Said President Bush today. "If that ever becomes the mind-set of the policymakers in Washington, it means we'll go back to the old days of waiting to be attacked -- and then respond."
I caught a glimpse of this on the TV -- I was in that restaurant and didn't hear the audio -- and I was stunned by how rejuvenated the President looked. Reading the text now, I'm thinking these congressional victories have transformed him.
२९ सप्टेंबर, २००६
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७१ टिप्पण्या:
""You do not create terrorism by fighting terrorism. If that ever becomes the mind-set of the policymakers in Washington, it means we'll go back to the old days of waiting to be attacked -- and then respond."
He's right, of course, but too many people in this country think he's the enemy instead of the militant Islamic fascists, and others still think if we ignore the problem it will go away.
And his recent victories in Congress should rejuvenate him - on the off chance the Dems should recapture both houses in 06 or 08 and the White House in 08, they very likely don't have the spine to roll back these laws.
Well now that he realizes that he can torture and kill his enemies - legally - however he chooses to define "enemy" - well why WOULDN'T he be invigorated?
I was stunned by how rejuvenated the President looked.
A full morning of swilling moonshine will do that to you.
Christ on a crutch, you are one stupid fucking broad, aren't you? When does the "Fashion House" blogging start? Seems right up your alley...
too many people in this country think he's the enemy instead of the militant Is--
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
I knew this post would drive the dave-oids mad. (But it is so easy.) Really, my motivation for this post is that I saw the prez on tv and thought he looked way better than he's looked in a long time.
I'm agreeing with you Ann. He DOES look invigorated.
I would too - if I knew I could torture and kill my enemies. After all, who doesn't have a list of people they want to have knocked off?
...Said President Bush today. "If that ever becomes the mind-set of the policymakers in Washington, it means we'll go back to the old days of waiting to be attacked -- and then respond."
Or, in his case, ignore all the warnings about the attack and then respond by letting the so-called "mastermind" go free and attacking the country that had nothing to fucking do with it.
Is that simple enough for you to comprehend, brownshirts? Or should I do a "Foto Funnies" with Barbies?
And I'm not saying he's going to kill his enemies. Of course not.
But he can. And that's got to be really cool. I would feel invicible.
I thought it was the stench of death or the the manly odor of courage or something.
It doesn't appear the Left has any idea as to why they continue to lose elections, or will gain any idea anytime soon.
Continually lose elections? Let's see - they won in 1992, 1996, and got the popular vote in 2000. And the Democrats will win big this November.
As a Libertarian, it would be nice to see the party hit 1% of the popular vote again in the next election. I don't care about which party wins or loses. I do care about my rights though. And I do care about keeping my hard-earned money. Neither party cares about either right now.
Tim, you are, of course, completely correct. Most of the Democrats in Congress have no clue on what to do if they were to gain power overnight.
If Pelosi were to become President through the Dems gaining the House and the deaths of both Bush and Cheney, I sincerely believe that our nation would come immediately under sustained terrorist attack on our mainland. Not because the Dems are stupid - I know we think they are, but they really just make incredibly poor, selfish choices, and its not the same thing. The resulting lack of wisdom at a Pelosi ascension would be the perfect Islamofascist/terrorist time to exploit confusion.
Unfortunately, the terrorists are smarter than the Democrats, as the wholesale Democrat buy-out of the Islamof------ propaganda.
and, oh dave . . . why all the hate, brother?
Maybe Bush is fooled by the cherry-picked polls the right-wing blogs feed him.
Of course if you look at the trends in polls - it's hard to dispute the facts.
http://rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm
gj,
failed state? Do you see into the future? ESP?
How do you know?
downtownlad,
I think we've identified your problem:
As good as Rasmussen is, polss ain't "facts". . .
Wrong Brent. It's a FACT that polls are revealing a specific trend, which is a post 9/11 bump for Bush and then trend downwards again.
But if you cherry pick ONE poll on ONE specific day, you will not see the trend - which is that Bush's poll number all year have been pathetically low.
I'm not denying that Bush might get popular again before the elections. Entirely possible. Maybe even likely. But unlike others, I do not try to delude myself by only looking at good polls and ignoring the bad ones.
Kind of like some people's attitude in Iraq. Only look at the good news and ignore the bad (or vice versa).
Dave: You do no good with stuff like that. Your first post was awfully offensive.
Ann: Come on, now. This is slavering, especially for someone so interested in preserving her centrist-cred.
