Putting The Bush Years Behind Us

The way I see it, the Republican Party, right or wrong, has been stigmatized by the controversy surrounding president Bush in a way that dwarfs even the shame and disparagement that the Clinton years and the Gore Recount fiasco brought to the Democratic Party. I think we are looking at a two term Democrat president in 2008 if the Republicans can't put Bush's legacy out of sight and out of mind.

I have a series of questions for people here, as well as my own take on those questions.

1. Who is the Republican candidate for 2008 who possess both the standing in his party as well as the non-Bush connected record necessary to win both a primary and a general election?

I don't think they'll nominate him, and there are some Bush ties here, although not policy ones really, but I would go with John Engler. He was governor of Michigan from 1991-2003, president of the Republican Governor's association in 1996, and besides cutting taxes he also oversaw some major revamps of executive departments in Michigan, which is exactly what DC needs now in many people's minds.
Also, the Republicans haven't won Michigan since 1988. 17 electoral votes changing hands is a big deal. That would save their skin if they lost Ohio or Florida this time around.

2. What issues need to be emphasized to rally the Republican base and keep swing voters from rushing to the democrats as an anti-Republican vote?

The way I see it, especially if they go with Engler, they have to push restructuring, and as part of that they need to talk about overhauling the Patriot Act to take out anything that may not need to be there.

They have to push the border as an issue as well to bring the base back to life in the SouthWest, or they might lose 15 electoral votes in Arizona and New Mexico.

They also need to state an objective for withdrawl from Iraq in terms of a year within the candidates first term. They don't have to word it that way or mean it that way, but something to the effect of "I will not accept a lack of progress in Iraq. X many Iraqi troops will be trained and equipped by 20XX, because that is vital to getting us out of Iraq and fulfilling our responsibility to the Iraqi citizens who were tragically caught in the middle of a war not between us and them, but between us and Saddam."

They have to play up controversial issues and defend them well to sidestep the smaller, more complicated issues in which the American people will not have the patience for apologetics, such as social security privatization. The Republicans, in effect, have to run as a reform party even though their man is currently in office.


Am I way off on this? Who do you think can do it for them, and on what issues?

This is not to Republicans in general, but he probably will rig it so he wins like bush did. Clinton brought shame? Um NO! He did nothing POLITICALLY WRONG. He had an affair yes, but he did nothing majorly Politically wrong I mean he ended the cold war and was very interested in aliens (you can definetely tell I mean I don't know you just could) some republicans think that they can get away with having a republican president because the 'previous one' had an affair. I'm sorry I could argue all day on this subject, but I just HATE the scientific and grammatical people, I mean I don't want to sit through like 1 million paragraphs of just distractions from real problem and just plain ****. I do not try to be grammaticaly correct because it is a waste of time AND GUYS I AM NO FRICKEN ENGLISH TEACHER.

There are many people who, like me, consider themselves independant but voted for Bush last time, having had quite enough of the Clintons and their ilk.

The Republicans have always said, "Give us the White House and Congress at the same time and we'll get some good stuff done! Come On! Just give us the chance."

Well, we did, but instead of good things like tax reform and fixin SS, we get another war like vietnam, where we aren't actually allowed to do the things that would bring victory while Mexico invades us unopposed on our southern border. We get things like the Terri Schavio disgrace and issues about Gays and Abortion which really shouldn't be the business of government in the first place.

No, I haven't been happy with the ones I voted for. They have blown their chance with me. Next time I'll be voting Libertarian or for anyone besides a Democrat or Republican. I'm convenced that both major political parties are too focused on power rather than actually doing good for the country. Regardless of the candidate either puts forward, they will be still be controlled by the party power-seeking apparatus, therefore incapable of effecting any real positive change. This is because any positive change would involve taking power away from the government and giving it back to the people, in any number of areas. We all know that is never going to happen.

As skeptical as I have been about most of the more far fetched fortellings of doom and gloom out there, I think the "Bush Years" will be known in the future as the years where the scary truth that our society in it's current form is unsustainable became obvious to many more people. New Orleans is a hole torn in the illusion of the country as a well functioning machine. It's a sobering reminder that any Urban area is about 3 to 5 days away from anarchy at any given time.

The whole problem was Clinton. He did nothing for 8 years We finally got a real leader in the White House. I am very pleased with Bush's leadership and in 2008, if it looks like we get a moderate like McCain or Guiliani making a push, I could easily see someone like Cheney or Gingrich getting into the race.

President Cheney...that would be awesome!

