President Bush Leaving Office More Unpoular Than Nixon

[Lemur]

I mean, sure, the guy has been a walking disaster, but worse the Nixon? I don't know that that's deserved. President Bush is not a tenth as smart as Nixon was. Shouldn't we hold intelligent people to higher standards? I don't know that it's fair to blame Bush personally for his own shortcomings.

I'm not making and sense, am I? Let me try again: Yes, he's a bad President. But not the worst, not by a long shot. Does he really deserve to be the most unpopular President since they started taking polls?

Article. (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/10/bush.transition.poll/)


On the day that President-elect Barack Obama is visiting the White House, a new national poll suggests that the current occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the most unpopular president since approval ratings were first sought more than six decades ago.

Seventy-six percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday disapprove of how President Bush is handling his job.

That's an all-time high in CNN polling and in Gallup polling dating back to World War II.

"No other president's disapproval rating has gone higher than 70 percent. Bush has managed to do that three times so far this year," says CNN polling director Keating Holland. "That means that Bush is now more unpopular than Richard Nixon was when he resigned from office during Watergate with a 66 percent disapproval rating."

Before Bush, the record holder for presidential disapproval was Harry Truman, with a 67 percent disapproval rating in January of 1952, his last full year in office.

[Yoyoma1910]

I think people view him as a combination of Hoover, Nixon, and ...someone not very intelligent. Or maybe Truman. So maybe people's displeasure is compounded by the amount of incompetence, not just the poor quality of work.

[Martok]

I think the real question is, why wasn't Nixon more unpopular than he was?

While I think Bush absolutely deserves his 76% disapproval rating, I'm a bit disturbed that "only" 66% disapproved of Nixon when he resigned. Surely he should've had a higher unfavorable rating than that, given he abused his position even worse than ol' Georgie-boy did -- and with less excuse too. At least Bush did what he felt was right (however horribly misguided he was); Nixon's misdeeds were based on far less noble impulses.

[Hooahguy]

did they have these kind of polls before the civil war? because then i think Buchanan takes the cake. i mean, the guy did NOTHING to stop the civil war, then left it all to lincoln, who did a darn good job at it.

[Yoyoma1910]

Bush has had a large amount of influence from Nixon's think tank. Cheney, Rumsfeld, and and special visits from a Mr. Kissinger.

[Lemur]

Surely he should've had a higher unfavorable rating than that, given he abused his position even worse than ol' Georgie-boy did -- and with less excuse too.
Hmm, not sure I can agree. Nixon never ordered that prisoners be tortured. And he never suspended habeas corpus. And he didn't actually start any wars. I think he was a worse President, but you can't argue that he abused his position more than Bush 43.


did they have these kind of polls before the civil war? because then i think Buchanan takes the cake. i mean, the guy did NOTHING to stop the civil war, then left it all to lincoln, who did a darn good job at it.
Yeah, I think a lot of people would agree on James Buchanan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan) as a top contender for Worst President Ever. Failing to stop a civil war, or even to apply the brakes effectively ... that's hard to top.

[Hooahguy]

anyhow, maybe something will come up and bush actually does it RIGHT and his ratings goes thru the roof.
you never know. :wink:

[seireikhaan]

I think the real question is, why wasn't Nixon more unpopular than he was?

While I think Bush absolutely deserves his 76% disapproval rating, I'm a bit disturbed that "only" 66% disapproved of Nixon when he resigned. Surely he should've had a higher unfavorable rating than that, given he abused his position even worse than ol' Georgie-boy did -- and with less excuse too. At least Bush did what he felt was right (however horribly misguided he was); Nixon's misdeeds were based on far less noble impulses.
Probably on account of the fact that a lot of people still held him in high regard for getting us out of Vietnam. Plus, the fact that he was able to effectively "seal" the Chinese off from the Soviets and "got them" to open their borders(as to how much this was due to him is somewhat debatable), means that, if not for Watergate, Nixon would likely be regarded as one of the top President's in a while.

[Mikeus Caesar]

anyhow, maybe something will come up and bush actually does it RIGHT and his ratings goes thru the roof.
you never know. :wink:

Hahah, yeah sure, and a black guy will be elected president....