Rejuvenated? Fine. Transformed? He's gleefully untransformable.
downtownlad,
but it is you, my friend, who posits that maybe Bush is bouyed by the polls, when it may be something else entirely.
I see a quote from Woodward's new book in which Bush says that he will stay the course even if his support gets down to only Laura and Barney . . .
That kind of character doesn't need polls or "only good news" to keep them sustained.
"so interested in preserving her centrist-cred"
False! I don't play games. I say what I think. And I observe how people react. Watch out.
Let's see - they won in 1992, 1996, and got the popular vote in 2000.
They got the plurality of the popular vote in 1992, 1996, and 2000, sure.
On the other hand, since 1976 no Democratic Presidential candidate has ever gotten 50% or more of the popular vote and the Democratic Party has lost 90 House seats and 17 Senate Seats. So it is hard to get past the fact that the electorate doesn't much care for Democrats.
Indeed, since FDR (the original Imperial President) died in 1944, the only Democratic Presidential candidates to get 50% of the vote were Johnson in '64 (61.1%) and Carter in '76 (50.1%).
Bush is currently unpopular, but then again he's not running for office. He doesn't have to be popular.
Ann:
It's interesting isn't it when you watch video without the audio. Can give you a whole different take. I agree Bush is looking re-energized. I think he is a bit like his father- he gets tired of the nonstop battling and so he has to get his second wind periodically.
Btw, suggest you listen to the audio-only of the Clnton Wallace show- I did and my impression was that it was not planned by Clinton- he just blew a gasket at the audacity of Wallace's question.
I have to admit that I am surprised that all of the usual righty commenters haven't started smearing Bob Woodward -- though I am under no illusion that will last very long. Have you all lost your edge or what?
Do you approve or disapprove of President Bush's job performance?
dcwilly,
Thanks for posing the scenario - as a conservative, I found Woodwards last 2 books on Bush to be good eatin'. Pretty positive profiles.
Without having got my hands on the latest, I'm still figurin' I'll read it and then split the difference among all 3.
Doyle,
As a huge Bush supporter - I truly believe that history will overall grade him as near great to great (leagues above the just OK Clinton)- I still give him a 7.5 out of 10.
My other ranks:
Clinton 6
Bush (41)6.5
Reagan 9
Carter 3.5
Ford 5
Nixon 7
Johnson 5
Kennedy 5
Eisenhower 8
Truman 8
FDR 9
Hoover 6
"the Democratic Party has lost 90 House seats and 17 Senate Seats"
Oh give me a break. Almost all of those seats that were lost were from right-wing or moderate democrats, not the "left" you so talk of.
Remember, Reagan got his tax cuts passed quite easily by a DEMOCRATIC Congress. How? Because there were lots of Southern Democrats who voted the same way as the Republicans who replaced them.
And when Lincoln Chaffee gets tossed this November, would you say that is a repudiation of the right-wingers?
Well - you just gave Hoover a "6". Your credibility ends there.
downtownlad,
Please tell me that you aren't one of those that believe Hoover's policies caused the depression . . .
gj,
Why did the majority of our country come together about going into Iraq - though not as much as Afghanistan, it was pretty much across the political spectrum.
Please tell me that you aren't one of those that believe Hoover's policies caused the depression
Well yes I am.
I'm not naive enough to think that Hoover caused the Stock Market crash. But everything he did after that exacerbated the situation and he did absolutely nothing to help the economy.
The Fed slashed the money supply. Hoover signed the disasterous Smoot-Hawley act, etc. Pretty much the exact opposite of what economists teach us to do.
You rate Hoover's presidency a success. I'd like to know what you're smoking.
downtownlad,
I don't smoke - my mother, a 2 and 1/2 pack a day lung cancer victim died on her 37th birthday, so I just never picked it up.
Seriously, though, I AM of the opinion that Hoover was still the far better choice at the time than the screaming opposition. The times called for a visionary beyond normal politicians, a truly special man. FDR fit that bill.
I believe that the difference between a disaster that was not truly understood - the Depression - and the overall ineffectiveness of immediately stemming the tide is way different from the scenario I posted above earlier, with a Pelosi ascendancy to the Presidency. With Hoover you had someone of charcter doing as little harm as possible, though like almost everyone else at the time, clueless. With Pelosi and todays crop of Dems, you have appeasers and defeatists potentially in charge - a far more dangerous scenario.
