Somebody's Got a Bad Case of the Second-Term Bushitis

At National Journal, Ron Fournier lays out nine analogues between George W. Bush's generally disastrous second term and Barack Obama's. From the top:

Bush wasted no time plotting an expansive vision for his second term, ordering speechwriters to produce an Inaugural Address that made "ending tyranny in our world" official U.S. policy. His domestic agenda included changes to Social Security, immigration, the tax code, and court-clogging litigation rules. Obama unleashed an aggressively liberal agenda in his second Inaugural Address, promising to combat climate change, loosen immigration restrictions, curb gun violence, and expand human and civil rights.

Bush and Obama made the same mistake. Both men convinced themselves that they were reelected because of their agendas, rather than because of negative campaign strategies that essentially disqualified their rivals—Democrat John Kerry and Republican Mitt Romney. In fact, many of the issues claimed as presidential mandates in 2005 and 2013 actually received relatively little attention from the candidates and from the media in 2004 and 2012.

This is Fournier's most-interesting point (IMO):

3. First-term success haunted the second term. The increasingly unpopular Iraq war Was an issue in 2004, even after Saddam Hussein's capture, but Bush had managed to finesse it for reelection. Obama's white whale was the Affordable Care Act. In both cases, luck ran out after Election Day. The death toll rose in Iraq during Bush's fifth year. For Obama, the federal health insurance website didn't work, and millions of Americans lost their insurance policies despite his promises to the contrary.

Both presidents deceived the public about their signature policies, and their credibility crumbled. Insularity hurt both teams. Vice President Dick Cheney famously said the Iraq insurgency was in its "last throes." Obama and his advisers characterized catastrophic flaws with the ACA website as "glitches."

Read the whole thing.

Of course, history doesn't have to repeat itself but there's a lot of reasons to believe that Obama will start becoming less relevant to his own party any second now, especially given that the Dems need to figure out who will be their standard-bearer in 2016 and beyond.

For all the legitimate yapping about internecine battles within the GOP, at least the Republicans have a pulse and a bench of people jockeying for power, status, and the future of the party. Where is the next generation of Democratic leaders? The vice-president is not just a joke but at the twilight of a career; Hillary Clinton represents a bridge to the past, not a superhighway to the future. And that's about it. There are no Democratic governors with much to tout and the congressional folks are with ancient or invisible. In a Young Republicans poll of Millennials of all political persuasions, the only name under-30 Dems tossed out was Cory Booker, who is now a do-nothing senator from New Jersey. 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...Obama will start becoming less relevant to his own party any second now, especially given that the Dems need to figure out who will be their standard-bearer in 2016 and beyond.

    Bush had no clear successor, whereas we all know who the 2016 Democrat nominee will be. And Obama will be working/golfing in the shadow of Shrillary's campaign in the coming years.

  • JWatts||

    And second guessing the next Presidents every decision. I don't think Obama's personality will be able to resist publicly commenting on every significant issue with an implicit "I could have done it better" attitude.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Bill vs. Barry might be epic.

  • JWatts||

    I can just see the Sunday morning guest lineup now. Once Obama starts appearing regularly, Bill Clinton will be clamoring to join. Of course, if Hillary Clinton wins she certainly won't let him publicly comment on issues, unless he's reading off the Admins prepared statements.

  • Zeb||

    Why are so many people so sure that Hillary will be the nominee? I'm not convinced. People who don't like her really don't like her.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You go ahead and put your money on Biden if you like.

  • JWatts||

    Oh, I so wish VP Joe Biden would run. It would make for some highly memorable SNL skits.

  • Zeb||

    Those are the only two democrats?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Name another, I dare you.

    ...

    Buzz! Time's up. That's what I thought.

  • kbolino||

    Martin O'Malley, a.k.a. White Obama.

  • Response||

    I'm hoping the Dems give Sen Elizabeth Warren a go.

  • Pelosi's Rabbit||

    Yeah, I thought I knew who the 2008 nominee was going to be, too.

  • fish||

    And Obama will be working/golfing in the shadow of Shrillary's campaign in the coming years.

    That should make Bill happy....I mean having Sugar Frosted Barry O's carrying the luggage as Bill wanted before the 2008 campaign.

  • tarran||

    As despicable as George Bush was, he has shown one quality that Obama utterly lacks.

    The capability for introspection.

  • John||

    The funny thing is that Bush is objectively smarter than Obama. Bush listened to his advisers and was willing to change course when something wasn't working. Obama listens to no one and is incapable of changing his approach.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    That's because, duh, Obama is smarter than his advisors.

  • John||

    He has been bored his whole life. Being President is just so easy, he can't be bothered with taking an interest in it. He prefers activities with more intellectual depth and challenge like watching Sports Center and playing golf.

  • JWatts||

    President Barack Obama is still working his way up the latter. One day he'll land his Dream job ... full time ESPN Host.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    His dream job is being a leftwing version of Rush Limbaugh.