Oh, wait.

:oops:

[Spino]

I think Bush's approval rating is as much a reflection of the times as it is his own incompetency. This is not to say he doesn't deserve it but I think people are a tad too eager to blame him for things beyond his control, much in the same way they were a tad too eager to think he was doing a great job once we reached Baghdad. Furthermore it's painfully obvious Bush is getting blamed for crap he didn't cause, like the mortgage meltdown crisis and the legacy of the economic abomination called a 'subprime loan'. On the other hand blaming the president during bad economic times is pretty standard. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge as to how our government works knows Congress is the real root of the problem and the source of all solutions. Since the average idiot knows nothing about how our government works they immediately place the blame at the feet of our symbolic alpha.

There is an unprecedented level of disgust for our government in general. The media is not giving enough air time to the fact that Congress' approval rating is still far below the president's. I would not be surprised if Congress' single digit/low double digit approval rating is an infamous record in its own right.

Nixon was a naughty boy for sure, but politically motivated dirty tricks and criminal acts are nothing new and at the time I'm sure the average American measured that against his handling of the Vietnam War, going to China, etc. Basically Nixon had one terrible negative which were measured against a slew of positive ones. Bush however had a few positive accomplishments and a slew of negative ones.

[Marshal Murat]

I would think that considering the level of unpopularity connected to Bush is only because of what Spino said. He is being blamed for some decisions that weren't his. It isn't to say he isn't unpopular or the best president, but he isn't the worst president. If anything, he'll probably come out on top, somewhat akin to Woodrow Wilson. See below link

1920 U.S. Election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1920)
If you read the article, you'll realize how unpopular the Democrats were across the country, and how badly Wilson was hated.

Harding's victory remains the largest popular-vote percentage margin (26.2%), 60.3% to 34.1%, since the election of 1820.
and

Warren Harding's main campaign slogan was a "return to normalcy", playing upon the weariness of the American public after the social upheaval of the Progressive Era. Additionally, World War I and the Treaty of Versailles proved deeply unpopular, causing a reaction against Wilson who had pushed especially hard for the latter.

Wilson involved the US in numerous wars from the Philippines to Latin America, and into Europe. He made almost everyone unhappy, and persecuted hundreds with Palmer raids on "Communists" and "Anti-Espionage" acts that took away more rights than Bush has ever taken away. I wouldn't be surprised if he did authorize alot of torture. He's also the first president to segregate the bureaucracy, forcing blacks out of government positions.

All in all, Bush isn't soooo bad. But he is pretty bad.

[Kralizec]

You left out a p :balloon2:

Many politicians that were unpopular at the end of their career are judged more benignly after a couple of years or decades, look at Truman for example. Bush, I think, is judged unfairly by some things wich he didn't influence to a meaningful degree. On the other hand quite a few people didn't mind Guantanamo Bay for example (or still don't), stuff wich might be judged negatively by larger numbers in the future. I think he'll end on the lower half of most lists, but I don't think many historians will call him the worst ever.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Bush is one of America's greatest presidents ever. :yes:

While the world was celebrating the end of history and the final triumph of liberal democracy, Bush was one of the few leaders to recognise that there was a grave threat brewing. That of Islamofascism. Bravely resisting public opinion at home and abroad, Bush managed to devote a great deal of the resources of the world's greatest democracy to counter the threat. Simultanously, he aggresively spread trade throughout the world, bringing and entangling East Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Southern Africa into a global capitalist camp.
This put the ball into the Islamofascist camp. Pressured by the sight of the entire world booming while they stayed behind. Pressured by a front that was brought home. Pressured by the sight of Iraq slowly turning into a stable country. Pressured by an ideological front that centered around America's staunch counterstrategy to Islamofascism. Slowly, they crumbled under the weight, like Reagan managed to crush Communism by outspending it.