Hoover doing as little harm as possible?
So I guess you consider massive tax hikes to be "little harm"?
You don't know what you're talking about.
Hoover did a LOT! He just did nothing to actually prevent the depression. He did a hell of a lot to cause it.
Here's how I would rate the Presidents:
Clinton 7
Bush (41)3 (The fault for 9/11 lies with Bush Sr.)
Reagan 9
Carter 2
Ford 4
Nixon 3
Johnson 3
Kennedy 4
Eisenhower 8
Truman 6
FDR 9
Hoover 2
Well Fenrisulven - Nothing changed for me yesterday.
We all know that the Constitution doesn't apply to fags (as you like to call them). But it stopped applying to YOU yesterday. You're the one who should be concerned.
downtownlad,
My minor is in American History. My senior thesis was titled "The 1932 Election, FDR vs.Hoover: Campaign Promises Kept and Revoked."
Exacerbated the Depression - yes. I'm of the obviously stupid belief that the Dustbowl and credit policies were the "reasons".
Proportionally, we aren't that far off in our rankings . . .
Yeah - And George Allen never used the N word.
Sorry Fenrisulven - but I was in the closet long enough to know that there isn't one straight male in this country who hasn't used the word "fag".
It's ok. I'm not offended by it.
I'd be very interested to hear about how the Dustbowl caused the Depression in England, France, Australia, etc.
Fenrisulven:
of course, "fag" is slang for cigarette. downtownlad seems to have smoking on the mind tonight . . .
downtownlad,
Do you not feel that the Moratorium slowed the Depression in Europe?
I feel that idiotic politicians who were obsessed with getting back onto the Gold Standard at pre-World War I levels caused the depression in Europe.
You may have studied history Brent. But I studied Economics. And I studied Economic History at Oxford.
downtownlad,
I feel that idiotic politicians who were obsessed with getting back onto the Gold Standard at pre-World War I levels caused the depression in Europe.
Agreed. You are certain to better me tonight in this conversation. I will have to return to my books (in storage nonetheless) to have any realistic hope of defending Hoover much further.
WHOA - I was about to post when I saw that you are an Oxfordian. Glad I shut up now.
Highly enjoyed it though. Thanks again for your rankings list.
Ah, to joust another day . . .
My degree is not from Oxford, but I did study there for a year. That is where I took my Economics History classes though, which focused the Great Depression in Europe.
It hit the UK in the 1920's by the way - so it preceded ours by quite a bit. Which makes the mistakes that Hoover made (well - really the Fed) - much less forgiveable.
And I don't think Roosevelt's economic policies were great either. But I give him high rankings for World War II and implementing things like unemployment insurance, Social Security, etc. (things I disagree with - but the country likes em - so he has to get credit for that)
Downtownlad,
To be fair, if you can, there are competing theories as to the cause of the Great Depression in both Europe and the US. Each have their points - but the ravages of the War and reparations, income distribution, trade barriers, over investment in American capital and the discount rate are all factors to varying degrees. Blaming Hoover alone isn't fair (nor is crediting Roosevelt with recovery). He's not blameless, but not solely responsible either. Events largely beyond the control of both men bear heavily upon their reputations.
PS: If you're betting on the Dems, you'll be very disappointed.
downtownlad,
Completely off subject (I may get this one knocked off), but from some distant Althouse posting I'm thinking that you mentioned that you live in Manhattan. Forgive me if I'm wrong. But if so:
-just curious if libertarians can actually thrive there?
-Do you or anyone else know where to find Broadway tickets at REGULAR prices (no stereotypes intended in the question). I can't find anything for Mary Poppins until February and even my wife's former college roommate in Greenwich can't find any. We are in Manhattan in early January.
(Sorry Ann. I thought I'd take a shot at the Althouse "Coffee House" regulars, since Craigslist has failed me)
PS: If you're betting on the Dems, you'll be very disappointed.
Doubtful. Anyone who listened to me a year ago would have doubled their money by now.
http://downtownlad.blogspot.com/2005/11/picture-speaks-thousand-words.html
The Libertarian Party got about 10,000 votes in Manhattan if I recall correctly. I know at least 10 of them.
But no - Manhattan is not exactly a libertarian's paradise. It is a fag's paradise though, which is why I live here. It's also a culinary, nightlife, cultural, and monetary paradise - which is ALSO while I'm here.
