How we wound up with Bush
Unlike some, I won't place the blame on middle America. Unlike others, I don't believe in stupid conspiracy theories. I do believe that when politicians lose they have no one to blame but themselves and their party's leadership.The turning points in both the 2000 and 2004 elections are very clear to me.
October 2000: Orange Al Gore
I remember this night well. I was in Manhattan on a business trip and watched the debate from my hotel room. Like everyone else I winced when Bush mangled words, so I was expecting a blowout. Camille Paglia sums up best what happened that night.What a loathsome, smug, preening, juvenile character! The supposedly great debater babbled out of turn; snickered, snorted and sneered; panted and sighed like a bellows; and rocked to and fro and ripped paper like a patient in a mental ward. And Gore looked positively repellent with his dark mat of dyed hair, garish orange makeup and flippantly twisting, strangely female features: I kept on thinking of the bewigged, transvestite Norman Bates as Mother in "Psycho".As I watched his smug, smarmy performance I realized that Gore's numbers would take a dive. I think even Democrats, deep in their hearts, knew that as well. Snotty politicians don't go over well with most Americans.
September 2004: The Deanification of the Democratic Party
Democratic Party activists were seething with rage. Howard Dean continued to make a spectacle of himself. Retards took to the streets, once again offending the hell out of middle America voters.In wades Dan Rather. A fierce, proud liberal, Rather was handed fake documents and thought he had Bush by the short hairs. Despite the fact that the documents were obviously fraudulent, Rather refused to admit that he was wrong. Rather's boneheaded move set off a firestorm, riling up the Republican fence sitters who up until that point had been dissatisfied with Bush. The foam-flecked Dean brand of politics was seen even in mainstream news reporters, and the public didn't like what they saw.
So what happens this year? Who knows. Howard Dean has been a disaster for the Democratic Party, much the same way Bush has been a disaster for Republicans. Bush won despite himself. The Democrats won in 2006 also despite themselves. They won not because Dean prescribed the right tactics and the DNC offered more attractive candidates, but because the voters fired pork-laden, tone-deaf Republicans who cared more about their own power than in representing the voters. This situation hasn't changed, which can be seen in the poll numbers. Republican and Democrat leaders remain stupid and unpopular.
posted by Lou Minatti @ 8:07 PM
26 Comments:
Camille Paglia is a crazy "postmodern" academic version of Ann Coulter.
They both suck.
Howard Dean sucks.
The Democrats need to get their shit together unless they want another Long (and stolen) Defeat.
WTF is wrong with them?
I voted for Georgie twice, and would do it again given the alternatives, think about it, he would beat out Mccain,obama, and billary. I think his legacy will be respected if not in the history books than in the words of those that speak the truth.
We got Bush because he was the best man for the job and, I suspect, will eventually be recognized as one of our second tier great presidents. The "Bush Doctrine" by itself distinguishes him as an outstanding president. The strong economy and Alito and Roberts appointments confirm it.
I think anonymous is correct. If Bush was up again, he might do better than McCain or Hillary. I'm not sure he'd beat Obama along the lines of another Bush/Clinton term.
I really wish I knew why the quality of politician being offered up for Presidency remains very low. Many suggest it is the primary process, but the primary process kept Howard Dean and Ron Paul from winning, just as much as it blocked Dick Gephardt and Fred Thompson.
We wound up with Bush because Gore couldnt win TN!!!
The quality of candidates is low because the quality of people is low. It was ever thus but, in the old days, we didn't have as much information.
Personally, I am content with the job Bush has done. His social policies have been moderate. And, any honest person would have to admit that unpleasant times with Iraq and the jihadis were inevitable. Without Bush, things might have been different, but nobody can convince me they would have been better.
Ditto on Leland's comment on the primary process. It's disorganized, arbitrary, disproportional and probably unconstitutional given the "one-man, one vote" principal. It's caused one party to nominate someone who's got about 30% of the support of party members, and complete chaos in another party.
Although it's been roundly rejected in theory, the 19th century concept of parties being clubs that can decide their own rules and candidates--regardless of how dysfunctional or corrupt--is still alive and well. Parties should manage their own affairs, but Congress or the federal courts need to intervene to prevent from happening again what has been a disaster this primary season.