Bush also offered a more alluring counterstrategy. America under Bush was more open than at any time before. Trade flourished more than ever before, thanks to Bush' strict adherence to open trade agreements, despite fierce opposition at home and abroad. Bush allowed in more immigrants than any president before, despite fierce opposition. The openness of Bush' America culminated in the election of a Black president named Barack - a man of inconsequential further historical relevance - as would be the norm after him in America, and which, as always, would slowly spread troughout the free world. A free world, that had been enlarged enormously thanks the the aggressive efforts of Bush.

Roosevelt, Reagan, Bush, the trio of presidents that, at a crucial crossroads of history, recognised the danger and in the face of nearly insurmountable opposition and outright mockery, oversaw a great American triumph over the forces of evil. This, each managed by opening up America. By boldly engaging in the challenge the world set before America and overcoming it. By tapping America's Godlike potential for change, for ever more openness, for overcoming any odds.

Bush was a fantastic president. :2thumbsup:

[Hooahguy]

i love when ur sarcastic.... :yes:
:smash:

[Louis VI the Fat]

i love when ur sarcastic.... :yes:
:smash:What if I'm not? :sweatdrop:


I say the world wasted its energy on petty rearguard arguments against Bush. While I have an eye for the big picture and the flow of the long undercurrents of history.

Reagan was intensely unpopular, yet we now acknowledge he was the beginning of the end of a communist storm that had been brweing for decades. Roosevelt was intensely oppossed, yet he brought an end to a long tide of increasingly powerful undemocratic forces.
Bush recognised the danger as well. And he has set all the parameters for the triumph of liberty.

History hasn't written his verdict about Bush yet...

[Marshal Murat]

Louis, if you want us to read Conservipedia, just link it.

[Ice]

What if I'm not? :sweatdrop:


I say the world wasted its energy on petty rearguard arguments against Bush. While I have an eye for the big picture and the flow of the long undercurrents of history.

Reagan was intensely unpopular, yet we now acknowledge he was the beginning of the end of a communist storm that had been brweing for decades. Roosevelt was intensely oppossed, yet he brought an end to a long tide of increasingly powerful undemocratic forces.
Bush recognised the danger as well. And he has set all the parameters for the triumph of liberty.

History hasn't written his verdict about Bush yet...

I hadn't really thought about that too much to be honest. I'll get back to you in about 10 or 20 years. :beam:


Louis, if you want us to read Conservipedia, just link it.

Bush was the best thing since sliced bread, god actually told bush to invade iraq, and apparently Charles Darwin was a monkey himself! This and much much more!

[Ronin]

Bush was the best thing since sliced bread, god actually told bush to invade iraq,

but God told the Pope that the war on Iraq was wrong....does this make God a flip-flopper???? :wiseguy:

God also told us to beat our swords into plowshares....

God...wrong on defense....wrong for America!

:coffeenews::saint:

[Gregoshi]

Bush was the best thing since sliced bread, god actually told bush to invade iraq,



but God told the Pope that the war on Iraq was wrong....does this make God a flip-flopper???? :wiseguy:

Wrong conclusion Ronin. God wanted Bush to be a bad president. ~;)

[Ronin]

Wrong conclusion Ronin. God wanted Bush to be a bad president. ~;)


so God rickrolled Bush?

playa God!!! *respect* :wiseguy:

[CountArach]

Louis, that was a marvellous post :bow:

[English assassin]

I'm a bit hazy on why was Nixon a bad president?

Watergate was bad, of course. Probably, really quite bad, in a way. I guess there was a certain lack of respect for the law and so on there. But then again, as far as I know he wasn't planning to suspend the constitution and make himself dictator for life? I'm not suggesting that presidents should positively be allowed to act illegally to get re-elected, but, hey, compared to Bush?

I think I prefer evil to dumb.

But in terms of what Nixon actually did for America, was he that bad? I'm afraid the only thing I know about him is he was in the saddle when you got out of Vietnam, and of course the trip to China. Neither of those seem bad things. I gather there are two views on detente now, but at the time I can't see that you could have said it was a bad thing either.

Can anyone help? What were his domestic policies like?

[Lemur]

I think I prefer evil to dumb.
I'll agree to that sentiment any day of the week.