I don't know much about Broadway. Wasn't even aware Mary Poppins was playing. I actually had two tickets to see the History Boys a couple of weeks ago, but ended up tossing them in the trash when I decided to eat at Nobu instead.
I did hear that the Lieutenant of Inishmore was absolutely hysterical. Maybe you should try and see that instead.
For cheap tickets, you should try the TKTS booth in Times Square.
downtownlad,
I agree with your assessment of New York Life. Even the New York Times seems a wee bit better when you're reading it there.
Appreciate the advice. The website for "Lieutenant of Inishmore" says that it closed Sept 3, but thank you still for the recommendation.
I've pretty much decided to take our chances at the TKTS Booth. I'm afraid that at this point it's pretty much "Mary Poppins" or nothing (heavy sigh . . .)
Sincere thanks for the post.
All the best until the next Althouse encounter!
Maybe the president had work done. A little eye lift, neck lift. It's quite possible, especially in the run-up to an election. Such things have profound psychological effects on the beholder -- case in point.
My rankings differ:
Clinton 4 - a good economy is not remembered. His only memorable legacy will be monica and the debate over 9-11. He gets a 4 because of 2 terms.
Bush (41) - 4
Reagan 8.5 - won the cold war-reinvigorated conservatism.
Carter 2 - one of the worst.
Ford 4 - 2 years doesn't cut it.
Nixon 4 - resigned in disgrace.
Johnson - 6 Johnson's stock will rise as the 60s generation dies off and less partisan people realize that Vietnam was worth fighting.
Kennedy 5 - Kennedy's stock is falling
Eisenhower 5
Truman 8 - Truman decided that we would fight the cold war. He is near great.
FDR 9.5 - FDR deserves to be a very great along with Lincoln and Washington. Despite his failings and naivte about Uncle Joe, he won World War II and was elected 4 times.
Hoover - 4
Bush Jr will be ranked in the 7-8 range if Iraq stablizes and becomes a moderately free country. He will be in the 9 range if the middle east completely reforms. He will be at a 4-5 if not.
Why is Bush rejuvenated? Because his wife has sex with him, unlike Bill Clinton.
Amba: Isn't there healing time required? I don't see how the President can get out of the public eye long enough to get work done. Maybe that's why all the Presidents seem to age so much in office. Everyone else is getting work done.
Oh give me a break. Almost all of those seats that were lost were from right-wing or moderate democrats
Sure -- because the death-grip that the left has on the Democratic party makes it very difficult for non-leftie Democrats to appeal to moderates and swing voters. They chased the non-leftists into the arms of the Republican party.
not the "left" you so talk of.
My statement was "it is hard to get past the fact that the electorate doesn't much care for Democrats". I never said left-wing Democrats were being defeated. You should spend less time making hyperbolic statements and more time working on your reading comprehension skills. :)
If he was really fighting terrorism, he might have a point.
What we are doing in Iraq is mostly fighting homegrown insurgents in the middle of a civil war, and in the process validate Osama's claim that he made right after 9/11 that we are trying to occupy muslim lands.
There are at any given time a few hundred foreign terrorists in Iraq, who mainly come to die fighting us. But that is secondary. So yes, the fact that we are fighting in Iraq is on balance helping the terrorists.
If we were really fighting terrorism then this past July 4 I wouldn't have been reading about how we disbanded the unit the CIA set up specifically to hunt for bin Laden.
If we were really fighting terrorism and this wasn't just a theme that Rove is hitting ahead of the election then I will still be hearing about it as a top priority by say, Christmas. Think I will? I doubt it.
I wouldn't have been reading about how we disbanded the unit the CIA set up specifically to hunt for bin Laden.
Because they did such an awesome job of hunting him down?
Cedarford is right on. However it is also true that despite the Iraq war and 5 years of Bush at war and the whole world hating us, we have not had another attack. How much madder can the islamic world become? Do they need to be mad for another couple of years before egyptian shop keepers drop their trade and join jihad. At this point, if someone hasn't gotten mad enough to join jihad already, they are not going to join jihad. By this time, the terror inductees have been maxed out.
What about the jihadi army that Bin Ladin created. It has been almost totally liquidated in Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe we made them madder, but this anger has not resulted in an increase of Jihadi training camps. No matter how mad they become, they have a problem in that a training camp shows up on a satellite image. Thus, until we cut and run, the islamists will have to contend with untrained small groups - not enough for strategic change.
