Bush - Clinton - Bush - Clinton: How did that happen?!

oscarBravo

Sorry, we're too up our own arse here to consider such a thing.

Moriarty

/smirks

snow scorpion

PullMyFinger! wrote: »

If Hilary wins the Primary today (and she's the fave to) then it looks like she'll be the next Presdient of the US. Now, Id love to know *how* in the name of Jebus this happened. How did 2 families gain so much power in one country?

Im looking for normal, sensible replies.

I'll take a shot at giving you a normal, sensible reply:

1988: Bush the Elder is elected because (1) the voters wanted a third term of Reagan's policies and assumed Reagan's veep would deliver them and (2) the Democrats ran a Massachusetts liberal whose politics were well to the left of mainstream America's politics.

1992: Clinton is elected because Bush's tax increase (the largest in America's history in terms of total dollars and the second largest in America's history as a percentage of GDP) drove the American economy into a recession and the voters (rightfully) blamed Bush for it. Also, Clinton was a vastly superior campaigner. Clinton came across as a warm likable guy whereas Bush came across as a stiff bureaucrat.

1996: Clinton defeats Bob Dole on the strength of a healthy economy and the fact that America was "at peace." (The fact that Clinton's policies did nothing to create the healthy economy or there were 4400 military personnel killed around the world during Clinton's first term didn't get much press coverage.)

2000: Bush the Younger defeats Gore in part because America was exhausted from "Clinton-fatigue" and the seemingly endless series of scandals. (I recall reading somewhere Bill and Hillary were involved in a new scandal, on average, once every seven weeks -- for eight years.) Also, Gore was a poor campaigner and Bush was noticeably more likable on the campaign trail.

2004: Bush the Younger defeats John Kerry primarily because Bush touched a chord in the American psyche when he abandoned the Clinton strategy of fighting terrorism by either (a) doing nothing at all (a la the 1993 attempt to knock down the World Trade Towers) or (b) complaining that the UN should do solve our problem for us (a la the attacks on the embassies in Africa). The fact is America is a nation of cowboys and most Americans are proud of that reputation. Bush taking the fight to the terrorists was a purely American action. Also, John Kerry was a "tough sell" to the American voter. The Democrats tried to sell him as someone in touch with the common man (even though his first wife was worth $200 million and his second wife is a billionaire), a war hero (even though Kerry himself had given numerous versions of what he did and didn't do during his time in Viet Nam), and an intellectual (which often resulted in Kerry finding a way to simultaneously take both sides of almost every issue.)

2008: We might get another Clinton this year because the Democrat war machine considers the Clintons heroes among the Democrat Party. Why? I'm not sure. Possibly because Bill Clinton was the first Democrat since FDR to be serve a full term in office and then get re-elected.

The thing you have to remember, PullMyFinger!, is that very, very few people sincerely want to be President. Each four years the party that's out of power will offer up about a dozen or so potential candidates to challenge the incumbent President. And of that small handful, not all of them are serious about their bid. Some are trying to gain attention for themselves, some are trying to gain attention for a pet cause, and some are campaigning to be named veep on the winner's ticket - Huckabee seems to be doing that right now.

When you realize how few potential challengers are taken seriously every four years and how often a challenger who's a poor campaigner ends up being the nominee, it becomes more understandable how we could end up with two families going back and forth for four elections. It's an unusual situation, but nothing that could honestly be called bizarre or sinister.

Is that a sensible enough answer?

Lirange

snow scorpion wrote: »

I'll take a shot at giving you a normal, sensible reply:

Is that a sensible enough answer?

Sensible from the point of view of an arch conservative perhaps. Why do people persistently perceive and/or try to sell their partisan outlook as objective? Don't even waste your effort. It's completely transparent. At least own up to it.

This piece by Andrew Sullivan is much more insightful

snow scorpion

Lirange wrote: »

Sensible from the point of view of an arch conservative perhaps. Why do people persistently perceive and/or try to sell their partisan outlook as objective? Don't even waste your effort. It's completely transparent. At least own up to it.

I don't know what you're talking about. What part of my reply do you think was wrong?

Lirange

snow scorpion wrote: »

I don't know what you're talking about. What part of my reply do you think was wrong?

I will address those things since you asked.

Obviously my political views are vastly different from yours so you can contextualise the following however you wish.

snow scorpion wrote: »

1988: Bush the Elder is elected because (1) the voters wanted a third term of Reagan's policies and assumed Reagan's veep would deliver them and (2) the Democrats ran a Massachusetts liberal whose politics were well to the left of mainstream America's politics.

Part one I give you. Reagan was popular. It was the person. Not so much his policies. But for all the lionisation of Reagan by conservatives they ignore his penchant for excessive spending. He also raised taxes significantly numerous times. He ran massive budget deficits. And you can't blame it on the time that the Dems controlled congress. The so called "Reagan Democrats" got along swimmingly with the President and essentially were in the palm of his hand. Conservatives trumpet his rhetoric and ignore his actions.

Part 2 does not give an accurate picture. It had more to do with perceptions of leadership and personality than actual policies. Plenty of politicians to the left of Reagan AND Dukakis were elected in great numbers to both the Senate and the House. Dukakis was further right than most of the party at the time. Just mentioning a politician is from Massachussets may put the blinders on some people but I find it's always more useful to examine the actual candidate. William Weld and Mitt Romney, solid conservatives were elected Governor. Dems mistakenly believed that Dukakis was the antidote to Walter Mondale, who genuinely was far left of the "mainstream" in 1984 as much as that's a nebulous and misleading term. Dukakis was actually quite moderate. He just ran at the wrong time and lacked the persona/charisma.

snow scorpion wrote: »

1992: Clinton is elected because Bush's tax increase (the largest in America's history in terms of total dollars and the second largest in America's history as a percentage of GDP) drove the American economy into a recession and the voters (rightfully) blamed Bush for it. Also, Clinton was a vastly superior campaigner. Clinton came across as a warm likable guy whereas Bush came across as a stiff bureaucrat.