After reflecting on it for a few days, I guess Bush has been a worse President than Nixon, but neither man ranks at the absolute bottom of the barrel.

Nixon was actually quite the centrist, and he accomplished a lot of things that would be considered laudable by Democrats and Indies. If he were running for office today with the positions he held while in office, he'd be hounded out as a RINO by the Limbaugh/Fox News wing of the Republican Party.

[Hosakawa Tito]

I'm a bit hazy on why was Nixon a bad president?

Watergate was bad, of course. Probably, really quite bad, in a way. I guess there was a certain lack of respect for the law and so on there. But then again, as far as I know he wasn't planning to suspend the constitution and make himself dictator for life? I'm not suggesting that presidents should positively be allowed to act illegally to get re-elected, but, hey, compared to Bush?

I think I prefer evil to dumb.

But in terms of what Nixon actually did for America, was he that bad? I'm afraid the only thing I know about him is he was in the saddle when you got out of Vietnam, and of course the trip to China. Neither of those seem bad things. I gather there are two views on detente now, but at the time I can't see that you could have said it was a bad thing either.

Can anyone help? What were his domestic policies like?

Nixon's plan to get the US out of Vietnam took 4 years, but was better than anything the Democrats had in mind, which was to fight on. Invading Cambodia & Laos to deny the North Vietnamese safe havens and heavily bombing Hanoi brought the Communists back to the Paris Peace talks. This culminated in his "Peace with Honor" treaty with the North. Combat troops were then withdrawn and within 2 years the Communist North broke the treaty and swept the South Vietnamese from power.

Nixon reached out to China at a time when the Western Democracies shunned the Mao regime.

Nixon also created the Environmental Protection Agency. All three of these things were very good for the US.

However, Nixon's downfall was his "Dick Cheney" like disregard for the law. Nixon used the IRS and the FBI to harass, arrest, & spy on his political rivals, media & civil critics or anyone else who dared to oppose him & his policies. Tricky Dick felt since he was the President that he was above the law, and when caught trying to coverup the WaterGate scandal he was exposed for the liar, crook, and nasty s.o.b. that he was. His string of deception took years to surface and for quite some time he denied it all. He eventually did admit to most of it, but his disgrace was total and the stain and distrust of the Executive branch took years to rebuild.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Yes, Hooahguy, while maybe not being sarcastic, I was not entirely convinced myself that what i wrote was true. You picked up on that correctly. ~;)

However, I am not entirely convinced that I was wrong either. There is a possibility that in thirty years history will judge Bush in the way I outlined. There is a possibility that they are right about it too.

It is always good to challenge yourself. To take the other perspective. I still struggle with the neo-con project that dominated Bush I. What if they were right?
They named North Korea, Iraq and Iran as an axis of evil. They strove for regime change. There is part of me that thinks that maybe they were not wrong.
Islamofascism has been brewing for decades. Bush and the neo-cons made themselves their enemy. They recognised the danger, they named it, they met it physically and ideologically. Were they wrong?

After all these years, I am still struggling with it. I am still struggling with Iraq too. I can honestly not say with full confidence that they were wrong.

[LittleGrizzly]

After all these years, I am still struggling with it. I am still struggling with Iraq too. I can honestly not say with full confidence that they were wrong.

I know what you mean..... the talk of country building and replacing tyranny with democracys are very lofty goals that it is hard to disagree with, infact i would say they are fantastic goals for any foriegn policy, but what it comes down to for me with iraq is, wrong place, wrong time and wrong reasons. Apart from that i was 100% behind the thing...

[Lemur]

Ouch, just ouch (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5147422.ece).


With Russian tanks only 30 miles from Tbilisi on August 12, Mr Sarkozy told Mr Putin that the world would not accept the overthrow of Georgia’s Government. According to Mr Levitte, the Russian seemed unconcerned by international reaction. “I am going to hang Saakashvili by the *****,” Mr Putin declared.

Mr Sarkozy thought he had misheard. “Hang him?” — he asked. “Why not?” Mr Putin replied. “The Americans hanged Saddam Hussein.”

