Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The real reason Dems are tying GOP to Bush

UPDATE, 1:45 p.m.: A Democratic aide points out that the polling memo also contains empirical evidence that if the public is persuaded that voting Republican would be a return to Bush policies, it has a dramatic impact on voter attitudes:

If Americans believe that conservatives are espousing a return to the same economic ideas as those of the former President, the dynamic of the debate turns on its head. In two separate split sample questions, we tested President Obama's economic plan against a generic conservative economic plan. When the conservative plan failed to mention President Bush, it handily out-polled the President's agenda. When President Bush was inserted in the question, the Obama agenda easily won. In one split-sample, the difference was 49-points, in the other it was 23-points.

This is particularly pronounced among independents, the memo shows. It's more proof that Bush remains a potent issue, and explains the current Dem strategy.


ORIGINAL POST:

As you know, Democrats have lately been banging away harder than ever at the message that a vote for Republicans this fall is a vote for none other than George W. Bush. In recent days Dems have shouted this argument in every venue available.

There's a reason for this sudden aggressiveness, and it's one that Dems won't own up to publicly: The public may not yet be persuaded that a vote for Republicans is a vote to return to Bush's policies.

Dems have been circulating a polling memo, by the centrist group Third Way, arguing that Bush's economic policies remain deeply unpopular and that the public thinks those policies are to blame for the current mess. And, to be sure, multiple other polls show this. But the question is this: Does the public believe that electing Republicans now would represent a return to Bush policies?

There's a finding buried in that same memo that hasn't gotten attention, but it's key. It suggests that the public doesn't yet buy this:

Less than two years after leaving office, only 25% of Americans believe that if Republicans return to power in Congress their economic agenda will mean a return to former President Bush's economic policies. 65% say that a Republican Congress will promote a "new economic agenda that is different from George W. Bush's policies." Even Democrats and liberals are unconvinced that a Republican Congress means a return to Bushanomics. And moderates and Independents, the key swing blocs in all major policy debates, have completely divorced congressional Republicans from the economic philosophy and failed policies of President Bush.

This has some Dems worrying that the central Dem message has yet to sink in with voters. Dems fear the current crop of Congressional Republicans may have achieved separation from Bush in the public mind, at least for now.

According to one very plugged in Dem strategist, Democrats are privately asking themselves whether they are partly to blame for that separation.

After the 2008 elections, which were all about Bush, Dems turned to governing and largely dialed down the argument that the current crop of Republicans is indistinguishable in policy terms from Bush. They worry that this lull has allowed Republicans to rebrand themselves as different from Bush, even if that brand remains unpopular.

And that's why Dems are turning up the volume on the point that today's Republican policies -- the support for continuing Bush's tax cuts, the embrace of deregulation, Paul Ryan's push to do away with Social Security -- show that voting GOP is voting for a return to Bush.

"Why in the world would we want to go back to the same economic agenda that lost jobs for eight years?" DCCC chief Chris Van Hollen asked on Meet the Press recently. "What are you going to get that's different?"

The rub is that the public may not accept this yet. But Dems have a great deal at stake in making sure voters believe it.

By Greg Sargent  |  August 2, 2010; 12:41 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , House Dems , House GOPers , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans , economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama admin pushes back hard on right's charge that it's not protecting military voters
Next: No party switch for Ben Nelson, his office confirms

Comments

"As you know, Democrats have lately been banging away at the message that a vote for Republicans this fall is a vote for none other than George W. Bush."

Running agains the past translates into having no ideas for the future, and an unwillingness to run on your own, more recent, record in a positive manner.

I think that's not the best strategy, running against Bush. Given that he's not on any ticket. May appeal to some people, but I don't think that's a broad enough base to build an electoral victory on.

Certainly, there must be some other way to make the case that voting for Republicans is bad without having to spend a great deal of time focused on someone (W.) who isn't even running for any kind of political office.

Although, remember when Republicans brought up Barack Obama hanging out with Bill Ayer's a decade or so ago? That worked really well.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 2, 2010 12:50 PM | Report abuse

The proper way to sell the idea that the GOP is going to institute Bushonomics is to point out how Bush told the American people how he was a "different kind of" conservative...but then did all the things that conservatives wanted - which destroyed the economy.

Tie it to conservatism. Note that time and time again, Republicans claim that they will be different. But once in power, they keep doing the same things. It's a pattern, and continuously pointing out that pattern is way for this message to break through.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | August 2, 2010 12:51 PM | Report abuse

Since the current crop of Republicans are promising to go back to the same policies that Bush used to destroy the economy, and most of those Republicans supported those policies; it would be stupid of Democrats to not keep drawing attention to that fact.

Honestly Greg;

I fail to grasp what you are driving at. Are you suggesting that Democrats should not remind voters of that truth?

Posted by: Liam-still | August 2, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Related Ras poll:

"For the first time since President Obama took office, voters see his policies as equally to blame with those of President George W. Bush for the country’s current economic problems."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/august_2010/48_blame_obama_for_bad_economy_47_blame_bush

Posted by: sbj3 | August 2, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Nobody cares about Bushonomics, because the Republicans are successfully distracting low-info voters and old people with the threat of socialism and death panels, all while stoking racial resentment.

A pretty smart guy I'm friends with only through Facebook (mutual friend thing/lots of political commentary) is a conservative who links more often than Drudge. Anyway, the other day he posted a link to an article about the Maxine Waters case, and he commented that the Rangel and Waters messes resemble DC municipal politics. Get the connection?

Posted by: KathleenHusseininMaine | August 2, 2010 12:55 PM | Report abuse

The problem with this poll is that it doesn't tell you WHY they think the Republicans will go back to the Bush economic agenda.

For all we know, they don't think they will simply because those policies have been proven to be a failure. In the eyes of those people polled, when asked, they could be simply thinking "since those failed, why would Republicans want to go back to those policies?"

It will be up to the Democrats to show that, in fact, they do want to return to the Bush policies. The poll shows that they haven't won the message war quite yet.

Posted by: Quick2822 | August 2, 2010 12:57 PM | Report abuse

@TheBBQChickenMadness: "The proper way to sell the idea that the GOP is going to institute Bushonomics is to point out how Bush told the American people how he was a 'different kind of' conservative..."

He was. He was a pro-amnesty, pro-big government, gigantic bureaucracy-creating conservative. That being said, the idea that the party that won the Whitehouse, the house, and the senate, should run against a former president . . . well, heck, why not run against a much more beloved conservative icon, Ronald Reagan, to make your point? Or Richard Nixon, who was not a conservative in any meaningful sense but was certainly an unpopular Republican . . .

It may work, but I just don't thinking running against W. will work with anybody but a dedicated base who is almost certainly going to show up and vote for Democrats anyway. For everybody else, run against the current candidates, and on positive platforms of preferably specific policy goals.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 2, 2010 12:58 PM | Report abuse

"Nobody cares about Bushonomics, because the Republicans are successfully distracting low-info voters and old people with the threat of socialism and death panels, all while stoking racial resentment."

Also, Bush isn't president any more, and isn't running for anything.

Herbert Hoover is generally acknowledged as a god-awful Republican president. Why not run against him?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 2, 2010 1:02 PM | Report abuse

Kevin:

There is no need for such convoluted explaination.

President Obama has said it, in plain simple language.

They drove the country into the ditch. Why would you let them drive it again?

Posted by: Liam-still | August 2, 2010 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Let's not act like running against a former president is strange. Republcans still ran against Carter in 1982, Republicans still try to run against Clinton. It's a time honored tradition. Especially against a party that currently has no party governing platform and won't actually say what they would do if elected. Repeal Democratic legislation is not a governing platform.

Posted by: zattarra | August 2, 2010 1:05 PM | Report abuse

As a Democrat it is clear Obama should step back from all candidates running for office in November, he could bring down the party. Obama has become a liability to our party, his poll numbers are in free fall and it is clear America thinks he is a Marxist Communist. Next, blaming Bush is not going over with the public, everywhere I go people mock Obama saying "The Buck Stops With Bush." The party must break ties with Obama or it could set it back a 100 years.

Posted by: Richie5 | August 2, 2010 1:06 PM | Report abuse

"Also, Bush isn't president any more, and isn't running for anything."

You're right. That's why some of us are saying Bushonomics. And maybe what the Dems need to do is run against not the man but Bush policies. Or Republican policies. Or conservative policies. It's all one big scary monster to me, that's for sure.

Posted by: KathleenHusseininMaine | August 2, 2010 1:09 PM | Report abuse

This line of attack WILL work for the Dems because what you'll get in response from Republicans are either blank stares or fumbling back-pedaling.

