'W' as Jimmy Carter...
I've heard the rumblings from some on the internet that 'W' is really just another Jimmy Carter. Other than both being unpopular presidents, 'W' and Carter could not be more different. And while it might be interesting to compare and contrast these two, I had a thought I found more compelling. I think 'W' is the new Nixon.
I think Bush will leave the Republicans high and dry in the upcoming elections. The Democrats stand a good chance to sweep many national elections and will probably put a person in the white house in '08 regardless of who they put forth, solely on the public opinion backlash against Bush. I don't see the Democrats earning these seats on merit or promises, but merely on the bad state of public opinion left by the Republicans, much as Nixon left things in the early '70s.
What came of the Nixon backlash was what I consider to be the worst economic period of my lifetime, the late '70s and the Carter administration. I truly fear that a directionless Democratic party will take their new found power and make matters worse. The Democrats need to shore up their platform and start planning now. I was watching a Michael Moore speach on CPAN a couple of months ago. He was talking to a large group of Democrat big wigs. He asked a very simple question: "What do the Democrats stand for?" I was the only one with an answer, the Democrats are the party of abortion. Its their one unifying issue. Its not an issue that will help with any of the large problems the country faces now (large deficits, oil dependance, Iraq etc). Without a more reasonable response to this query the country stands to lose greatly in the upcoming elections.
The white house has already come to the same conclusion as I have as evidenced by their staffing shake-down. They realize that they have very little time to reverse public opinion and shore up poll numbers before election time. I know I hope they can turn things around, but I know many more people who are gleefully fiddling while Rome burns.
I'd be interested in seeing what others think (and explore the 'W' as Nixon/Carter angles).
I think Bush will leave the Republicans high and dry in the upcoming elections. The Democrats stand a good chance to sweep many national elections and will probably put a person in the white house in '08 regardless of who they put forth, solely on the public opinion backlash against Bush. I don't see the Democrats earning these seats on merit or promises, but merely on the bad state of public opinion left by the Republicans, much as Nixon left things in the early '70s.
What came of the Nixon backlash was what I consider to be the worst economic period of my lifetime, the late '70s and the Carter administration. I truly fear that a directionless Democratic party will take their new found power and make matters worse. The Democrats need to shore up their platform and start planning now. I was watching a Michael Moore speach on CPAN a couple of months ago. He was talking to a large group of Democrat big wigs. He asked a very simple question: "What do the Democrats stand for?" I was the only one with an answer, the Democrats are the party of abortion. Its their one unifying issue. Its not an issue that will help with any of the large problems the country faces now (large deficits, oil dependance, Iraq etc). Without a more reasonable response to this query the country stands to lose greatly in the upcoming elections.
The white house has already come to the same conclusion as I have as evidenced by their staffing shake-down. They realize that they have very little time to reverse public opinion and shore up poll numbers before election time. I know I hope they can turn things around, but I know many more people who are gleefully fiddling while Rome burns.
I'd be interested in seeing what others think (and explore the 'W' as Nixon/Carter angles).
posted by Carl at 12:33 PM
8 Comments:
I definitely don't see the Carter analogy. Bush's defining characteristic is his decisiveness. Carter's lack of decisiveness was his defining characteristic. Nixon, on the hand, was very decisive. Nixon, however was less charismatic than Bush, and also less religious. Maybe there's a Carter analogy there.
I'm not happy with either party right now. I'll be voting Democratic in November because I want them to capture either the House or Senate, and then I can watch the subpoenas fly down Pennsylvania Avenue.
I have no idea which side will win in '08. I think both parties have to move away from the status quo in order to win. The Republicans will get blown away if Frist is their candidate, and the Democrats will get slammed if Clinton is theirs. My personal choice for a Republican nominee right now is your Senator Chuck Hagel--I've grown a little leary of McCain of late. I don't know whom I would support on the Dems' side. I'm just looking forward to voting for Obama in about 10 years.