Proposed reforms: All state primaries occur on the same date, all primaries are straight voting with no caucases, runoffs being #1 and #2 candidates when there is a failure to get 50% of the vote, and pre-registration in a party is required to vote in the primary.
That being said, watch the parties and government either do nothing to reform the system, or take measures that make it worse.
Alternatively, the party system (though still remaining necessary for congressional elections) may fade away as an influence on who runs and wins Presidential races.
God help both parties if Americans ever get the choice of 'None of the Above'.
We get such a poor quality of candidates for many reasons, a few of which are
1. People who are up to the job have taken actions and said things in the past that will whack them in the back of the head.
2. Anyone who wants the job bad enough to put up with the nominating process has a screw loose.
3. The extremists on the right and left are over represented in the primary process, because they vote in numbers far greater than their percentage of the overall population
"Snotty politicians don't go over well with most Americans."
Gore got more votes than Bush.* What does that say about Bush?
* Although the margin of error was greater than the margin of victory.
Eric nailed it perfectly however I would add point 4 - the process as it exists now seems to cater to political extremists, the mentally unbalanced, and/or deranged. Case in point - only a die hard partisan or someone with a screw loose is still parroting the "Stolen Election" theory from 2000. I recall all my liberal friends screaming about how unfair the electoral college was and how the winner of the popular vote should win the election - then in 2004 they reversed themselves because even though Bush won the popular vote by a huge margin just flipping 60,000 votes in Ohio would give their man a victory. Pathetic.
We got George because he was the lesser of two evils in every case, and he's a lot shrewder than his opponents give him credit for - or he wouldn't have outsmarted them at every turn. Love him or hate him, the man knows how to win.
"his smug, smarmy performance"
When and where did Gore give that speech in which he railed the Republicans are "evil! evil!"?
I won't take issue with "the quality of candidates is low", as I concur with the reasons why, though less so with the conclusion.
But I note that "Bush has been a disaster for the Republican Party". And that "Howard Dean has been a disaster for the Democratic Party".
Oh, and that "Bill Clinton was a disaster for the Democratic Party", noted by many as he lost the House, etc.
Hmmmmm.
Step back and, setting aside Dean, note that the last two presidents have been "disasters" for their party. Clinton now historically will be seen as an OK, not terrible President, Bush will be remembered better, I am convinced, certainly far better than the present.
So just what is happening here? I submit that there is truth in what some surely retired politician once said.... "The American people are no prize".
The problem in these "disasters" that cause moderate voters to turn
on their own President and party, is largely one of perception, as seen by a population with an appallingly low sense of history and civics, a childish sense of entitlement of being shielded from any and all "bad things", and a ridiculously inflated opinion of themselves, certainly when judging Presidents and politicians. Not to mention a media and educational establishment largely responsible for the above.
Neither the above issues alone, nor the problematic caliber of current candidates, are singly responsible for the, quote, "disasters", that we speak of. It is a mixed bag.
But let us not ignore the element of fault, dear Brutus, that lies in ourselves.
"voters fired pork-laden, tone-deaf Republicans who cared more about their own power than in representing the voters"
Of course, they hired fired pork-laden, tone-deaf Democrats who care more about their own power than in representing the voters - but then again, there really weren't a lot of alternatives. There are a few good Republicans like Flake, Sessions and Coburn who care about pork and getting a grip on spending. I assume there are probably also a few good Dems in that mold - but none of either party will prosper because the party leadership sees pork as the route to their incumbency. They would rather be reviled or be the leader of the opposition than do the right thing and maybe lose their own seat. I guess that's logical and normal for human nature, but it is killing good government, and neither party seems to offer any solution - remember Bush's ratings may be bad, but Congress' are even lower.
Contrary to popular belief, Bush has not been a bad President. He handled the situations that faced him with honesty and integrity. We are lucky to have him.
The failure of the majority of Americans to recognize the honest efforts of their politicians is one of the real problems facing our society. Too many Americans have become spoiled, back-seat quarterback citizens who place too much emphasis on the personal imperfections of politicians. We too often blame or credit them with things that they have little control over.