I can just see the ads now - my Republican challenger proposes 'personalizing' Social Security. That's Bush policy! My Republican challenger proposes tax cuts for the rich without paying for them. That's what got us into this mess!

Posted by: bmcchgo | August 2, 2010 1:11 PM | Report abuse

"According to one very plugged in Dem strategist, Democrats are privately asking themselves whether they are partly to blame for that separation. "

Ya think? lol

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 2, 2010 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Maybe it's time to admit something that NO ONE in the media will. The public or at least those who were polled are either ignorant of just plain stupid. Exactly what is it that the public thinks would be so great about Republican control? As Greg just pointed out, from their disdain for regulation, to the Bush tax cuts, and even their defense of BP, what is different about that versus Bush's policies? Why don't pollsters ask the requsite follow up question after getting the idiotic answers to their initial questions? It's almost as if they don't want to ask them what is the reason they believe the GOP will be different because in the face of the cold, hard, facts, the public appears to be willfully ignorant. They don't appear to know what the hell they're talking about!

Posted by: roxsteady | August 2, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

The real reason?

Because we have lots of troops force projected around the entire world in the unending foreign civil wars of Republican adventure.

BRING ALL THE TROOPS HOME NOW AND STOP WHINING!

Posted by: WillSeattle | August 2, 2010 1:14 PM | Report abuse

"and it is clear America thinks he is a Marxist Communist. Next, blaming Bush is not going over with the public, everywhere I go people mock Obama saying "The Buck Stops With Bush." The party must break ties with Obama or it could set it back a 100 years."

Yes! By God you're right! How could we have not seen this with such clarity! Obama is a Marxist Communist.

Hallelujah!


Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 2, 2010 1:15 PM | Report abuse

@Kevin

"He was. He was a pro-amnesty, pro-big government, gigantic bureaucracy-creating conservative."

Maybe you've been reading too many Texas-based history books...but every GOP President for the last 30 years could easily be described as a "pro-big government, giagantic bureacracy-creating conservative".

@Liam

I agree, "Drove us into a ditch, don't give them the keys back." is effective.

I still think there should be a line about how the GOP constantly promises fiscal responsibility, and every time doesn't follow through. They have no credibility on economic issues, and it's time Dems said so, straight up.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | August 2, 2010 1:20 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans running for re-election all sat on their hands and allowed Bush to turn sucess into failure. They supported him lock, stock, and barrel. They refuse to accept any blame for their gross neglect and incompetence. They need to be called on this at every opportunity.

A party that can only chant "government is the problem" is incapable of governing. When they had the power, they didn't fix the problems, they made them worse.

Posted by: Chagasman | August 2, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

The have themselves to blame. When Republicans started whining en masse that Dems should lay off Bush, it was a tell that their number one fear was keeping Bush in the spotlight as the leader of the Republican Party. So what did Democrats do? They stopped talking about Bush.

Posted by: flounder2 | August 2, 2010 1:21 PM | Report abuse

I think that questions for republicans would be a great ad campaign.

Republican: Repeal health care!
Question: Congresscritter since you have offered no proposals to fix health care, should we GO BACK TO denials for preexisting conditions, rescissions, escalating premiums and 45 million uninsured?

Republican: Repeal fin reg:
Question: Congresscritter, since you have offered no proposals to meaningfully regulate the part of the economy that caused the greatest recession since WWII, should we GO BACK TO 150% interest loans from payday lenders?...

You get the drift. You don't have to tie it to bush. Tie it directly to the party of no, and party of no ideas. You don't have to say bush. Just ask, should we go back to what got us here?

Posted by: srw3 | August 2, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Once people start talking about the expiring tax cuts, there will be a major shift in opinion. It's already happening among the "wise heads"--of whom Greenspan is the ur. I can't believe the Goopers want to walk into this trap except, really, it's all they have left to offer their masters.

Posted by: joeff | August 2, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Bush and Boehner walk into a bar.

Bush turns to Boehner and says, "Hey uhhh...you know what the difference between you and me is?"

Boehner says to Bush "What's that Mr. President?"

"Nothing" he replies. "Get it? har har har"

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 2, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Spread The Word:


If you feel sorry for Billionaires, And Wish To Eradicate Working Class Americans; Vote Republican; This November.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 2, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Or tie them to the Ryan plan.

Posted by: srw3 | August 2, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

HA! Now someone needs to ask this jack@ss, "WHAT kind of JOBS are going to be created and WHERE?"

Cantor Admits Bush Tax Cuts Will Add To Deficits

At least one member of GOP leadership in Washington is willing to admit that extending the Bush tax cuts will increase deficits.

Appearing on MSNBC this morning, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor reiterated his support for renewing the Bush-era tax cuts for all income brackets, including high-income earners. But he was also forced to admit that doing so will balloon the deficit, at a time when deficits are the GOP's supposed cause du jour.

"[I]f you have less revenues coming into the federal government, and more expenditures, what does that add up to? Certainly you're gonna dig the hole deeper. But you also have to understand, if the priority is to get people back to work, is to start growing this economy again, uh, then you don't wanna make it more expensive for job creators.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/cantor-admits-bush-tax-cuts-will-add-to-deficits.php

Posted by: suekzoo1 | August 2, 2010 1:37 PM | Report abuse

So much FAIL! The White House political team should resign in shame.

Allowing your vanquished opposition ability to redefine itself and disappear its worst brand image is gross political malpractice. And that's setting aside how weak they've been in fighting off the GOP's efforts to redefine Obama as a radical socialist.

...Adding, the GOP still uses Jimmy Carter as a cudgel 30 years later, while the Dems allow Bush to be disappeared in just 18 months. Incredible...

Posted by: SteveinSacto | August 2, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Somethings Never Change. It Is As True Today As When He First Said It:

"If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic."

President Harry Truman


Keep using that quote.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 2, 2010 1:47 PM | Report abuse

The Republican's 5 point plan for America.
Fear, Hatred, Distortion, Distraction and Division.

Posted by: thebobbob | August 2, 2010 1:48 PM | Report abuse

I still think the GOP's "Contract on America" was a great idea.

I'd stick to that as its funny and hard hitting.

Lower wages, longer hours, less benefits, larger deficits, more cheap crap from China, etc. etc. etc.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 2, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

So, how's everyone doing in the echo chamber today?

A little panicked about the whuppin' you're gonna' get in November?

Yes, I see you are. Quite worried in fact.

What's that? It's all Bush's fault?

Wow, that's a new one!

Say, I've got this hangnail that's really bothering me. Can I blame that on Bush also?

Man, talk about being bereft of ideas. This blog & discussion board is a virtual black hole.

Oh and BTW, it won't change anything anyway. Prepare to get walloped.

Posted by: etpietro | August 2, 2010 1:59 PM | Report abuse

@Liam: "They drove the country into the ditch. Why would you let them drive it again?"

That seems pretty straight-forward, and isn't running against a specific now-retired candidate. I think that's a better way to approach it, but there still has to be some forward thinking, "and here's what we're going to do."

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 2, 2010 2:00 PM | Report abuse

etpietro, please, measure the drapes.

haha

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 2, 2010 2:01 PM | Report abuse

Another Right Winger: Hoists A Premature: "Mission Accomplished" banner. He has already won the elections that will not be held until Nov.

"Bring It On" Premature Elation Mope!

Posted by: Liam-still | August 2, 2010 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Eric Cantor says that renewing The Bush Tax Cuts Will Add To Deficits; but he wants to increase the deficit anyway; because this time, the cuts will create jobs, that they did not create the last time.

You know that old definition of Insanity: Doing the same thing again; and expecting different results.

From TPM

"Appearing on MSNBC this morning, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor reiterated his support for renewing the Bush-era tax cuts for all income brackets, including high-income earners. But he was also forced to admit, with apparent reluctance, that doing so will balloon the deficit, at a time when deficits are the GOP's supposed cause du jour.

"[I]f you have less revenues coming into the federal government, and more expenditures, what does that add up to? Certainly you're gonna dig the hole deeper. But you also have to understand, if the priority is to get people back to work, is to start growing this economy again, uh, then you don't wanna make it more expensive for job creators." "

Posted by: Liam-still | August 2, 2010 2:08 PM | Report abuse

"65% say that a Republican Congress will promote a "new economic agenda that is different from George W. Bush's policies.""

Holy COW. GREAT CATCH GREG. WOW.

65%???

Who are these people and where have they been?

