Free Markets, Free People


Democrats to run against Bush – again – in November

As I pointed out yesterday, for the first time the latest poll shows more blame Obama for the economy than Bush.

However, as someone pointed out, if they’ve blamed Bush this long, the attempt must have met with a measure of success. And that’s probably true.

But, as mentioned in the post, blaming someone else for current problems is only effective if it is clear that person is directly responsible for the situation today.  18 months after taking office and with more than enough time to enact one’s own economic policies makes that former connection iffy at best.  Bottom line – blaming someone else for today’s problems has a shelf life, and in this case it seems it is expiring.

While it may be silly in some respects to blame (or credit) the president in power for the economy, it is the way politics in this country work.  So, given that and the length of time Barack Obama has been in office, people are coming to consider this the Obama economy.  And, as you might imagine, they’re not pleased.

So blaming Bush now, as the new poll demonstrates, is loosing whatever steam it once had.  Common Sense 101 says you abandon that political card in favor of another one then.

But as I’ve pointed out so many times in the past, politicians and common sense seem only to meet by coincidence and not on purpose.  Enter Congressional Democrats.

They’ve decided their best strategy for this November is to dust off the “blame Bush” mantra and have another go at running against the former president.

As they brace for a difficult fall election, dispirited Democrats hoping to get back some of that 2008 magic are turning to the president for inspiration.

President Bush, that is.

Grainy images of the former president flashed across the screen in a recent ad by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) is attacking his GOP rival in a Senate race for his "advancement of the Bush agenda."

Even President Obama has begun taking direct shots at his predecessor, something he had been careful to avoid in recent months. "They don’t have a single idea that’s different from George Bush’s ideas — not one," Obama said during a speeches this week at fundraisers in Atlanta and Chicago.

Such a strategy smacks not only of desperation but of an attempt to divert attention.  If, as Democrats like to claim, they’ve “accomplished more” during this presidency and this Congress than any previous Democratic administration, why aren’t they running proudly on their record?

My goodness, they passed health care and financial regulation. They saved the car companies.  They “saved or created” 3 million jobs via the trillion dollar “stimulus”.  And they’ve got a 1.4 trillion dollar debt heavy budget in the wings waiting to be passed after the election.   What’s not to be proud of?

Well, those polls they pay attention too and they know as well as anyone that running on their “accomplishments” is a sure-fire way to defeat. 

So they will attempt to nationalize the mid-terms on the back of a former president thinking it will rescue them by repeating history.

"God bless America that he’s back in the conversation," a senior Democratic official on Capitol Hill said. "It’s a blessing from the heavens. If this becomes a referendum on George Bush, we are in a much better spot than anyone could imagine."

You have to chuckle at the inanity of such a statement, the pure stupidity that would allow someone to imagine that given their performance in these past 18 months and the visceral voter reaction to that performance, that trying to play the “blame Bush” card will do anything but worsen their defeat.

But most of us have always at least secretly wondered how those that reside within that fantasy land called “inside the beltway” become so disconnected from reality.  Well, here’s a perfect example of exactly that.  It must be something in the water.

~McQ

[tweetmeme only_single="false"]
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

23 Responses to Democrats to run against Bush – again – in November

  • People drowning in their own crapulence will grasp at any straw to save themselves…

    Even President Obama has begun taking direct shots at his predecessor, something he had been careful to avoid in recent months.

    Strange…  I can’t recall any such time.  He may not have used the name, but he can’t help but evoke Boooooosh.

    • Barack Obama has most definitely attacked George W. Bush directly.  Heck, it is even on the official page for <a href=http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-a-dnc-finance-event-atlanta-georgia>The White House</a>.
      I also seem to remember many Republicans placing the problems of the recession in 2001 squarely on the shoulders of Bill Clinton, and Democrats acted like this was a terrible accusation and that all the blame should go to the administration in office at the time.  Seems like Democrats only want to evoke the name Bush, regardless of who was or currently is president.

      • And of course, I cannot seem to include a link unless I click the little “HTML” button. The site is listed there, but hopefully, this link will work better.

      • placing the problems of the recession in 2001 squarely on the shoulders of Bill Clinton
        Yea .. it really was inconvenient that the recession started two months before Bush 43 was elected (Sept 2000).  I think it was why Gore didn’t use the “Clinton/Gore Economy” as a major theme in his campaign.