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
As skeptical as I have been about most of the more far fetched fortellings of doom and gloom out there, I think the "Bush Years" will be known in the future as the years where the scary truth that our society in it's current form is unsustainable became obvious to many more people. New Orleans is a hole torn in the illusion of the country as a well functioning machine. It's a sobering reminder that any Urban area is about 3 to 5 days away from anarchy at any given time.

If we all hang out together long enough and see the same things that keep happening and discuss them in an open, honest format the point of views certainly do begin to merge don't they.

Thanks to Vagabond too for all these refreshing "focus group" style topics you've been starting. They're really helpful to the forum and on helping people focus on issues over rhetoric.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist06Clinton brought shame? Um NO! He did nothing POLITICALLY WRONG.

You completely missed my point. I didn't stipulate that he was right or wrong. I said that he was stigmatized, and he was. The controversy around the Lewinsky scandal was extremely bad for the democrats. When people are overwhelmed by controversy and BS, they want it overwith. The congress, to the average uninformed voter, is just an annonymous mob, so most of the fallout from that huge media circus stuck to Clinton, and when the people went to the polls to voice their displeasure with all of that hoopla, they associated the hoopla with Bill Clinton's VP, as opposed to some funny looking governor they didn't even know existed before the election.

he ended the cold war and was very interested in aliens (you can definetely tell I mean I don't know you just could)

You must be thinking about Reagan, on both of those matters. Gorbachev accused Clinton of "reversing the strategies which ended the cold war" after the Kosovo fiasco, in which UN troops killed more Kosovar Albanians than the Serbs did, and which we never would have been involved in to begin with if Clinton hadn't lied about the number of dead in Kosovo. He said half a million- it turned out to be 5,000 and some odd. He said Genocide. The ICJ ruled that there was no genocide. Not only did you miss the point, but your response was partisan drivel. Objectively speaking, our last two presidents have both been horrible. But really that's only a peripheral part of the subject, because ultimately the point is perception, not morality, and as I said above, popular perception associated Clinton and those close to him with a lot of controversy that the American people were just sick of, which is exactly what has happened to Bush now as well.

The need to put the Bush years behind us (Just as the Democrats had to put the Clinton/Gore years behind them) is mostly not one of objective reality or morality, but one of popularity and perception.

some republicans think that they can get away with having a republican president

Get away with having a republican president? Nobody's trying to get away with anything- I didn't even know that it was against the rules to have one until you suggested that there was something to "get away with".

By the way, I'm not some republicans. I'm not any republican. I belong to the Anti Party. It's new- I just started it but membership has already swelled to 1 person. Our objectives are to destroy the two major parties and take the Federal Government back into compliance with the limited government outlined in the Constitution.

but I just HATE the scientific and grammatical people,

I thought it was Republicans who hated that stuff.

I mean I don't want to sit through like 1 million paragraphs of just distractions from real problem and just plain ****. I do not try to be grammaticaly correct because it is a waste of time AND GUYS I AM NO FRICKEN ENGLISH TEACHER.

You've been drinking, haven't you? Nobody has said spit about your grammar, my post was hardly 1 million paragraphs, and if words like stigmatize and controversial fry your brain you'll be pleased to know that reasonably priced dictionaries are available in virtually every book store in America.


Edit to add:
Carseller, cut the partisan crap. You and conspiracytheorist can sing the praises of our last two presidents all day long, the fact of the matter is that While America suffered, Clinton was playing games with an intern and Bush was down in Crawford playing games with his cattle or whatever he does there.
Bush let a couple of tired old puppetmasters of early 70s vintage run his administration for him, and all they did with it was mismanage a war that any well run boyscout troop could have won.

Conservative-leaning non partisans like me wouldn't be talking about putting the Bush years behind us if he hadn't A. Failed spectacularly. B. Been hopelessly marked in the public eye for it.

[edit on 5-9-2005 by The Vagabond]

[edit on 5-9-2005 by The Vagabond]

okay All I have to say is...

"Don't you recognize, I'll rock the boat again!" Alien Ant Farm

Bush should listen to Don't Lie by the Black Eyes Peas.

Look I'm upset with Clinton (even though i'm a Democrat) because he let the conspiracies happen wthout question.

I'm upset with Bush because he created the conspiracies! Look this is a really bad thing to say, but 9/11 wasn't all a 'terrorists doing' it was also Bushs fault, yes its true.

You should watch a free online thing called 'Loose Change' I don't know link, but its good, true, and best of all FREE.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist06
I'm upset with Bush because he created the conspiracies! Look this is a really bad thing to say, but 9/11 wasn't all a 'terrorists doing' it was also Bushs fault, yes its true.