Btw, etpietro, go tell families of the deceased Iraq soldiers that you compare the Iraq War to a hang nail. See how they like it. Over 4,000 Americans dead. Think of all the families, the children who won't have a father. Hangnail THIS, pal. I thought Republicans were all about Country First. But it turns out you don't even support the troops and their families (not to mention 9/11 responders) much less the rest of America. The Republican Party is a curse on America and our Freedom.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 2, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

The economy started going south after democrats took control of congress. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Obama and democrats have shown they don't know squat about economics other than give to unions and expand government control.

Sorry but intelligent people see through this "Bush Bush Bush" ruse liberals think will keep lasting.

Posted by: Cryos | August 2, 2010 2:22 PM | Report abuse

*American Manufacturing Up for 12th Consecutive Month*

but that's not all...

*Economy Expanded for 15th Consecutive Month!*

Gotta love good economic news. Right cryos?

@msn money central:

Stocks soar as confidence builds

Stocks started August with a bang, jumping at the open on better-than-expected reports on manufacturing and construction spending.

The move also got a big boost from rallies in Europe that lifted the euro against the dollar.

[...]

Manufacturing's resilience cheers investors
Today's biggest catalyst was the Institute for Supply Management's July report on manufacturing, which suggested that the economic recovery is slowing, but it's not dying.

The index fell back slightly to 55.5 from 56.2 in June, but the consensus estimate was 54.2. A reading above 50 indicates economic expansion. In fact, the ISM said, July marked the 12th month in a row where manufacturing expanded, and it also suggested that the economy grew for a 15th straight month.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/Dispatch/market-dispatches.aspx?post=1788582

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 2, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

"The economy started going south after democrats took control of congress."

Dems controlled Congress for most of the prosperous 80's and the economy sky-rocketed because Dems took over by your logic right?

Bush and Boehner are two peas in a pod.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 2, 2010 2:30 PM | Report abuse

The Democrats in Congress did not have any effect on the economym while Bush served out his final two years, because he could veto anything they might have tried to pass.

The Right Wing are starting to sound desperate, when they start trying to lay off the blame on Democrats in the House in 2007-8.

Bush still had the veto, and Republicans still could block everything in the Senate, so it was still all Republican policies that were in play, when the economy collapsed.

Posted by: Liam-still | August 2, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

The current crop of Republicans have already said they will return to the GWB policies. Where are these 65% of people who think they won't coming from?

Posted by: lddoyle2002 | August 2, 2010 2:37 PM | Report abuse

hey demwits...
this election is about here and now...
about unemployment and losing your home...
you had a chance to do something about this...
but you decided to spend your time on the liberal dream of obamacare...
and that will cost you...
the world knows your agenda isn't working...
putting you out of a job seems to be the only way to educate you...
as for the demwits that feel sorry for them, worry not...
they will receive a goverment pension and benefits for the rest of their lives...

Posted by: DwightCollins | August 2, 2010 2:44 PM | Report abuse

The economy started going south after democrats took control of congress.
Posted by: Cryos | August 2, 2010 2:22 PM
-------------------------------------------
Please point out legislation was passed in 2007-08 the tanked the economy. I would have assumed that Bush would have vetoed anything so damaging, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Posted by: oldabandonedbeachhouse | August 2, 2010 2:57 PM | Report abuse

"the world knows your agenda isn't working...
putting you out of a job seems to be the only way to educate you..."

bla bla bla bla bla

Having positive job growth numbers for months now must be the result of bad policy and when we were shedding jobs during the last year of Bush's term, this was the result of, lemme guess, good policy?

Posted by: mikefromArlington | August 2, 2010 3:05 PM | Report abuse

It won't be too hard to tie that Bush can to the Republican party's tail. They're bending over backwards to help. Their idolatrous worship of the Bush tax cuts and their eagerness to make war on Iran for Israel will be their undoing.

Posted by: fzdybel | August 2, 2010 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Have Republicans made any indication that they want to move away from Bush Voodoo Economics? They want Bush's tax cuts forever, plus more subsidies for businesses. They call for "cutting government", but have no specifics and are unlikely to cut entitlements to seniors, who make up their core base, and certainly not to Defense.

With tax cuts and vague attacks on government as their economic plan, they look and sound just like Bush. Democrats would be irresponsible not to challenge Republicans cries of fiscal responsibility when they are espousing economic policies that failed Reagan, failed Bush and will fail us again.

Posted by: AxelDC | August 2, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

I don't know. Really! Given the way the Dem's are lock step following Bush's economic and foreign policies, they ought to be praising Bush. I voted for Obama because I was disgusted with Bush, but Obama's advisors are the same and his policies are the same. We continue to outsource jobs. The government still lies to us. We have even more secret agencies and, heck, Blackwater, accused of all of those atrocities in Iraq, is now on Obama's team in case riots break out here over the worsening economy. Unless you are some sort of blind party hack that will vote Democrat simply because they are Democrat, I can't, for the life of me, figure out why that collection of snakes, thieves, and incompetent bunglers composing the Democratic leadership would run against Bush or any other Republican.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | August 2, 2010 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Democrats do what they do Best. Rob, Steal and Deceive the American Taxpayer. Then Blame the Republicans. Democrats are the Party of YES. YES to Big Government. YES to more taxes. YES to US Constitutional erosion. YES to Illegal Immigrant Amnesty. YES to Pork Barrel Spending. YES to Afghan War( I fail to see difference between Iraq and Afghanistan). YES to Nationalized Banking. YES to Socialized Health Care. Keep up the good work moron Democrats.

Posted by: markypolo | August 2, 2010 3:18 PM | Report abuse

"I fail to see difference between Iraq and Afghanistan"

Frickin hilarious.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 2, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Obama/Democrats must be desperate if they're using the old "Bush" rhetoric!
Message to Democrats: BUSH IS GONE. Republican party is not static; its constantly evolving!
Here's the Democratic mantra:
"Race, racism, racist; Bush, Bush, Bush,
Spend, Spend Spend"
If Democrats aren't finding new entitlements, they just don't know what else to do.

Posted by: ohioan | August 2, 2010 3:34 PM | Report abuse

@BBQ Chicken Madness: "Maybe you've been reading too many Texas-based history books...but every GOP President for the last 30 years could easily be described as a 'pro-big government, giagantic bureacracy-creating conservative'."

Perhaps, but Bush much more than his father, more than Reagan, etc. Only Richard Nixon was more big-government, in terms of growing the welfare state, radically expanding the size of government bureaucracy, exploding government regulatory power--and Nixon has the added distinction of implementing USSR style wage and price controls. In addition to leaving American conservatives with a legacy of the EPA, OSHA, etc.

I'm not sure any president has been ideologically pure, if such a thing is even possible. But Bush was much more the big government conservative, so-called, that H.W. Bush or Ronald Reagan.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | August 2, 2010 3:39 PM | Report abuse

You guys can try to cherry pick economic numbers all you want but the fact is the economy is doing poorly.


Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 2, 2010 2:30 PM
=========
You are dimwitted if you think manufacturing will make a large comeback in the US. Thank the 90s dotcom and tech bubbles for that due to the service industry shift.


Posted by: oldabandonedbeachhouse | August 2, 2010 2:57 PM
=================
It's about the legislation they didn't pass and still won't pass such as Fannie/Freddie regulation. Frank in February 2008 was blabbing about how great Fannie/Freddie and the housing market are.

ALl democrats have done is shifted these bad loans to the private sector by inserting things like quotas into the financial bill.

Posted by: Cryos | August 2, 2010 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Message to Ohioan:

Bush may be gone. But the Bush ECONOMY is NOT GONE. The Bush wars are NOT GONE.

What, do you think that when the new President comes in they just start with a clean sheet of paper? Obama had a MESS to deal with on his first day. You know it. I know it. America knows it. And that mess included dealing with a disastrous economy, an over-extended occupation in Iraq, and an under-funded under-resourced occupation with mission drift in Afghanistan.

You are a fool if you think that Dems are blaming Bush just for political reasons. The Bush POLICIES have left a legacy of damage on our country, and America has not forgotten that. The voters will be reminded repeatedly about these POLICIES so we don't make the same mistakes in the future that we did under Bush.

"If Democrats aren't finding new entitlements"

Ever hear of Medicare Part D?

I guess only the Republican entitlements are okay... especially if they add $1 TRILLION to the debt like Medicare Part D has.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 2, 2010 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Hey Cryos, maybe you missed this the first time:

*American Manufacturing Up for 12th Consecutive Month*

*Economy Expanded for 15th Consecutive Month*

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 2, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

Hey Cryos, maybe you missed this the first time:

*American Manufacturing Up for 12th Consecutive Month*

*Economy Expanded for 15th Consecutive Month*

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 2, 2010 3:47 P
=============
Keep in your denial cherry picking numbers.