Bush's famous "read my lips" mantra definitely hurt him among the supply side conservative base. But if the economy had been in better shape it would not have mattered. The economic downfall was not due to Bush's tax increases. It had more to do with over speculation in the financial markets and especially the Savings and Loan crisis. The recession had essentially taken hold before
any lasting effects of Bush's fiscal policy could have instigated anything ... though I do agree that fiscal recklessness doesn't help and can exacerbate the damage. I would argue that Reagan's 8 years of deficit budgets hurt the economy more. But really not all economic activity is in the hands of the executive or even the federal reserve. It's just that every time there's an economic downturn many supply siders always look around for a tax increase somewhere to blame, whether it's last year, 5 years ago, or a decade ago. You have many blaming the current economic weakness on the so called lag effect of the Clinton years. Strangely, Republicans more often than not get credit for good fiscal management when it's been the Democratic presidents in the last 30 years that have demonstrated better budgetary stewardship. Clinton and Carter balanced the budget and even ran surpluses. Something Bush I, Bush II, and Regan failed to do.

In any event, had populist, anti-supply sider, anti free-trade candidate Ross Perot not been in the running George H.W. Bush could still very well have won despite everything. Further evidence that a very large portion of the Republican rank and file are not Goldwater conservatives after all.

snow scorpion wrote: »

1996: Clinton defeats Bob Dole on the strength of a healthy economy and the fact that America was "at peace." (The fact that Clinton's policies did nothing to create the healthy economy or there were 4400 military personnel killed around the world during Clinton's first term didn't get much press coverage.)

Notice how you couldn't resist adding that little partisan addendum there? Clinton did not create the healthy economy, no. But he didn't screw it up either and that's not a feat to be taken lightly.

snow scorpion wrote: »

2000: Bush the Younger defeats Gore in part because America was exhausted from "Clinton-fatigue" and the seemingly endless series of scandals. (I recall reading somewhere Bill and Hillary were involved in a new scandal, on average, once every seven weeks -- for eight years.) Also, Gore was a poor campaigner and Bush was noticeably more likable on the campaign trail.

"Defeats" is an interesting term to use. I'll be generous and say that Bush only "won" by a quirk of America's electoral college system. Even then by only a few hundred disputed votes in one state. Nationally, more Americans voted for Gore than for Bush. That's a fact. So before examining the background behind victories or defeats keep that in mind. Especially before you start couching your arguments with the assumption of some sort of mandate.

Your point about scandals was probably the most stubbornly unbalanced aspect your post. Not so much for inaccuracy (Clinton did have several scandals in his latter term) but for your omissions. Namely that George W. Bush has broken the record books on scandals.

This is only the index. 168 pages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:George_W._Bush_administration_controversies

I would also argue that generally speaking .... most of Bush's scandals were of a more serious nature constitutionally and ethically.

snow scorpion wrote: »

2004: Bush the Younger defeats John Kerry primarily because Bush touched a chord in the American psyche when he abandoned the Clinton strategy of fighting terrorism by either (a) doing nothing at all (a la the 1993 attempt to knock down the World Trade Towers) or (b) complaining that the UN should do solve our problem for us (a la the attacks on the embassies in Africa). The fact is America is a nation of cowboys and most Americans are proud of that reputation. Bush taking the fight to the terrorists was a purely American action. Also, John Kerry was a "tough sell" to the American voter. The Democrats tried to sell him as someone in touch with the common man (even though his first wife was worth $200 million and his second wife is a billionaire), a war hero (even though Kerry himself had given numerous versions of what he did and didn't do during his time in Viet Nam), and an intellectual (which often resulted in Kerry finding a way to simultaneously take both sides of almost every issue.)

Of course, having Karl Rove in your corner helps. Swift-boating will forever be in the political lexicon. But yes Kerry did lack the image and persona which massively hurts in America's political environment. Even so, had the election been a year later George would have been out on his duff, Kerry or no. At this point Bush's scare tactics were still effective and the country was still trying to get over the 9/11 hangover. As it was, it was still a razor close election by historical standards even if by 2000 standards it looks comfortable. The result came down to the electoral college in one state. So Bush was still presiding over a divided country which is why your generalisations fall afoul, there was no consensus, thus no enthusiastic mandate as you seem to believe.

snow scorpion wrote: »

2008: We might get another Clinton this year because the Democrat war machine considers the Clintons heroes among the Democrat Party. Why? I'm not sure. Possibly because Bill Clinton was the first Democrat since FDR to be serve a full term in office and then get re-elected.

It should have been a slam dunk for Hilary. It hasn't been. I guess some people in the party want to replace the "machine" with something that hums along a bit more smoothly with better shocks and suspension.

snow scorpion wrote: »

The thing you have to remember, PullMyFinger!, is that very, very few people sincerely want to be President.

I doubt that. The ambition of most politicians is usually unquenchable. I think you're mistaking realpolitik for reluctance.

Black Swan

I believe Jeb Bush's son is named George Bush? He'll be King George III someday. By then the USA will be buddy buddy with the Middle Eastern countries and probably stirring up trouble with the PRC?

McCain and the Republicans better hope that Obama and Clinton don't run on the same ticket for Pres and VP. They sure have been polite towards each other lately, so just maybe they are leaving the door open for such a move after the primaries have ended?

Jay P

Haha, noice, never though of that before. Kudos for you