Islamism has been institutionalized in the muslim world over the last three decades. We are now fighting those institutions. We will win the war on terror Eventually we will wipe the institutions away as the people who built them and their successors are killed. However, we need to stick it out to the end.
However it is also true that despite the Iraq war and 5 years of Bush at war and the whole world hating us, we have not had another attack.
People in Madrid and London might disagree.
The single most critical issue for America in this war is maintaining the political will to wage the war to victory.
We have every material advantage over the enemy save political will. The enemy believes us weak, irresolute, selfish and unable to sustain casualties. They aren't banking on defeating us on the battlefield - they are banking on us growing weary of the fight and conceding victory to them. They don't win by defeating us on the battlefield - they win by outlasting us.
And in their battle plan they have no greater allies than the Left and the media, forever carping and complaining about the war, questioning the very need to confront our enemy. The Left and the media is, wittingly or not, waging the enemy's information war. This is utterly transparent, and the Left's ability to deny it is only a measure of their shamelessness.
And while the administration's execution of the war has been imperfect, I believe one of the fairest criticisms against the administration is their inability to prepare a communications strategy to counter the utterly predictable communications strategy of the Left. Sustaining the political will to win is part of their job, and they've ceded the domestic battlefield to the enemy's dupes.
Will Woodwards book takes some of the wind out of Bush's pre-November election sails?
Woodward: Bush Conceals Iraq Violence .
Woodward Raises Ghosts Of Watergate
Concealing Evidence
Veteran Washington Post investigative reporter Bob Woodward is set to deliver the latest bombshell in the war in Iraq, as his latest book alleges high level concealing of evidence about the level of violence in Iraq against U.S. soldiers.
Woodward is scheduled to deliver the goods in a "60 Minutes" interview with Mike Wallace scheduled for this weekend.
According to Reuters: "The Bush administration is concealing the level of violence against U.S. troops in Iraq and the situation there is growing worse despite White House and Pentagon claims of progress, journalist Bob Woodward said in advance of a new book."
The wire service added: '"It's getting to the point now where there are eight, 900 attacks a week. That's more than a hundred a day. That is four an hour attacking our forces," Woodward said in excerpts of the interview released on Thursday before the release of his book on the administration, called "State of Denial."'
The New York Times reported: "The White House ignored an urgent warning in September 2003 from a top Iraq adviser who said that thousands of additional American troops were desperately needed to quell the insurgency there, according to a new book by Bob Woodward, the Washington Post reporter and author. The book describes a White House riven by dysfunction and division over the war."
see link for further.....
Bearbee,
Yes the "That 70's Show" mentality is in full stride. Remember that was the golden age of liberalism. Most of Woodward's book is quotes from the old Country Club Republican guard that never got over Reagan's victory. Bush's war will end on November 7th when he defeats the Democrat Sunni insurgency. Unlike leftists, I trust the American people. Why we are in Iraq matters little, the consequences of failure do. This is a generational choice to be made.
bearbee,
If Woodward's book and characterization of Iraq are correct, while it would serve as an indictment against the Bush Administration, would support the idea of ramping up, rather than withdrawing from, our effort in Iraq.
Or do you really believe we can find a way to win the war against militant Islamic fascism sooner and with less lives lost by withdrawing from Iraq in defeat?
Or do you think we really aren't at war at all against an ascending militant Islamic fascism? That it's nothing more than neocon and Israeli lobby scaremongering best handled by a few more cops, intelligence agents, Arab-language translators and unified radio networks for first responders while we wait for them to hit us again?
Or do you think we really aren't at war at all against an ascending militant Islamic fascism?
No
SOUTH AMERICA'S TERROR FINANCIAL CENTER
This little known, but highly important area is well known to be a financial center for Hezbollah and perhaps other terror linked organizations.
Bush commited the greatest military blunder in over 2000 years since Augustus sent the Roman legions into Germania in 9 BC. It's to laugh.
Some idiot historion wrote this in a column a few years ago. It has been repeated many times by additional idiots including JT Davis who posted above You can tell it was cut and pasted because he same mistake is also repeated (it was 9 AD, not 9 BC).
I am not going to debate whether Iraq is a strategic blunder, however, Augustus's expedition into Germania was not a blunder made by Augustus. It was a trap set up by the Germans on the legions themselves. If it wasn't for this trap, Germany would also be speaking a Romantic language today. Following the battle, Rome did quite well as it prospered for another 180 years, and then declined for anoter 250 years after that.