Wow a recession is cyclical? Who would have thought.

Posted by: Cryos | August 2, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

The fact is, we don't want Republicans back in office.

Republicans are the ones who messed everything up in the first place, they lied us into war, and after all the harm Republicans have done to this country, they don't even have one single teeny tiny clue as to how to fix anything, and they certainly don't have any "plan".

I saw Minority House Leader Boehner on Fox News Sunday who was clueless that Chris Wallace just turned his back on Boehner.

The question was to effect: If the Bush Tax Cuts were extended, how would Republicans PAY FOR the $3 Trillion dollars it would cost America to extend the Bush Tax Cuts?

Boehner started babbling like an idiot, and I'd even say Boehner looked drunk.

We don't want Republicans back in office.


Posted by: lindalovejones | August 2, 2010 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Maybe Obama can get a midget like O Brother Where Art Thou to campaign around the country against Bush lol.

Posted by: Cryos | August 2, 2010 4:05 PM | Report abuse

"The economy started going south after democrats took control of congress. Put that in your pipe and smoke it."

This is sooo typical of the right. Simply tell a BOLD FACED LIE with no documentation to back it up! NO FREAKING RESPECTED ECONOMIST FOR EITHER PARTY WOULD MAKE THAT STATEMENT...because it's simply UNTRUE!!!

http://illuminate.newsvine.com/_news/2010/07/20/4718658-us-economic-recovery-through-june-2010-graphs

That graph proves what a moron or liar posted earlier! Uhhh Dwight that would include you as well as Cryos after this gem "the world knows your agenda isn't working""....again read the graph Dwight.

And how about this classic intellectual response from the right...LMAO

"Democrats do what they do Best. Rob, Steal and Deceive the American Taxpayer. Then Blame the Republicans. Democrats are the Party of YES. YES to Big Government. YES to more taxes. YES to US Constitutional erosion. YES to Illegal Immigrant Amnesty. YES to Pork Barrel Spending. YES to Afghan War( I fail to see difference between Iraq and Afghanistan). YES to Nationalized Banking. YES to Socialized Health Care. Keep up the good work moron Democrats."

Lot's of intellect behind that post...aside from the insults (takes a real man or woman to hurl insults and name call on a blog..we're all impressed) let's examine even a mention of the issues.

No it's not the DEMS who wish to rewrite the Constitution its' the REPUBLICAN'S..state legislatures and now leading Sen R Kyl who wish to DO AWAY WITH TWO CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS. THE R'S LITERALLY wish to REWRITE the Consitution yet a poster here actually had the chutzpah to say the Dems are trying to "erode" the Constitution when your side is LITERALLY TRYING TO REWRITE THE CONSTITUTION!!!

Socialized health care in our country is the VA. Are you educated enough to be aware of that fact. BTW it is the highest rated health care in our Country. Medicare is single payer insurance and of course the rest is "private". HCR did NOT GO TO SINGLE PAYER or Medicare for all which btw is NOT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE...the HCR reform..or Obamacare as you on the right like to refer to it derisively is nothing more than the warmed over REPUBLICAN response to the Clinton plan...it's virtually the same as Mitt Romney's plan in Mass..AGAIN A FREAKING R IDEA BUT YOU ALL CAN'T ACTUALLY DEBATE IDEAS AND SO YOU SCREAM SOCIALISM..MARXISM..

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 2, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

So cryos, you actually think that TARP and the stimulus had no effect on the economy?

You think the business cycle alone accounts for the growth in manufacturing?

Scuse me but that is LOL-style hilarious.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 2, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

Come back to earth. Its about the spending!

Posted by: wxyz6200 | August 2, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

The problem with the GOP is, they haven't offered up any ideas SINCE Bush was in office, and as we have all learned, all those ideas turned out pretty darn bad.

In California gubinatorial candidate and Republican Meg Whitman is campaigning against former Governor Jerry Brown on the theme that Brown has no ideas, and the old plans he had failed.

The same is true of Republicans -- the GOP has no ideas, and the old plans they had failed.

Republicans are the ones who caused all this trouble in the first place.

We don't want Republicans back in office.

Posted by: lindalovejones | August 2, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

I think it telling that the dems, two years into this empty suit administration and four years into a democrat controlled Congress, feels that it is salient strategy to cite failures of a previous administration.

The implication here is that the current administration has nothing to hold forth as a success, and therefore, must take a position of comparative failure, given a chance to do so.

And if that is truly their answer, the response should be obvious.

Beat them from office. Every single one of them.

Of course, this strategy offers no insight as to what the current empty suit administration would do to reverse their own record of abject failure.

Posted by: epigonigrp | August 2, 2010 4:20 PM | Report abuse

epigonigrp, only in your psychotic fantasy world is going from the economy of January 2009 to the economy of August 2010 an "abject failure".

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 2, 2010 4:24 PM | Report abuse

TO: wxyz6200 who wrote:
“Come back to earth. It’s about the spending!”

^^^^^^^^^^

I’m sure you know why nobody can believe that.

The reason is, Republicans want to extend the Bush Tax Cuts. In order to extend the Bush Tax Cuts it’s going to cost America $3 Trillion Dollars, AND the United States would have to borrow that money.

We know how Republicans just loooove to borrow and spend, but in today’s climate, and being that Republicans have dubbed everything “a bad idea” how can Republicans justify borrowing ANOTHER $3 Trillion Dollars?

So don’t tell us “It’s about the spending” when Republicans are just chomping at the bit to spend another $3 Trillion Dollars themselves.

Posted by: lindalovejones | August 2, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Man the desperation of Democrats is pathetic. The only thing they can think of to try and keep their losses from hitting gigantic proportions is to run against a guy who hasn't been President in over a year and a half and by the way their own party controlled the Congress for the last two years of his presidency and share the blame for the recession we're in. I also think its great that the polls are finally starting to show that Obama is getting just as much blame for the economy being in the toilet as Bush. I was beginning to think that the Obamamedia had completely bamboozled the entire country with their line that Obama has no responsibility for the recession. Even though he has pushed more big government, job killing, tax raising proposals through Congress than Lyndon Johnson and his great society.

Posted by: RobT1 | August 2, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

The debt on Jan 07 (when the Dems took over )was 250 billion. Today its 1.4 trillion. Please do not "suppose" you know what the Republicans will do when they get back in power (they sure as hell would have worked on JOBS immediately not healthcare had they won in 2008). Your hatred for Bush and the Republicans have blinded you to what is happening to your country. Rather than Obama trying to tie the present GOP to the old policies of the Bush era to shake up his base. The American people have woken up to Obama and his tie to the "old" policies of the Rev Wright, Saul Alinsky and Marx.

Posted by: wxyz6200 | August 2, 2010 4:36 PM | Report abuse

They would have worked on JOBS ... like the $750 Billion stimulus, including the largest middle class tax cut in history?

What would the GOP have done for jobs? More tax cuts for the rich?

Posted by: cmccauley60 | August 2, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

For further illumination i refer you to todays (Aug 2) WSJ op/ed by Arthur Laffer. Nice opening by JFK.

Posted by: wxyz6200 | August 2, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

So cryos, you actually think that TARP and the stimulus had no effect on the economy?

You think the business cycle alone accounts for the growth in manufacturing?

Scuse me but that is LOL-style hilarious.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 2, 2010 4:14 P
============================
TARP and the stimulus had an effect; a negative one. Sorry I'm not a Keynesian economist whose policies fail over and over. Keeping overpaid workers employed for a year just extends the apathy of market correction.

Latest example Europe. They tried spending their way out of the recession and it didn't work. They've tightened their belts and are already seeing positive economic effects. The G20 was hilarious with Obama cheerleading spending.

Cyclical recessions definitely impact manufacturing. When you have a downturn in the economy manufacturing takes a hit.

All the angry libs are just frothing because middle America figured out their plans and they don't like it. Boohoo.

Posted by: Cryos | August 2, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

You do realize wxyz6200 that when you resort to absurdities like "Obama and his tie to the "old" policies of the Rev Wright, Saul Alinsky and Marx." you've lowered the intellectual value of your post. That's simply an absurd statement.

Sad too because you were off on a post that described issues instead of simple name calling or tying everything to personalities whether it be Bush or Obama.