Mr Sarkozy, using the familiar tu, tried to reason with him: “Yes but do you want to end up like [President] Bush?” Mr Putin was briefly lost for words, then said: “Ah — you have scored a point there.”

[rasoforos]

Nixon was just a crook.

But Dubya has broken every record for purposefull immorality. (and all in the name of God)

Nixon was corrupt and had a greek vice-president and that is a recipe for disaster :P

But Dubya, being closely associated with the likes of Henry Kissinger who is considered a criminal and personna non grata in most of the planet didnt help either.


Simply put, the problem is that noone really believed Nixon. But people believed Dubya and he used Patriotism and God to make em believe. So it stands to reason that he is disliked more than Nixon to me.

[Banquo's Ghost]

But Dubya has broken every record for purposefull immorality. (and all in the name of God)

Lord knows I hold no candle for the Bush administration, but I don't think President Bush can be accused of purposeful immorality.

I think the president is a decent man whose belief system brooked no internal reflection or personal challenge. He was maintained in this rigid thought by more manipulative people around him. It should be remembered that on the day after 9-11, pretty much his entire constituency was baying for blood and revenge. It takes a strong man to resist that siren call yet still take effective action.

From that moment, he gave into every dark thought a conservative soul is prone too - control, pre-emption, demonisation. He was facilitated in this by a compliant and equally unthinking Congress.

Nonetheless, one has to remember always that he firmly believed that he was protecting the American people - which is his first duty as president.

He can be accused of rigid certainty and lack of empathy - a huge failing in any leader - but personal, purposeful, immorality is, I think, an imputation too far.

Nixon however, was indeed a crook and knew it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Banquo:

Nice try (and I agree with a number of your points) You are wasting your time.

Nixon is history, and therefore not so bad (but he was a crook, and knew it/considered himself above the law).

Bush is current, and therefore the acme of evil (i.e. only that which I personally have experience with can be viewed as the "best" or "worst," it is impossible that the best or worst preceded me).

His detractors will brook no "gray area" assessments and cannot find ANY other explanation for his foreign policy decisions aside from abject stupidity, greed and/or religious fanaticism.

Give Bush 35 years and some calmer reflection will be allowed. For now, he must serve as the Emperor to Sen. Obama's Luke.

[Martok]

Give Bush 35 years and some calmer reflection will be allowed. For now, he must serve as the Emperor to Sen. Obama's Luke.
Sigged. :laugh4:

[Samurai Waki]

Well, all in all the Galactic Empire wasn't so bad, after all, they did end slavery which had been a part of the Republic for millenia. OTOH, it did cost a few planets and billions of lives...

nvm.

[Devastatin Dave]

Bush is one of America's greatest presidents ever. :yes:

While the world was celebrating the end of history and the final triumph of liberal democracy, Bush was one of the few leaders to recognise that there was a grave threat brewing. That of Islamofascism. Bravely resisting public opinion at home and abroad, Bush managed to devote a great deal of the resources of the world's greatest democracy to counter the threat. Simultanously, he aggresively spread trade throughout the world, bringing and entangling East Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Southern Africa into a global capitalist camp.
This put the ball into the Islamofascist camp. Pressured by the sight of the entire world booming while they stayed behind. Pressured by a front that was brought home. Pressured by the sight of Iraq slowly turning into a stable country. Pressured by an ideological front that centered around America's staunch counterstrategy to Islamofascism. Slowly, they crumbled under the weight, like Reagan managed to crush Communism by outspending it.

Bush also offered a more alluring counterstrategy. America under Bush was more open than at any time before. Trade flourished more than ever before, thanks to Bush' strict adherence to open trade agreements, despite fierce opposition at home and abroad. Bush allowed in more immigrants than any president before, despite fierce opposition. The openness of Bush' America culminated in the election of a Black president named Barack - a man of inconsequential further historical relevance - as would be the norm after him in America, and which, as always, would slowly spread troughout the free world. A free world, that had been enlarged enormously thanks the the aggressive efforts of Bush.