If we really want to improve the quality of our political leaders, we need to start treating candidates like human beings. We need to allow them to be imperfect without fear of having all of their past mistakes exposed to national ridicule. The fact is, the political ridicule game has been in play for far too long and better quality candidates have simply found better things to do with their lives that don't involve exposing their families to public shame. Unless we fix this problem, any goal involving having better politicians in Washington is a pipe-dream.
wow, could not agree more with these commenters.
first, plenty of blame to go around to the people, the process and the elected officials. second, both parties suck. how hard could it be to provide a pro-American, anti-corruption party? do all the politicians have to be venal?
I think a century from now George Bush will be regarded as highly as our other two turn of the century presidents, Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt.
It's the spoiled people, looking for Unreal Perfection in a "President" and a "Government".
It is wanting to quickly, easily, and painlessly solve problems in 30 minutes, before the commercial.
It is the desire to appear moral while accepting immorality in the leaders, and terrible results which can be excused by the claim of good intentions.
It is a Media and Academia and elites who hate free-market capitalism, and thus an important aspect of America.
There were plenty of candidates, all real, all with some strengths and weaknesses.
But the media Horse Race for president sucks out all the attention on the porkers in Congress -- each voter should have as much info about the Congress folk as about the Presidential candidates, but they don't.
And the people don't seem to care; not enough to vote against an incumbent in a primary. All other incumbents are happy to focus the spotlight on the President, so that there's no attention span available to the voters to see their own failures.
I thought, based on your title, you'd point out:
~22 mil voted for Bush because of Iraq/ War on Terror; ~9 mil on Economy/ Taxes; ~26 mil on Moral Values, ~4 mil for other reasons (Kerry hate?). (See Pew, 2004 exit polls, and extrapolate %)
People want so many policies, but we voters don't agree on the right policies, nor even which ones are most important.
Is there some sort of trend with orange Democrats?
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
I'm not a big Bush fan. I'm ticked off about (1) his out-to-lunch country-club-Repub attitude to the illegal immigration that is degrading the lives of Americans in the bottom third of the income stream (2) his out-to-lunch see-no-evil approach to Congressional overspending (3) his similar attitudes to government agencies controlled by liberals that undermine his own policies (4) his elitist do-nothing attitude about racial quotas and (5) his dubious family connections with the corrupt elites of Saudi Arabia and Mexico. So I'm not a W fan.
But then I look at the Dems. The prospective candidates are so bad it stuns me. Gore, Kerry, Dean, Hillary, Obama -- are you kidding? The reason the Republicans have degenerated so much is that they only have to be better than the Democrats, and the Democrats have imploded in a blast of loony left insanity.
Looks like I had an Instalanche and missed it.
Bush was elected because he's a real human being. He talks like a regular person, he's comes across as genuine and sincere. He does not try to pretend he's something he's not. He's likable.
People can connect with that. They feel they can trust him, that he doesn't have ulterior motives. That's why so many voted for him.
Compare that to the "say anything" democrats, who believe that if it is possible for something to be true, then you can claim that it *is* true, whether it is or isn't. Witness Hillary Clinton's Tuzlo fabrication or John Kerry's Christmas mission malarky.
I'm hope this is the forerunner to "How We Wound Up With McCain," but I don't really want him either.
I shudder when I think about a debate between Obama and McCain. Obama is smarter and smoother than Gore. He's too smart to menace or disrespect John McCain. John McCain, on the other hand, is so intent on controlling his temper that he's nearly catatonic.
Obama is smarter and smoother than Gore.
Obama is smoother than Gore, but I don't know about smarter. A guy who plans to run for president doesn't pal around with racist hatemongers.
Obama is smoother than Gore, but I don't know about smarter. A guy who plans to run for president doesn't pal around with racist hatemongers.
Lou,
I like you, but you really sound terribly misinformed when you make comments like that.
Nonetheless, thanks for taking the post about that chick's nose offline. Women tend to take that sort of thing rather personally (sometimes tragically) - and since she's not Hillary Clinton or Ann Coulter I don't think she deserves it.
P.S. Have you read Obama's books?
According to some folks, Gore 2008 cannot be counted out!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home