    • Who ever was responsible for the old adage ” If you fall off a horse, you need to climb right back in the saddle. ” probably wasn’t  talking about a dead horse. Bit there are those that love to keep on beating a dead horse. So whats new?

  • This is not surprising. One of the first rules of politics is to get your base energized and out to the polls. George W. Bush is the modern version of “the bloody shirt” (of the Civil War) Republicans used to rouse their voters from 1864 to 1904. What makes this an exquisite dilemma is that this may not work to rouse independent voters. It’s all well and good to get your partisans to vote agin the other guy. But how do you motivate the mushy middle? They will be asking “what’s in it for me”? The psychic benefit of getting another opportunity to vote NO on Bush’s presidency is roughly nil for an independent voter. None of the indicators of national well being are positive. That will reflect poorly on Democrats in any district where the attachment to the incumbent is weak. I think we will witness the Democrats struggling for the next few months trying to define a reason for people to vote FOR the local Democrat. In and of itself, that public struggle to generate a “reason” to vote for the Democratic candidate makes them look even weaker.

    • Trying to “relive 2008″ over and over again is like an addiction to drugs.
      I’m sure once the “Political Tsunami” hits in November, it will switch to blaming the newly elected Republicans, which should make blaming Bush harder, at least on a theoretical basis.

  • God bless America that he’s back in the conversation,”

    >>> He’s never left the conversation, as Baracky has been in blame Bush mode since minute one.

    At any rate, it’s a one-sided conversation since the public seems to be focused on the piece of trash in chief

    • Yeah, that guy’s quote needs to be fixed:

      “God bless America that he’s back in the conversationsoliloquy…”

      Because as our resident academic idiot regularly demonstrates, these guys love to lecture the rest of us, but they aren’t much good at conversation.

  • I think it was here that it was pointed out GWB, in his usual PR  mission to destroy the republican and conservative brands, published a book in November with leaks in October that will give the Left an easy excuse to revisit Bush and change the subject off current events.

    • Of course, we should not discount the recounting of Bush’s political negotiations with the Democrats in charge on Capitol Hill during his last two years, when the “housing bubble” was unraveling the economy.  Bringing too much attention to Bush might make it hard to ignore the ugly bipartisan truth.

      • The democrats successfully have hiddened their presense in 2007 & 2008. 

        Just ask someone who doesn’t follow politics closely or is a moderate or a democrat.  More often than not they’ll say the democrats took congress at the same time Obama took the WH. 

        In reality with all the RINOs, they’ve had congress all along. 

  • The very few things that THE ONE has managed to do RIGHT-ish in office are things he criticized W for constantly when campaigning (i.e., NOT closing GITMO, NOT pulling out of Iraq, NOT ending military detention, NOT ending the effort to gather electronic intel, etc.).
    Funny that he can follow the man he can’t stop smearing…

  • 18 months? The Democrats have been in power since the 2006 elections! The last GOP budget is the one that ended September 2007.

  • Since the time of Ronald Reagan NO Democrat running for national office, or serving in national office ever made a single speech in which they did not gratuitously slam the Republicans.

    Clinton, and Obama Especially have never once stopped campaigning, scolding, and lying about their opponents.

  • I’ve never seen the Democrats so phucked up as they are now.  It is something to behold.

  • “Democrats to run against Bush – again”

    Hopefully they will get it right this time and win, so we don’t have to listen to this crap -again. 

  • But when Bush’s name is tied to the economic ideas that conservatives are promoting, and they are identical, there is a 49-point swing in favor of Obama, the biggest swing Bennett said he’s ever seen in a poll. For Democrats searching for a light to lead them through the darkness, it might help to remind voters that while Bush is gone, his ideas live on in his ideological clones, and voting out the new crowd will only bring back the old crowd.

  • “They don’t have a single idea that’s different from George Bush’s ideas — not one,” Obama said during a speeches this week at fundraisers in Atlanta and Chicago.

    You know in far too many cases, it’s true.  Not so much they don’t have any ideas that are different from Bush’s, but they don’t have any new ideas, i.e. the next post on Vonnovich.
    Pubs are just as bereft of ideas as Dems.  Most of the time we’d be better off if we just paid them to play golf and nothing else.