Roosevelt, Reagan, Bush, the trio of presidents that, at a crucial crossroads of history, recognised the danger and in the face of nearly insurmountable opposition and outright mockery, oversaw a great American triumph over the forces of evil. This, each managed by opening up America. By boldly engaging in the challenge the world set before America and overcoming it. By tapping America's Godlike potential for change, for ever more openness, for overcoming any odds.

Bush was a fantastic president. :2thumbsup:

Another thing people forget is that no other US president has given as much funding for Africa and foriegn aid to the world. Not only that, he put more money into stem cell research than Clinton....

But of course, I hate him for those things, so go figure!!! I wish he was REALLY trading blood for oil. Things would be a lot better now. :laugh4:

[Devastatin Dave]

he gave into every dark thought a conservative soul is prone too - control, pre-emption, demonisation.
Really, so lefties like Mao, Stalin, Che, Ho Chi Min, Castro, Kim Jung Il are really conservatives? :laugh4:

[KarlXII]

Really, so lefties like Mao, Stalin, Che, Ho Chi Min, Castro, Kim Jung Il are really conservatives? :laugh4:

You mean your lovers? :2thumbsup:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Really, so lefties like Mao, Stalin, Che, Ho Chi Min, Castro, Kim Jung Il are really conservatives? :laugh4:

Well, Dave, yes indeed. But then I use the word "conservative" not as a battle flag, but in its intended meaning - one who conserves the status quo, is interested in traditional values and is cautious of change or innovation.

Of your list, only Che would not have fitted the description once they had imposed their revolutions (and no doubt, had he lived, he would have ended up a conservative too). The dark soul of conservatives I was describing is the urge to rely on law to control, not to trust people to behave, to impose the (often nostalgic and fantastical) tried and trusted, and restrict freedoms. Just as the dark soul of the liberal is too much trust, carelessness of people's fears, and a wanton disregard for the law and precedent if the law is perceived not to fit their current needs.

Each of the men noted by you created deeply conservative regimes, terrified of thought and change and characterised by rigid controls, false patriotism and the demonisation of an "Other".

I compare none of them to President Bush, save in noting the continuum. I also note that each of them started their political careers as revolutionary liberals - showing in the most extreme form, that we are all liberals when young, and all conservative when old.

To provide you with further LOLs, I consider myself a conservative, and recognise the dark soul of which I speak in my own political reactions. Not only am I quite a traditionalist, I am keen on fiscal responsibility. I am a strong advocate of the rule of law - which is why I devote myself to the cause of human rights and the respect for a system of international law.

I also whip hippies from my land and have been known to eat a baby or two with my kedgeree. :wink:

[Devastatin Dave]

I also whip hippies from my land and have been known to eat a baby or two with my kedgeree. :wink:

Then you have my respect sir, and as a token of my apreciation for a fellow conservative, I'm sending you a case of fresh newborn Cuban babies for your consumption. :2thumbsup:

[Devastatin Dave]

You mean your lovers? :2thumbsup:

Kim Jung Ill gave me VD....

[KarlXII]

Kim Jung Ill gave me VD....

You can't blame a man for being ronery.

[CountArach]

His detractors will brook no "gray area" assessments and cannot find ANY other explanation for his foreign policy decisions aside from abject stupidity, greed and/or religious fanaticism.
You mean there are other reasons? :wink:

[Jolt]

What I find most funny about this entire situation is that he is on his second term. It was evident in his first term how competent he was, and yet he was elected again. How could such a dumb President be elected twice? Who knows if he runs for President in a decade, people might elect him again.

[drone]

What I find most funny about this entire situation is that he is on his second term. It was evident in his first term how competent he was, and yet he was elected again. How could such a dumb President be elected twice? Who knows if he runs for President in a decade, people might elect him again.

Fortunately, he can't serve another term, so this won't happen. On his reelection, generally it is unconventional to vote out the president (commander in chief) during a war, and he was running against a very poor candidate put forth by the Democratic party. He was the idiot that we knew, and was therefore was kept in office. If the Democrats had offered up a real candidate, there would have been a very good chance of him losing in 2004.