I think you and I would both agree that Bush probably couldn't pronounce conspiracy successfully 3 times in a row, much less create one.

He's as dirty as any other politician, I'll give you that much, but the Republican side of what some might call the shadow government- those usual suspects who keep popping back up and always seem to be conveniently absent whenever something bad happens- they don't start with Bush. They all got their start in the Nixon/Ford administrations, and several of them can be traced back to political mentors in the 40s who were on the wrong side of the fascist vs socialist tug of war in America which gave birth to the parties we know and love today.

Same could be said of the late Democratic party, via the Kennedys especially. I say "the late" democratic party because something sort of funny happened after Johnson. All of a sudden the democrats became born losers as far as the presidency is concerned, slowly but surely their entire party began to lose ground, all the way up until 1992. It could be argued that Clinton (and Perot) saved the Democratic party from utter destruction after the blowout elections of 80, 84, and 88. I think if Bush 41 had been reelected that Dick Cheney or G-dub either one could have run and won in 96 and probably would have gotten a second term too.
It will be interesting to watch as time passes and see if that was just a fluke or if there will be a changing of the guard and a new power structure in the Democratic party to pick up the torch that was shot out the Kennedy conspiracy's hands.

But I SERIOUSLY digress.

The "behind us" part is a tad confusing, as it can cover two directions. First, it could mean the grand stage presentations that are today's politics - the passion play where we're lead to believe that we have a choice of something different.
Or second, it could mean the punishment phase for the transgressions obvious to all , regardless of political stripe.
On the former, it really will be a complete re-tool year, neither face of the same coin will have success running Gepharts/Libermans vs. Lotts/Cheneys. "New" messages will be the point positions to "heal" the past.
On the latter, the classic psyc aspect of "closure" is the only remedy to "denial".

You mean try to fix all the damage Bush I and II and Clinton have done? Pfft.

BTW it's not unreasonable to expect high moral values for our public servants.

Clinton did some damage with NAFTA as I recall.

Originally posted by Carseller4

President Cheney...that would be awesome!

I think you made a mistake on the spelling of cheney, is actually "Mr. Corporate power and president Haliburton.

I'm not so much talking about repairing the damage that anyone arguably did to America. What I'm more concerned with is simply considering what the Republicans have to do to put the image and the psychological baggage in the minds of the voters which is attached to Bush in the past.

For me it's mainly a matter of theory. I'm not so warm and fuzzy with either of the parties these days. I'm becoming steadily more in love with my views on scaling down government to constitutional limits and creating a more diverse political field that will be more conducive to compromise and responsive government. As a matter of theory, it's interesting though. The Republicans are in a pretty pickle in terms of public relations right now, and I'm curious what the strategists here at PTS think their organization would have to do to regain the trust of the people.

Originally posted by Amethyst
You mean try to fix all the damage Bush I and II and Clinton have done? Pfft.

BTW it's not unreasonable to expect high moral values for our public servants.

Clinton did some damage with NAFTA as I recall.

Absolutely!
Hey, I have an idea! Let's vote in another Dem or Rep! There we go! While we're at it, let's put everyone in white clothes and slippers and pass out the meds twice daily, as we all know tha tdoing the same thing over and over expecting different results is a clear illustration of insanity!

www.constitutionparty.com...

TC, you say that as if it were sarcasm, but THX1138 is well on its way to reality. Just give it time. "If at any time you feel you are not properly medicated, it is your responsibility to inform your supervisor..."

Originally posted by Thomas CrowneWhile we're at it, let's put everyone in white clothes and slippers and pass out the meds twice daily, as we all know tha tdoing the same thing over and over expecting different results is a clear illustration of insanity!

www.constitutionparty.com...

Unless you post the pics of you in your sac cloth pj's holding a placard that says "Bush Sucks, I'm sorry for my vote"....we don't want to hear a PEEP from you!!

Vagabond: scaling back the government is a great idea. Of more immediate results? Shift to a voting standard closer to France or Australia.

Neither is going to happen , though.

what the Republicans have to do to put the image and the psychological baggage in the minds of the voters which is attached to Bush in the past.

Be careful what you asked for: I was in the minority - I read up on how GW Bush inherited Texas and how he left it two terms later, and his overall bio. Despite that travesty, his was the "adults back in charge" campaign in 2000.
Ownership of the media in this country has allowed some frighting things to be visitied upon it's citizens - That report on what was found in mother's milk & GW Bush are two stellar examples.