It's really simple. R's believe in "trickle down" "supply side" or perhaps as best described by Bush I "Voodoo Economics" Bush I was correct. Supply side has been a huge failure starting back with Reagan. Bush II simply exacerbated the problem extremely with his ill advised tax cuts for the wealthy.

Let's look at this with a little common sense. Cut the taxes on the wealthy...the Bush cuts represent about 3%...and so cut 3% from that one billion the wall street banker made and it's another 3 million he can spend or as the r's would suggest invest. And so he is supposed to spend money on the proverbial factory producing new widgets...great who is left to buy them...as Henry Ford realized long ago his workers needed to make enough to buy those Model T's.

Now let's go to the Dem side and the Keynsian approach...that same 3 million could represent a tax cut of $5,000 for 600 middle class families. What would the middle class families do? INVEST them in the next great Wall Street Scheme like Mr. Wealthy...INVEST them anywhere in the World(nothing to do with the U.S. or patriotism here) at the highest return like Mr. Wealthy?

NO! And that is the point...they'd buy stuff that would allow our businesses to expand and grow...then there's more jobs!

This really is the nub of the entire debate....Supply side (voodoo economics)versus Kenynsian...there is now plenty of evidence to show which works best...and of course there is common sense.

Posted by: rukidding7 | August 2, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

TO: RobT1 who wrote:
I also think its great that the polls are finally starting to show that Obama is getting just as much blame for the economy being in the toilet as Bush…”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Not only are you showing that you’re doing nothing more than pressing Republican “Talking Points” but you’re also proving you either don’t have a mind of your own, and/or you really don’t know WHAT’S happening.

Why would you want to blame the B.S. that Bush did, on President Obama?
It was Bush’s agenda that was sooo bad, it actually helped get President Obama elected.
President Obama inherited all the crap Bush messed up and left behind.

I don’t get it. Why is it that Republicans can’t take responsibility for their own actions?
Is it because they are so lousy it’s embarassing?

I have noticed, however, that Republicans are constantly trying to claim credit for President Bill Clinton’s work, even thought they fought Bill Clinton’s agenda every step of the way.

Posted by: lindalovejones | August 2, 2010 5:04 PM | Report abuse

"TARP and the stimulus had an effect; a negative one"

HAHAHA!

So the credit market, what, it doesn't exist?

Your take on Europe is off. Look at Greece, which precipitated the Euro crisis.

"""The Greek government borrowed heavily and went on something of a spending spree during the past decade.

Public spending soared and public sector wages practically doubled during that time.

However, as the money flowed out of the government's coffers, tax income was hit because of widespread tax evasion. """

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8508136.stm

The way out of that morasse?

Huge loans from the IMF (~$150B) ala TARP to pay off their creditors.

That is EXACTLY what happened to the U.S. under Bush.

Bush initiated the Republican Tax Cuts for the Rich, draining our treasury. Then he borrowed and spent money prodigiously in Iraq and Afghanistan and on an un-funded Medicare Part D entitlement. The combination of those things left our economy dangerously fragile and when the housing crisis kicked in, we went right over the cliff as credit markets froze.

The only way back from the point of no return was to bail out the largest holders of debt in our economy.

So yeah, you can talk all you want about TARP having a negative effect, but you're actually just making stuff up.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 2, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Liberals make their agenda obvious when they froth about "tax cuts for the rich."

47% of people pay no income tax you can't cut their taxes.

Middle class Americans got a significant tax cut with the Bush tax cuts so your talking point is moot. It lowered EVERY tax bracket.

Your idealism just makes you mad at every tax decision that doesn't just give away "free stuff" to people that don't earn it.

Also liberals seem to embrace this low level consumer economy giving a bunch of money to people that don't invest but just spend it on short term goods and frivolous items. Real brilliant long term strategy.

Posted by: Cryos | August 2, 2010 6:43 PM | Report abuse

Cryos,

Now that I've completely destroyed your fact-free spew on TARP, I see that you're back to doing what Republicans do best: protecting the Billionaire Caucus.

Heckuva job.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 2, 2010 7:33 PM | Report abuse

A vote for a republican is indeed a vote for Bush and for the same republican policies and bad decision making that got us into these deep profound crises. The republicans want to re-enact the Bush agenda. First of all, it is complete nonsense and BS that "republicans are looking good for November". That is a lie and spin created by the media and the republicans. America would once again prove itself to be a country peopled by stupid people and idiots if we elected republicans back to office. The republicans are the ones that created a $1.4 trillion deficit with 2 failed, useless wars. The republicans started this horrendous recession, fueled by the Bush tax cuts for the rich. The republicans have their grubby hands in everything this country is currently suffering. And the republicans were not going to hold anyone accountable in the Financial sector...and this after the banks raped the middle and working classes. Republicans are disgusting and ought to be removed as a party period.

Posted by: vintel7 | August 3, 2010 8:36 AM | Report abuse

Save the world, get rid of regressive republicans. All republicans are regressive. The republican party is the primitive party of politicized narcissism. Save the USA- Get rid of republicans.

Posted by: vintel7 | August 3, 2010 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Cryos,

Now that I've completely destroyed your fact-free spew on TARP, I see that you're back to doing what Republicans do best: protecting the Billionaire Caucus.

Heckuva job.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 2, 2010 7:33 PM
====================
LOL. FYI the Europe problems are bigger than Greece.

Then you give a link to the BBC, the UK's official government media saying that it was all due to tax evasion?

Wow you are a sucker.

The long term effect from "too big to fail" is yet to be seen. My main beef is with the stimulus and the portion of TARP we bailed out knowing we won't get the money back (GM and Fannie/Freddie)

Posted by: Cryos | August 3, 2010 10:33 AM | Report abuse

Cryos,

Now that I've completely destroyed your fact-free spew on TARP, I see that you're back to doing what Republicans do best: protecting the Billionaire Caucus.

Heckuva job.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | August 2, 2010 7:33 PM
=====================
Thanks for proving my previous post. You are basing your "logic" off of jealousy, hatred and other emotions against the "big bad rich people."

Just because your ambitions are limited to running a cash register doesn't mean you should have the right to limit other people's futures.

To rehash.

Liberals make their agenda obvious when they froth about "tax cuts for the rich."

47% of people pay no income tax you can't cut their taxes.

Middle class Americans got a significant tax cut with the Bush tax cuts so your talking point is moot. It lowered EVERY tax bracket.

Your idealism just makes you mad at every tax decision that doesn't just give away "free stuff" to people that don't earn it.

Also liberals seem to embrace this low level consumer economy giving a bunch of money to people that don't invest but just spend it on short term goods and frivolous items. Real brilliant long term strategy.

Posted by: Cryos | August 3, 2010 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Bush is running again? he was a president, isnt that the highest office? Do Dems know something? Hmmm. if he is not running, then why run against him? Should Republicans run against Carter or LBJ? Maybe Van Buren? maybe Van Buren is the cause of all this mess?

Posted by: maross600 | August 3, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

We have to balance the extreme left wing policies, arrogance, and corruption of the Democrats in Nov. Their radical left wing policies have failied miserably and are taking the country down a very steep road of decline. We did well with a Republican Congress and Clinton in the White House in the 90s. Let's do it again. With Obama in the White House the Republicans could follow Bush policies if they wanted to, and most Republicans are still mad at Bush and want to return to Reagan growth policies, not George Bush.

Posted by: valwayne | August 3, 2010 3:57 PM | Report abuse

What a GREAT strategy. Republicans will simply point out that Democrats have been in control of Congress and the nation's purse strings for FOUR YEARS. This economy is THEIR idea of a socialist utopia.
Further, let's do make this a debate about extending the "Bush Tax Cuts." If these "across-the-board" tax cuts are allowed to expire, we WILL have a double dip recession and another generation of voters who won't EVER vote for another Democrat.
Ask me about the Jimmy Carter years.

Posted by: backsds | August 3, 2010 4:19 PM | Report abuse

It isn't working.

Anything but Obama and a Dem in November

Posted by: RightyatBat | August 3, 2010 4:27 PM | Report abuse

May I add that TARP I is Bush's loans to financial institutions that are pretty much paid back with interest and principle. EXCEPT for Fannie/Freddie which are another bailout nightmare compliments of the Fed Gov/Congress/Obama.

TARP II is Obama's open handed payments to the Blue States, rewarding their Socialist spending profligacy.

But hey, we all got Universal Obamacare, right?

And America - 3 to 1 - hate it, want it gone.

LMAOROFL

Posted by: RightyatBat | August 3, 2010 4:30 PM | Report abuse

More poison ink from the jourolist prigs.

How long is the WaPo going to continue to publish the garbage.

Posted by: TECWRITE | August 3, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

The Dem strategy of trying to convince voters that a vote against the congressional Dems in November is a vote to return to Bush is utterly pathetic. Why aren't the Dems talking about all of the "great" legislation they've passed? Why not talk about the "great" legislation still to come (Cap & Trade, Card Check, The Fairness Doctrine, expansion of Obamacare, etc)?

Because the majority of voters HATE the Dems' legislative agenda. Sooo....all they have left is to carp about Bush. This shows how completely bankrupt the Dems are and how pathetic their ideology is.

Posted by: JohnR22 | August 3, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Read 'em and weep, silly-socialists:

Generic Congressional Ballot
Republicans +6.0

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-901.html

Direction of Country
Wrong Track 61.5%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

Congressional Approval
Disapprove 72.2%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

President Obama Job Approval
Approve 44.9%
Disapprove 49.7%
spread 4.8%

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

Keep whistling, my 'regressive' fellow travlers...the graveyard is dead (LMFAO) ahead.

Posted by: sosueme1 | August 3, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: lindalovejones
"...Republicans are constantly trying to claim credit for President Bill Clinton’s work, even thought they fought Bill Clinton’s agenda every step of the way..."
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
More silly-socialist revisionist history. What trying? Slick Willie Clinton governed to the RIGHT of Bush AND Shrub Dubya. Hey, I'll give him credit...he tried to be a socialist and had his butt handed to him. His 'agenda' after the butt-handing was a Republican one. The primary factor: the Newt Gingrich led Republican House. The secondary factor: the then popular centrist "Third Way" philosophy of governance.

Hell, I might have even voted for Hillary just to get back to a center-right DIVIDED CONSERVATIVE government. You dingbats screwed it all up!

As usual, and not unlike your fearless leader, you're in way over your head, lindalovejones

Posted by: sosueme1 | August 3, 2010 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Rasmussen today, 48% blame Obama 47% blame Bush for the economy as it stands now. May 2009, 62% blamed Bush 27% blamed Obama.

Do you really think this number is going to improve for the Dems come November? If this is the best you got, good luck with that!

Posted by: keithbo61 | August 3, 2010 5:15 PM | Report abuse

Uh, now wait. Does Greg and the WAPO Journolist DNC complex think that Obamacare was from Bush? Or the horrid energy programs stressed by the Dems replacing our own domestic energy resources? Or amnesty? Or the absurd so called Stimulus that was going to provide millions of jobs?? Or the debts and deficits that outnumber all 8 yrs. of W in just 19 months? Or the kow towing to Islam? Or the foreign policy which apologizes for America and its past heritage?? Sorry leftist socialist progressives. The Dem minions in Congress and the naif in the WH is to blame for America starting to look like Greece and Venezuela or may I say, Cuba, one of His Highness'es fave nations.

Posted by: phillyfanatic | August 3, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

You 1960s liberals have become what you always professed to hate. Your ostensibly compassionate social engineering through vast entitlement programs and big government has failed miserably. Personal responsibility and initiative may yet win out.

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

~Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: churchill3 | August 3, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Folks, I'm not so sure saying "they drove the car into the ditch" is so effective anymore. After 2 years of Obama, and 4 of democrat congress, we are much, much deeper into the ditch.

The only thing propping up the economy at all is the stimulus spending...and that is creating problems that will hurt us in the future.

Posted by: Josiahtx | August 3, 2010 5:33 PM | Report abuse

mikefromArlington: "Having positive job growth numbers for months now must be the result of bad policy and when we were shedding jobs during the last year of Bush's term, this was the result of, lemme guess, good policy?"


Positive job growth numbers!!? What in the hell are you talking about!!? On occasion, the numbers of those seeking unemployment has gone down relative to the persistent extraordinary job losses. The unemployment numbers are really over 15% when you consider the people who have stopped looking for work. Temporary U.S. Census workers don't count either!!

Posted by: churchill3 | August 3, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

'
Yeah!

Let's go back to Bush's time, you know, 4% (that's four percent for you liberals) unemployment, 52 straight months (not weeks, MONTHS) of not only job growth but GDP growth, back to before 2006 and you know what happened in 2006 when DemocRATS took over the House and Senate and when things started to go downhill for the United States?

Posted by: ahartnack | August 3, 2010 6:20 PM | Report abuse

This is a bankrupt strategy, because Clinton and Bush were moderates, relative to Obama!

Obama ran as a moderate with a plea to make America a stronger and less divided nation. He is an abject failure on both counts.

Racism is rearing it's ugly head. Also, this administration is intentionally overspending America, so he can advance his radical agenda by forcing massive tax increases... on all Americans. Remember, the poor and middle pay more for the taxes through the increased costs (taxes) of the goods and services they purchase, than the wealthy!

Moderates and independents tend to be well educated and clearly see the writing on the wall!

Despite campaign promises, Obama has surrounded himself with tax cheats, liars and admitted Marxist. The majority of America understands his charade as is evidenced in almost all polls... after only 18 months in office!

The extremist on the left and right are irrelevant (blogs, Big Media and newsrags such as this)... that is why all Democratic strategist and pollsters are in dire panic and the Administration and Congress are playing the "race card" and "class warfare"!

2012 will not be a pretty sight for Politicians of all stripes... but given my options... this time around I would prefer to be a republican.

Times 100.

Posted by: im14fun | August 3, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

I hate the Bush family, but Bush years were steady growth and low unemployment until Obama's wall Street friends pulled the October surprise. I agree, if the GOP wins they will probably go right back to warmongering, Bible thumping, and more Big Government socialism. It doesn't matter which party controls. They're both tools of the liberal fascist oligarchy. Our illegitimate political system and our illegitimate government are not going to solve anything. Revolution is the only way to restore freedom and destroy the ruling class.

Posted by: doctorfixit | August 3, 2010 6:46 PM | Report abuse

Nah. We voted against Bush because of the spending, and the division. Obama promised to fix Washington and undo all of that and more. Come to find out, he fooled everyone. Now he will pay for that by being powerless after November 2 2010. Tying the GOP to Bush does NOTHING when we voters saw Obama double down on the Bush spending and divisiveness. If anything, it will make us vote them ALL out now.

Posted by: kurttj2002 | August 3, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Dems would be happy to talk about anything BUT the Obama economy. Obama go his agenda passed and the result has been disaster.

Posted by: mgsorens | August 3, 2010 7:48 PM | Report abuse

The reciprocol is simple. The GOP ties the Dems to Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: JoeTaxpayer | August 3, 2010 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Two major problems with this theory.

First, the American people reject the "progressive" (socialist) policies and agenda of Obama and the Dems by a 2 to 1 margin. Barely 1/3 of Americans (RCP average of all polls) believe the country is headed in the right direction.

Secondly, the people have been lied to so much by Obama and the Dems in the last 2 years, that they have near zero credibility. Obama has been peeing on the public's leg and telling us it's raining for a year and a half. Only the die-hard Obamazombies believe him anymore.

In addition, Independents are sick and tired of the Dems' huge partisan bills, crafted behind closed doors, that reward unions and supporters with gifts of our (borrowed) tax money.

No amount of spin or messaging will save the Dems this fall. We have seen how the Dems have ignored the public will for two years now, and we have had enough.

Posted by: samadams25 | August 3, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Who cares about Bush, or the GOP. They aren't in power. Obama is a nothing burger. He didn't write the Obamacare laws, Congress created that monstrosity. The only thing Obama is done is to follow Bush's footsteps in Iraq and Afghanistan, and go on his bowing/apology tours. Domestically, he has done nothing except stoke race hatred. Nobody believes that the economy is getting any better. He makes Jimmy Carter look like Einstein. No wonder people with money and brains are leaving the US.

Posted by: doctorfixit | August 3, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

When a face is put on the republican ticket that is not Bush, for example, Sarah Palin, Michele Backman, Rohmney or Gindal - then voters will compare Obama and his policies with those espoused by the republican candidate.

The fact that cannot be escaped is that Obama took America swiftly to socialism in some cases (Obamacare) and even Marxism/Communism (financial reform). Obama is attacking traditional American values with amazing vigor and at light speed. He is putting the country in unrecoverable debt. The call will be to remove Obama to save the Republic. It will almost not matter with who.

Posted by: rodhug | August 3, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

Most any half way intelligent independent realizes that both Bushonomics and Obamanomics are both designed to run the country into the ground. Duh.

Posted by: Steve851 | August 3, 2010 9:34 PM | Report abuse

This is the best that the Dems and their running dogs in the press can come up? Run against Bush. Most Americans are smart enough to realise that Bush left Obama a Disaster. Obama worked real hard and by creating huge new trillion dollar deficits and passing legislation the public hates has turned that Disaster into a Catastrophe. He has managed to do more damage in 18 months than Bush did in 8 years. Dumb (Bush) and Dumber (Obama), a virtual bifecta of incompetence and brain dead spending programs.

Posted by: jkk1943 | August 3, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

"If, and if, and if, and if, and if, and if..."

Don't grasp at those straws too tightly, Greggie. They can cause some terrifically painful burns.

Posted by: DonnyNobama | August 3, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

It's pretty weak but I guess it's all they have. A damn sight better than running on their record, which is pretty awful. Post-partisan, post-racial, transparent, ethical - all that went to the four winds the day Obama took office, and everyone except the hard left knows it. If they can convince the electorate that it's about Bush - good luck to them - then they only lose 50 seats.

Posted by: BigMac4 | August 3, 2010 10:03 PM | Report abuse

First off Van Hollen lies: "Why in the world would we want to go back to the same economic agenda that lost jobs for eight years?" In truth the Bush tax cuts produced 51 mos of job growth that were only arrested when the wheels came off the Barney Frank/Chris Dodd/Alan Greenspan inspired housing boom. Even then most of the pain under Bush was felt suddenly and precipitously when the stock market crumbled in the wake of the Lehman Bros collapse. Within months Bush was gone and Obama ascended purportedly to save us.

Unfortunately the experience under Obama has been acutely and continually painful now stretching into 18 months of miserable unemployment and economic stagnation against the backdrop of some very dramatic and unpopular legislation that was sold as curative and which has manifestly been proven to be anything but.

While it may be too early to talk of nostalgia for Bush let alone a restoration, the present reality seems to make us feel far worse than we did under Bush and there appears nothing on the horizon to make us feel better.

Worse for the Democrats, Obama painted Bush as a war mongering profligate spender and while Bush may have been all that, Obama is mired far worse in Afghanistan than Bush was in Iraq and his spending in one year had eclipsed that of an entire Bush term. Say what you want of the new GOP brand and its Tea Party patina, it is nothing if not reluctant to spend the way Obama has and will. And that, coupled with the present misery, seems sufficient for a Congressional landslide that may yet take 75 seats from the Democrats and crush them in a way few in the public will have foreseen, but among the Apparatchiks on both sides is becoming clearer and clearer.

petekent01 (on twitter)

Posted by: PeteKent | August 3, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

It's easier to blame someone else when you yourself is incapable of doing anything. Sargent examplifies everything disdainful about liberalism and the left and displays the very reason that this little experiment that America took will soon be over. Smugness and the "I know better than you" attitude - the very definition of the left in America. Guess what. Americans don't like being told what to do by a small minority of know it alls whi really don't know anything at all. The only winner this election cycle will hopefully be the American people, who show every sign of being totally disillusioned with the liberal experiment.

Posted by: Almazar80 | August 3, 2010 10:34 PM | Report abuse

It was the Democratic policies of forcing banks to give loans to unqualified borrowers that caused the mortgage bust, by practically forcing banks to throw out conventional lending standards across the board, for all borrowers. Try looking up the Community Reinvestment Act sometime, and who was behind it. Also look up Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and FNMA and Freddie if you want to know who was responsible for spreading all that bad mortgage-backed paper throughout the financial system, leading us to financial collapse. Yes, the Republicans contributed to it, but the Democrats are more to blame. And of course, it is the Democrats who are currently spending us into the poorhouse. They're so economically ignorant, some of them are still claiming we're going to spend our way out of debt.

Throw all of these jokers out and replace them with TEA Party types.

Posted by: pijacobsen | August 3, 2010 10:56 PM | Report abuse

So the Dems will try to tie GOP to Bush.

Snicker.

GOP just needs to say SPENDING. Check the SPENDING. No comparison. If voters think it's moral to spend their kids money on themselves, then Dems are the way to go. The Dems don't have any problem spending future generation's money. That much is clear. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING. SPENDING.

Check the SPENDING starting in fy 2008, fy 2009, fy 2010. Check Obamacare. Check Cash for Clunkers, Check "stimulus", Check Auto (union) bailouts, Cap & Tax, and on and on.

Oh, yeah, one more thing. This president and the Democrats want to raise your taxes AFTER the election to pay for SPENDING. And if anyone thinks they'll restrain SPENDING after that, then they probably believe Bush is still president.

November can't get here fast enough. Go ahead Dems, talk like W is still with us. Voters that pay attention will respond in kind.

Posted by: go_figure77221 | August 3, 2010 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Thank you!

Run against Bush!

Great idea since Obama and crew have no other good things to talk about.

Which Bush?

Bush 41 or Bush 43?

If that doesn't work ... Try Herbert Hover.

And if that doesn't poll well ... you can run against the second Republican President, Ulysses S. Grant.

Just modify his opponent Seymore's campaign slogan from

"This is a White Man's Government! — Horatio Seymour 1868 Democratic Presidential Candidate" (Wikipedia)

To something else.

Posted by: jgfox39 | August 3, 2010 11:05 PM | Report abuse

The three rules of lending:
1. Don't loan to people who cannot repay
2. see #1
3. see #1

For decades this didn't happen in the housing market. Then it started happening, when 'fairness' became an issue thanks to complaints about 'redlining' and attorneys like Obama suing banks.

Then, the politicians essentially guaranteed that the taxpayer would pick up the tab if failure ensued. All of this happened before Bush took office. Once in office, his regulators went to congress repeatedly to solicit changes to fannie and freddie. Black congresspeople called them racists. The videos are all over youtube.

The liberal fetish for 'equality' was the necessary condition for this crisis, and democrat cronyism was the sufficient condition that allowed it to reach meltdown. At worst, Bush played along once he saw that congress was not going to reform things.
Yes, let's have the debate over who caused the financial crisis. Only voter ignorance allows people to think that capitalism or Bush are to blame.

Posted by: GregBuls1 | August 3, 2010 11:09 PM | Report abuse

actually this is a very poor idea for Democrats, I for one am happy that they try, but if I were a democrat i would tell them to shut up. By blaming bush means your ideas failed and you have nothing for the future, guess what? that doesnt work. Try doing that in a job, try being a manager or ceo and blaming everyone else before you for the mistakes and your poor performance. that simply does not work. Please though, by all means keep it up!! in the end its no different then if republicans blamed clinton for 9/11 or carter or van buran for problems in the world. all are as dumb as blaming bush, like it or not, but when you spend trillions and get nothing, its no ones fault but your own.

Posted by: maross600 | August 3, 2010 11:12 PM | Report abuse

I wish you luck with that tactic. But what a revealing comment on the Administration's record that will be.

However I don't think it will work . . . at least not on my town in California's Central Valley, where most of the strip malls have been emptied of small business tenants, where real unemployment is approaching 20%, and where -- on my block -- two families have walked away from their mortgages just in the last 3 months.

But like I said, good luck with that.

Posted by: prosecutor1 | August 3, 2010 11:45 PM | Report abuse

You libs crack me up. Just look to Missouri for a glimps of November. Your toast.

Posted by: ranroddeb | August 3, 2010 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Those of us who find Sargent's pieces through realclearpolitics.com are amused to see the nervous finger-drumming from the progressives who dominate this comment board. Note what this piece says. It quotes a Democratic aide: "... we tested President Obama's economic plan against a generic conservative economic plan. When the conservative plan failed to mention President Bush, it handily out-polled the President's agenda. When President Bush was inserted in the question, the Obama agenda easily won."

Hooray! A conservative economic plan "handily" beats President Obama's pathetic mishmash of progressive overreach, mindless spending expansion and unbridled giveaways to liberal constituencies. But if Democrats just keep claiming it's all Bush's fault, maybe their bad ideas can keep vomiting forth from Washington for two more years.

If that's the best Democrats can work up by way of a strategy, then maybe they really *are* in the kind of trouble the press keeps projecting. Frankly, I think the "trouble" story has gained a life of its own. But only the true-believer progressives in the commentariat are voicing their doubts right now. It will certainly be an interesting three months.

By the way, what is the Greg Sargent Democratic-party strategy blog doing in the Washington Post anyway? Wouldn't it fit better on the Huffington Post site, or on Talking Points Memo, or perhaps on the DCCC's own site? It's basically an inside-basebell Democrat and Progressive roundup, providing a view of the micro-political news of the day from a voice that speaks obviously from the left. I know the Washington Post is a liberal paper, but do they have no qualms about serving as a Democratic strategy forum?

Posted by: Imperfections | August 4, 2010 12:07 AM | Report abuse

More delusion from one of the "Inside the Beltway" boys. Allow me to cite a different poll (it was either PPI or Rasmussen), in which LIKELY voters were asked "Who is to blame for the current economic mess?" 48% said Bush, 49% said Obama. The most critical factor here is that the Repubs are fired up about this election like never before, while the Dems are not. In fact the Democratic candidates, in race after race around the country, are running from this guy like scalded cats. What's more, Independents are not buying Bush Derangement Syndrome anymore, contending that nearly two years is ample time to implement the policies you said were going to "change the way things are done in Washington." Even the most jaded among the electorate are beginning to realize what Hillary and many of us outside the MSM realized in 2008: This is not the guy you want answering the phone at 2 in the morning. You will see evidence of that consensus on November 2.

Meantime, please encourage your Democratic strategists to persist in alluding to Bush and his policies, especially those keen minds who ran the campaigns against Christie, O'Donnell and Brown. We would be most appreciative.

Posted by: Rocks66 | August 4, 2010 12:09 AM | Report abuse

You are a fool.

First, we don't care what Bush did. We reject his crazy spending. Get over it. We did.

Second, your guy is doing nothing that works. Nothing - nothing on the war, nothing on the economy. The Obamacare fiasco is a time bomb and no one is fooled. The TARP payoffs are repulsive. Fat-cat payoffs to the unions are gagging. It is over and the progressives have failed.

Posted by: CEBFburg | August 4, 2010 12:33 AM | Report abuse

Honestly I thought that Obamanomics was just an extension of Bushonomics. I mean besides Bush's tax cuts, what's the difference? Btw... I thought it would be a cold day in hell when I'm getting behind a short and long-term economic plan of a ruler from Germany, France, Canada, and Autstralia. In my eyes this isn't a GOP vs. Dem issue. It's an American issue that should bi-partisanly centered around Government spending within it's means... Wow, I never thought I'd see the day where I sound like a hopeless idealist.

Posted by: klentz09 | August 4, 2010 12:45 AM | Report abuse

Both, and I mean both parties bank on this kind of blog/comments. We hate Bush, Dems take control, we hate Obama, R's take control. Socialism doesn't work and neither does helping greedy execs. I think we can all agree on that. I got an idea - How about term limits and limited money for each senator and house member. Nancy Pelosi doesn't get to fly on the taxpayer's dime and R's can't use their's to get cozy with oil. I am a conservative and belive both parties enjoy success when there isn't corruption, but power corrupts. Dems seem to think that if conservatives don't want amnesty they are racist, when most conservatives I know want more legal immigration where people who come here take part in our society. But the politics dictate that its either amnesty or racism. Luckily the big parts of America are wise to the game. Fox news is conservative just like all the others are liberal. That's the balance, watch what you want. If Glenn Beck pisses you off then don't watch and if The Ed show is not for you then don't watch. Both parties are pro-big gov., republicans in congress are not the republicans that vote and the liberals in congress are not the same democrats that I know. Without corruption both parties would have some success, divisiveness is big business and so it goes on and on and on.... Not trying to be a smart ass on this last thing, but Freddie and Fannie were largely responsible for the collapse, oops I mean us, the people who took out the loans. I know I'll get raked over the coals here, but heck I gotta try, nothing else is working.

Posted by: Systemsucks | August 4, 2010 12:49 AM | Report abuse

Greg Sargent is a bad joke. And if tying George Bush to the GOP is a winner, I'd hate to see what a loser is... Maybe a mushroom cloud over capitol hill and the white house with the democrats in it?

George Bush isn't running this election. He didn't run the last one either. Sooner or later, you have to grow up & take responsibility, a concept apparently as foreign to liberals as the wards of the state they collect, coddle and cultivate.

And as far as having a balanced budget when Bush took over, it was a small matter of a peace dividend courtesy of Ronald Reagan that made that possible.

Posted by: aicohn | August 4, 2010 1:19 AM | Report abuse

The recession was caused by loose fiscal policy and loose bank lending standards. This led to excessive borrowing and spending/investing which inflated the real estate market bubble beyond manageability.

Now Obama and the congressional democrats are doubling and tripling up on Bush's deficit spending, continuing Bush's wars and expanding the size of government and government outlays beyond manageability.

We were headed toward insolvency before Obama and the democratic congress decided to spend, spend, spend on top of our already looming national debt.

The political push-back against Obama and the congressional democrats is driven by fiscally concerned voters - republicans, democrats and independents - who didn't like Bush's big spending policies, and like Obama's even less.

So the Bush bugaboo strategy is laughable, and doomed to fail.

Posted by: Parker1227 | August 4, 2010 1:20 AM | Report abuse

Welcome to the recovery, peasants!

Pay no attention to the cowpies you're standing in. They are to be expected.

Posted by: NotaPopulist | August 4, 2010 1:35 AM | Report abuse

Y'all need to keep thinking that Obama is running against Bush in 2012.... It will make the days much more tolerable for you between now and then when Obama goes down.

Funny thing is, most people would probably vote for Bush today ahead of Obama.... This country has never been more screwed up and the future of our kids more compromised.

Posted by: poyman | August 4, 2010 3:50 AM | Report abuse

Y'all need to keep thinking that Obama is running against Bush in 2012.... It will make the days much more tolerable for you between now and then when Obama goes down.

Funny thing is, most people would probably vote for Bush today ahead of Obama.... This country has never been more screwed up and the future of our kids more compromised.

Posted by: poyman | August 4, 2010 3:51 AM | Report abuse

ACTUALLY? just the opposite is in evidence, despite what anyone says clearly obama's bush-bating has only decended him to the lowest level he has ever seen.

the bush thing worked the first time but cleraly americans know that it is not BUSH that is responsible for the anti-american mindset of barack husseing obama.

can obama use bush as the reason he sits on the opposite side of the courtroom from Americans in Arizona and an elected official with the backing of 71% of her State?

can obama use bush as the reason he continues to ignore the wishes of americans? CLEARLY NOT.

OBAMA "BAMBOOZLED" some voters the first time around. before the end of his first year many of them were already calling for him to be voted out.

you can only fool some of the people some of the time. some cliches really are spot on.

Posted by: ChooseBestCandidate | August 4, 2010 5:11 AM | Report abuse

ACTUALLY? just the opposite is in evidence, despite what anyone says clearly obama's bush-bating has only decended him to the lowest level he has ever seen.

the bush thing worked the first time but cleraly americans know that it is not BUSH that is responsible for the anti-american mindset of barack husseing obama.

can obama use bush as the reason he sits on the opposite side of the courtroom from Americans in Arizona and an elected official with the backing of 71% of her State?

can obama use bush as the reason he continues to ignore the wishes of americans? CLEARLY NOT.

OBAMA "BAMBOOZLED" some voters the first time around. before the end of his first year many of them were already calling for him to be voted out.

you can only fool some of the people some of the time. some cliches really are spot on.

Posted by: ChooseBestCandidate | August 4, 2010 5:12 AM | Report abuse


OBAMA "BAMBOOZLED" some voters the first time around. before the end of his first year many of them were already calling for him to be voted out.

you can only fool some of the people some of the time. some cliches really are spot on.

Posted by: ChooseBestCandidate | August 4, 2010 5:13 AM | Report abuse

It has worried me greatly that the Dems seem to have disconnected the present day RepuKKKes from the bush era. They're all very old white guys who cannot just change overnight. In 2008 they all cheered for the bush policies, and they STILL do. True to their conservative nature, they wanna GO BACK to the days of Pure White Rule. No, NO and NOOOOOOOOO!

Posted by: CrashTestSmartie | August 4, 2010 6:35 AM | Report abuse

Yawn...broken record...blame Bush when you ain't got a legitimate argument.

Can't wait til November...

Posted by: lancesackless11 | August 4, 2010 6:57 AM | Report abuse

It is far too late for Democrats to escape their policy failures by blaming Bush. The Democrats alone are responsible for the sea of Federal Government red ink that threatens to drown us all.

Posted by: mike_w_long | August 4, 2010 7:42 AM | Report abuse

You are a fool.

First, we don't care what Bush did

Posted by: CEBFburg | August 4, 2010 12:33 AM

================================

tell that to our soldiers in Afghanistan

or Iraq

Posted by: nada85484 | August 4, 2010 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company