[LittleGrizzly]

If you look at various ratings like presidential ratings and the like, it seems bush/republicans managed to hold up just about enough support to get through 2004 election, not long after bush approval rating dropped into the zone which probably would have seen him lose the election...

[Martok]

Fortunately, he can't serve another term, so this won't happen. On his reelection, generally it is unconventional to vote out the president (commander in chief) during a war, and he was running against a very poor candidate put forth by the Democratic party. He was the idiot that we knew, and was therefore was kept in office. If the Democrats had offered up a real candidate, there would have been a very good chance of him losing in 2004.
Unfortunately, drone is correct: Bush won because the Dems, in their infinite stupidity, nominated the weakest possible candidate. Had Edwards or even Dean gotten the nomination, they probably would've won.

[LittleGrizzly]

I would've have thought dean would have successfully been painted as loony, i thought he was too liberal for mainstream america, though his energy and charisma are obama like...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I would've have thought dean would have successfully been painted as loony, i thought he was too liberal for mainstream america, though his energy and charisma are obama like...

No way. Dean simply did not have Obama's charm. Martok may have a point about Edwards though -- he might have edged passed Bush in Ohio in 2004 and that would have been the difference.

In retrospect, the fact that a hyper-lib patricianesque twit like Kerry came as close to a win as he did should have been a huge wake-up call for the GOP. One which we ignored in the afterglow of the first majority of the popular vote we'd enjoyed since 1988.

[LittleGrizzly]

No way. Dean simply did not have Obama's charm.

I didn't mean charm by the charisma comment, i was probably misusing the word, i was talking more of his energetic personality...

In retrospect, the fact that a hyper-lib patricianesque twit like Kerry came as close to a win as he did should have been a huge wake-up call for the GOP.

I never got the feeling kerry was all that liberal, i assumed the most liberal eva comments to have as much in them as they did against obama... maybe i was wrong...

Incidentally i do remember having a discussion on this board with some republicans who were delighted with the fact Bush recieved more votes than reegan, maybe this added to a sense of safety in thier winning margins..

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No way. Dean simply did not have Obama's charm.

I didn't mean charm by the charisma comment, i was probably misusing the word, i was talking more of his energetic personality...

In retrospect, the fact that a hyper-lib patricianesque twit like Kerry came as close to a win as he did should have been a huge wake-up call for the GOP.

I never got the feeling kerry was all that liberal, i assumed the most liberal eva comments to have as much in them as they did against obama... maybe i was wrong...

Incidentally i do remember having a discussion on this board with some republicans who were delighted with the fact Bush recieved more votes than reegan, maybe this added to a sense of safety in thier winning margins..

Kerry's voting record and political stance -- beginning with his opposition to the Vietnam war -- was among the more staunchly left wing (USA def) records in Congress. Certainly as much as Obama (if not more) and with more of a track record to support that.

As to the misplaced sense of safety, you probably have a good point. There was certainly this sense of "maintaining the states Bush won" as being the dominant strategy for McCain. Obviously a "misunderestimation."

[Strike For The South]

I don't like Gulliani or Palin. Where does this leave me?

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't like Gulliani or Palin. Where does this leave me?

Romney you fool! You had your shot!

Giuliani will never run for president again, I'll put money on it. His showing was embarrassing and he sealed his fate; to be NY/Tri-State elected only.

Romney may go again in 2012, Palin would be smart to run in 2016 after two terms in the Governorship. If she could get a half term in as Senator that would be good too.

Jindal may go for it in 2012. Paul Ryan may be a Senator by then. Eric Cantor seems to have ambition. I wouldn't be suprised to see Chuck Hagel come back - he is interesting. I hope Huckabee stays on his talk show.

Rick Perry may run after the nation forgets about Texas Republicans, Crist might not be bad as long as he doesn't have a white-haired running mate or a boyfriend. Pawlenty would make a good run. Sanford, Hutchison etc.

Republicans have a bunch of bright and well educated guys and gals climbing the ranks. Some are in the House and may pick up a Senate seat, others will have aged by 2012 and 2016. The funny thing is that they don't all sound like hicks and can answer abstract questions. THe echelon that took legitimate offense to the GOP beign thought of as dumb and hillbilly is now gaining years in office.

We need to not run anyone like McCain or Dole again. If they are old they have to seem young or no ball.

[Martok]

If the Republicans nominate Romney or Palin in 2012, they'll be shooting themselves in the foot.

Jindal, Crist, or Pawlenty would be far better. Hell, they might even get *my* vote, depending on how Obama's doing by then. ~D


EDIT: And Senator Kerry? Liberal he may be, but he was also obnoxiously bland and uninspiring. As soon as I saw he was confirmed as the nominee, I knew Bush was in. :no:

[ICantSpellDawg]

If the Republicans nominate Romney or Palin in 2012, they'll be shooting themselves in the foot.

Jindal, Crist, or Pawlenty would be far better. Hell, they might even get *my* vote, depending on how Obama's doing by then. ~D


EDIT: And Senator Kerry? Liberal he may be, but he was also obnoxiously bland and uninspiring. As soon as I saw he was confirmed as the nominee, I knew Bush was in. :no:

Well that depends on what Romney does over these next 4 years. Republicans are unlikely to win an election to a sitting President. Nobody has done that since Carter and that was almost 30 years ago and he was most likely the worst (or second worst) President since the Great Depression. Even Bush won a second term and he is probably THE worst.

Romney excited me to a great extent with the unique qualities that he brought to the table. This primary season was about getting to know him, getting over his Mormonism and coming to terms that he is a pro-life convert. He is an incredibly gifted business man and has a knack for reducing the complex without really sacrificing complexity. He understands the difference between optimism and naivety and this primary will strengthen that understanding.

If he stays visible and takes a few more difficult tasks before 2012, he has a decent shot at picking up the nomination in 2012. I don't believe that he will ever be President, but even to a sitting president in 2012 I believe that he will have a better shot than any GOP contender did in 2008.

He will usher in a necessary re-birth of Ivy-League educated, Northeastern Republicans that will help re-claim some radical issues that are brilliant. The GOP can't survive shooting from the hip and speaking with a drawl about stopping progress. Unique, bright, and conservative solutions need to be developed instead of folksy rhetorical stop-signs.

In doing this he will help make the GOP a viable option to the new Democratic party.

[seireikhaan]

I must admit, I've gotten over Romney's "creepazoid" factor that bugged me so badly for months on end. I still to this day can't get over where his campaign advice was coming from him. As impressive as his track record was, his campaign was even more terrible. Trying to be the "ultra republican" and "democrats are bad people, we need a good Republican in the white house" was not only a terrible campaign idea, but also a genuinely bad concept for governence. Unfortunately, he has not seemed to have gotten out of this bizarre phase he's in, and until he does, he will never get my vote.

[Lemur]

I always kinda liked Romney. As I said many times during the primaries, I think he's a closet moderate, and that's a good thing. Also, the man has demonstrated competence as a business leader, which is a rarity in a politician.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I must admit, I've gotten over Romney's "creepazoid" factor that bugged me so badly for months on end. I still to this day can't get over where his campaign advice was coming from him. As impressive as his track record was, his campaign was even more terrible. Trying to be the "ultra republican" and "democrats are bad people, we need a good Republican in the white house" was not only a terrible campaign idea, but also a genuinely bad concept for governance. Unfortunately, he has not seemed to have gotten out of this bizarre phase he's in, and until he does, he will never get my vote.

He needs Noonan and Brooks to write for him if he is going to have another go at it.

He should focus on his unique positions and gifts like his private sector experience and population center conservatism that recognizes realities and tries to temper them; keeping what works and replacing what doesn't.

He has a shot. We need to cultivate Bobby Jindal's, Michael Steele's and Sarah Palin's to help us get marginalized pockets to feel more at home.

We don't need the two parties to merge into one party. We need a strong GOP just like we need a strong Democratic party that are seperate breeding grounds for different thought, but thought has to be a result.

Criticism will be good for us. 8 years should be enough, hopefully we can do it in 4.

[AlexanderSextus]

I don't like Gulliani or Palin. Where does this leave me?

PAUL!!!!!