You're right the Democrats don't stand for any substantive issue(not even abortion--the frontrunner for the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate candicacy Bob Casey Jr. is very pro-life). The only thing uniting them right now is Bush. However, there seems to be just as many cracks on the Republican's sides. The Republicans have 3 components: business, religious, and libertarian. These 3 groups are not at all happy with each other. The religious are not happy with the lack of results, the libertarians are not happy with how government are expanded, and the business types wish the other groups would shut up so that they can continue to get their way (Bush gives lip service to the religious right, but his substance is solidly with business). I'm not sure losing power would exacerbate or heal these divisions.
As for Hagel, not McCain: I can almost bet that if Hagel got the nod McCain would be his runnimg mate and vice versa. I saw Hagel on the street after a football game last fall and I said to him "McCain/Hagel '08?" He just smiled.
I don't see what the love affair with Obama is. I just don't get it. He strikes me as another pass the buck, blame the other guy democrat.
As for Bush is Carter, I think the two are polar opposites, other than their legacies might be similar.
I'm very afraid of Hillary in '08. I think its a perfect storm brewing and she may win the White House. If she does it'll be a horrific state of affairs.
Hmm, I posted, but it never showed up. Anyway, here's a recap.
I've never understood how conservatives demonized the Clintons in the 90s. How they were treated goes a long way to explain how poisonous the current political atmosphere. Liberal now think it's okay to demonize Bush just as conservatives did in the 90s. My #1 political issue in 2008 is which candidate can best heal this atmosphere. I think Obama gets it in a way that Reid and Pelosi don't. On the Repubican side, I think Hagel gets it more than any other.
Also I asked about another Nebraska issue: are you supporting Nelson in the Sanate race?
Senate race:
Tough call. Ben Nelson has been an excellent senator and I'm certainly leaning towards voting for him, but I still have a bad taste in my mouth about some of the things he did as govenor. (OK, the ONE thing he did as governor that left us in the learch was his handling of the low level nuclear waste dump. That issue ended with Nebraska having to pay out about $250 million in damages. I totally blame Nelson for that.)
There is a republican senatorial candidate that I find appealing, but he's super-uber-conservative; Pete Ricketts. I'll have to read up more on him before he gets my vote.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
'08 is a LONG way off. Who thought Clinton would get re-elected during the '94 midterm elections?
Still, I'm fairly sure Hillary can't win. Besides the fact that she is hated by about 50% of the American people, she is as boring a speaker Being loved is apparently more important than being hated.
I think the only unifying theme of the Republicans is a hatred of liberals (although they do not define that term uniformly). It has been a solid majority, but might crack when they can't get anything accomplished in the majority.
As for Zathras' claim that Obama can unify people, I think he is too calculating. He also had that fight with McCain.
I also think that the conservative reaction to Clinton had to do with (1) a reaction to Nixon's impeachment, and (2) their hatred of Clinton's smarminess, which they never bought.
You could make an argument that W is like Johnson, whose presidency was undone by a war waged because he fundamentally didn't understand the enemy.
Here's an article that looks at Bush as viewed by historians. Not very flattering at all. The historians give a 12% approval rating to Bush, with an equal number saying he is the worst president ever.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history?rnd=1145468541266&has-player=true&version=6.0.8.1024
There are also some comparisons drawn in the article from Bush to Johnson and Truman. But it also says Bush goes further. AS Mark would say, money quote:
Bush has more in common with post-1945 Democratic presidents Truman and Johnson, who both became bogged down in overseas military conflicts with no end, let alone victory, in sight. But Bush has become bogged down in a singularly crippling way. On September 10th, 2001, he held among the lowest ratings of any modern president for that point in a first term. (Only Gerald Ford, his popularity reeling after his pardon of Nixon, had comparable numbers.) The attacks the following day transformed Bush's presidency, giving him an extraordinary opportunity to achieve greatness. Some of the early signs were encouraging. Bush's simple, unflinching eloquence and his quick toppling of the Taliban government in Afghanistan rallied the nation. Yet even then, Bush wasted his chance by quickly choosing partisanship over leadership.
Yes, the article is biased, but it makes some good points.
Post a Comment
<< Home