Besides, I can name quite a few blunders that were far worse than Tuetonburg... how about Hitler's invasion of Russia? Or the Allies invasion of Revolutionary France in 1792; or Guy of Lusignan's march to the Horns of Hattin;
Even the New York Times acknowledges al Qaeda's dependency upon western media to win its war against us:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/world/30jordan.html?ex=1317268800&en=fb3722198f902aae&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
The only question is why the Times and others are so willing to help fulfill al Qaeda's needs.
we have not had another attack.
People in Madrid and London might disagree.
Um, the "we" in that sentence meant "Americans", not "white people".
Will Woodwards book takes some of the wind out of Bush's pre-November election sails?
Bush isn't running for election in November. So that's a "no".
As for whether Woodward's book will make any waves, that's a "no" as well. The casualties in Iraq have been well-publicized, and that's what Americans actually care about.
Think about it -- tens of thousands of insurgency attacks on our forces since the beginning of the year, and all they've only managed to kill 560 coalition troops? More than anything else that demonstrates just how incompetent the insurgency is.
Revenant,
Thanks for the clarity on the attacks vs. actual deaths.
If Woodward is correct, it takes an average of 52.4 full-blown attacks on a Coalition member to have a chance of killing him. That is incompetence, but don't hold your breath at seeing that explained by the New York Times.
If I had $1,000,000 - for real - I would wager it all that the insurgency in Iraq would die down to almost nothing in less than one year if there were no news outlets in the West that pumped the terrorists "accomplishments". I'm completely serious.
If you are over 40, you know in your heart that the New York Times, et al., helped PROLONG the Cold War by more than a decade by ensuring "fairness" in coverage of both "sides" (Nuclear Freeze, Gorbachev Worship, Glasnost Heaven). The American people got far less than they deserved: an elite media based in Manhattan that was somewhat sympathetic to some of the ideals of Communism and the Left, and daily skewed their "reporting" as such.
For you young people, the Left - that's today's same Democratic Party - was far more sympathetic to the Communist Regimes when they were still around than they will ever admit to today. And we have the archives to prove it.
It was Republicans that protected America and brought an end to the Cold War - after JFK, no Democrats even applied for the job. But they will be the first to stand in line and claim credit. Thankfully, there are too many of us still around to let them get away with it. And we have the archives to prove it.
These same media mavens and their self-righteous journalistic heirs are still propaganda arms, willingly or not, for the Isalmofascist groups that want to kill Americans - EVERY American. And we have the daily news to prove it.
In sum, the Democrats (Cold War Losers - they certainly didn't help win it) are more afraid than ever, as Fox News and the Blogs give an alternative to the busy American.
The slow yet sure loosening of the grip on what America is told everyday to think by the left-leaning New York Times and its left-leaning sisters in the media is the #1 Reason there is true hope for America's future.
Bush isn't running for election in November. So that's a "no".
Mid-term elections are a referendum on a president and administration policies.
Mid-term elections are a referendum on a president and administration policies.
No, they aren't -- the press just likes to claim that to make them sound more exciting.
For example, the Republicans got trounced in the '82 elections, even though Reagan won landslides in '80 and '84 without making any policy changes. The Democrats picked up seats again in '86, but Bush still cruised to an easy victory on Reagan's coattails. Similarly, Clinton won better in '96 than in '92, again without changing his policies, even though the Democrats got annihilated in the '94 midterms.
Sometimes things do go the other way -- the Democrats lost in '78 and '80 and won in '90 and '92. There's no overall pattern, though.
Just some thoughts........
I think the 1980 election was primarily against Carter not only because of international crisis but because of inflation and a recessive economy, giving Reagan the landslide victory. Two years later under Reagan the economy was in further trouble with unemployment continuing to rise and finally peaking about 1984. People were not feeling good overall.
In 1992 Bush lost to Clinton on the economic issue. The country was in a mild recession but a slow economic recovery was underway in about the 3rd year of Bush term. Bush, however, seemed intent on winning the election based on the 'feel good' Gulf War victory and incapable of clearly articulating the circumstances and degree of the economic recovery. The media drumbeat was the poor economy. There was also a significant Perot factor of 19% of the popular vote. Did the elimination of the Perot factor have an impact on the 1994 mid-term elections? I don't know.......
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा