuses

1) The racists turned out in large numbers since they can't accept a black man as President

2) People like Rush, Sean, and Beck prevented Dems from getting their message out

3) Fox News flooded the airwaves with lies

4) The American people were to stupid to understand the complex issues

5) Bush screwed things up so bad, it will take more the 2 years to repair the damage, and the vorters weer to impatient to wait the required time for Dems to fix things

6) Corporate America bankrolled a national smear campaign to undermine the Dems and Pres Obama

Did I miss anything?

[Insein]

And this will be the game plan for the next year. It is all Bush's fault that Obama had to triple the deficit and it is all Fox news fault that we cannot pass major reform.

I wonder, if they lose the House and possibly the Senate in 2010, will it still be the fault of Bush and Fox news??

dmk


If it is, Go Bush and Fox News!

[actsnoblemartin]

and they will lose


Since Dems will have NO accomplishments and successes to talk about, the 2010 midterm election will see Dems running against Pres Bush

Like my liberal co worker, Obama supporters never want to talk about all the hope and change they were promised - but they jump at the chance to talk about Pres Bush and the former Republican Congress



snip

The literary look back will be supplemented by other reminders, large and small, of the Bush era, from the groundbreaking for the George W. Bush library, also scheduled for the fall (although right now that’s likely to be in November, presumably after Election Day), to the outcome of the Justice Department’s CIA interrogation probe currently under way.

The question is: What effect, if any, will all of this have on voters’ perceptions of the two parties and their candidates?

The Democrats’ reaction was not hard to predict.

“The more flashbacks of the Bush era we have, the more people will be reminded about the huge mess that Barack Obama and the Democrats inherited,” says Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “So it will remind them of why they voted for change and remind them of why they don’t want to turn back the clock.”

Democratic National Committee spokesman Hari Sevugan agrees. “This will only serve to further emphasize what they continue to see from the Republican Party, which is more of the same,” he says.

“To tweak a phrase, it’s come to a point where it’s fair to say, ‘If it’s Sunday, it’s Dick Cheney.’”

The Bush montage plays right into the hands of Democrats, says Democratic strategist Douglas Schoen, who predicts that the midterm elections will be a battle between those who will try to make it a belated referendum on the Bush administration and those who will try to make it a premature referendum on the Obama administration.

“I think Obama is going to run against George Bush, as a means of deflecting attention from an incomplete agenda,” Schoen says, noting that November 2010 will likely be too soon for voters to see concrete results on the economy, health care or other Obama policies at home or abroad.

As for the Republicans, he says, their “best case is to make the election a referendum on Barack Obama, and to the extent that there are unpleasant or uncomfortable reflections, facts, inquiries, coming out — whether about the U.S. attorneys, torture, memoirs, whatever — they’re going to be employed inevitably and inexorably by the Obama administration, which is going to say, ‘Look: They’re worse.’”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091014/pl_politico/28261

[red states rule]

Rich Lowry hits it out of the park




The Bush Blame Game
By Rich Lowry

Republicans needn't trouble themselves to nominate a presidential candidate in 2012. No matter what, Pres. Barack Obama will be running against George W. Bush.

Bush will be Obama's eternal foil. At this rate, when Obama writes his post-presidential memoir, it will be titled: An Audacious Presidency, or How I Saved America from That Bastard Bush. His presidential library will have a special fright-house wing devoted to Bush's misrule. He will mutter in his senescence about 43, like the Ancient Mariner about his albatross.

Obama clearly wants Bush to be the Hoover to his FDR. Since his predecessor left office with 34 percent job approval, Obama understandably feels moved to scorn and berate him. But Obama's perpetual campaign against Bush is graceless, whiny, and tin-eared. Must the leader of the free world - if Obama still accepts that quaint formulation - always reach for the convenient excuse?

No doubt, Obama inherited formidable challenges, but it's usually thus. The presidency is a miserable job. During our first inaugural marking a presidential transition, John Adams thought he could almost hear George Washington thinking: "I am fairly out and you fairly in! See which of us will be happiest."

Obama complains of having to clean up what he charmingly calls "somebody else's mess." Obama took office during a stomach-churning financial crisis, and he now brags, "We've rescued our economy from catastrophe." Who's "we"? When then‑Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke confronted Bush with the magnitude of the crisis last fall, he told them to do anything necessary to fight it.

Bush's support of the ideologically uncongenial TARP legislation, together with Bernanke's expansive actions at the Fed, rescued the system. But Obama takes the credit, while pretending Bush heedlessly let the economy burn - a tack that is in equal measures petty and dishonest.

Obama also blames Bush for the deficit, now at $1.4 trillion. Whatever his own profligacy, Bush didn't compel Obama to spend money nearly as fast as it could be printed, or to roughly double the projected debt over the next decade. Obama's motto apparently is, "Stop Bush - before he makes me spend again!"

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/20/the_bush_blame_game_98792.html