    Make tens of millions a year talking about how great you are and ridiculing the foibles of the other side.

  • creech||

    His mendaciousness should really help in that career. Yesterday, Rush was going on and on about it being illegal to have the old style light bulbs.
    Scare the crap out of old Aunt Doris...Obama's thugs will be at the door next week checking her light bulbs.

  • JWatts||

    Sign, I'm no fan of taxes, but an outright ban of incandescent light bulbs is just shear lunacy. They could have just stuck a $1 tax on them and that would have cut sales in half without royally pissing off people who really like them.

    The 60 watt disappearing from store shelves next month is going to cause some confusion among your average low information voter. I'd hate to be staff at Home Depot or Lowes in January. They'll catch a load of crap from people who think the "eval" corporations took their light bulb away and are making them buy an expensive, bad one. Obviously this is all about "da profit"!

  • Zeb||

    I certainly don't support any ban or regulation of any kind of light bulb, but it is worth pointing out that incandescent bulbs aren't all banned. Halogen bulbs are OK and there are some nice ones now which look just like the old incandescents. They are more expensive, but less than CFLs and give non-annoying light that comes on right away.

  • wareagle||

    and the curly-q light bulbs were a product of the Bush years, not Obama. Wonder if Rush thought to include that.

  • ||

    He specifically mentioned that this occurred under Bush. So, yes, he did include that.

  • JWatts||

    And notably Rush Limbaugh was an ESPN host.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    It's probably going to take a wipeout on the level of 2006 for Obama to consider changing course. Bush had no choice but to replace Rumsfeld after the Red team got its ass handed to it that year, and Obama would have to do the same if he wants to salvage even a bit of his reputation.

    Remember that people largely like Obama more than Bush, no doubt due to the mass psychosis known as political correctness that won't allow them to hate a black man in authority over them for very long. It wouldn't take much for him to bring his likeability ratings back up, and doing something like firing Sebelius after, say, losing the Senate would probably be enough to accomplish that.

  • John||

    He won't do it. And Obama took a much worse beating in 2010 than Bush did in 2006. 2010 was the worst year for Democrats since the Civil War. And Obama didn't change anything. I suspect 2014 will be worse than 2010. But I do not think it will cause Obama to change a single thing or fire a single cabinet member. And there is no way he is firing Sibelius. First, if he fires her, she will be subject to Subpena and won't be able to claim executive privilege anymore. Since she no doubt knows where a lot of the bodies are buried, Obama could never allow that. Second, unless he does it before next year, chances are he would have to subject her replacement to confirmation by a Republican Senate. That would not be a pleasant experience for him. No. Sibilius is staying all the way to the end.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The GOP lost both the House and Senate in 2006. Democrats lost just the House in 2010 and are back with 15 seats of taking it in 2014.

    That would make you wrong yet again.

  • WTF||

    While they may not be as strong as apes, don't lock eyes with 'em, don't do it. Puts 'em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all they hear is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

  • JWatts||

    And they want your cake.

  • Slammer||

  • John||

    And they always want cake. God curse the man who told Shreek that going on Reason meant you got cake.

  • fish||

    .....I generally donth like exthplaining to the peanuths....

    You are such a ween.

  • kbolino||

    John said it was the worst loss for Democrats since the Civil War, not the worst loss for any political party.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Where did Bush change the course? His sticking with his failed 'remake the Middle East' policy haunted the GOP for years.

  • John||

    He fired Rumsfeld and adopted the surge. He also passed any number large pieces of legislation that got significant Democratic support, something Obama has never done. Bush understood that requirements of being President in a way Obama never has. Obama is utterly unable to understand his ideological opponents much less work with them. And that is a basic skill that a President has to have. Obama completely lacks any sense of intellectual empathy or depth. He is basically Nancy Pelosi in that he is someone who can't comprehend how anyone on the other side could ever have a point or anything but a bad motivation for believing what they do. I don't see any other way to view that than it being a result of Obama being very intellectually stunted in a way no President in my lifetime ever has.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You're so full of shit.

    'Bush's Bubble' was something you no doubt never noticed.

  • John||

    BUSHPIG!!!! In fairness though, if anyone on here would understand what it means to be intellectually stunted, it might be you, the resident retard. But since you make up for being stupid by being insane, self awareness isn't really your strong suit either.

  • fish||

    Don't mean to criticize John but you should really add a dash of CHRIZTFEG!

  • creech||

    Didn't you just post that the GOP had lost both the House and Senate in 2006.
    So what did they do or attempt to do about the looming "Bush Bubble?" Can't we all acknowledge that, with certain individual exceptions, the 2008 financial collapse was a bipartisan effort?

  • WTF||

    In shreeky's world, the democrat-controlled House and Senate, which actually are responsible for spending, are faultless.

  • Sevo||

    ..."are faultless."

    Faultless?! They are the machine which has driven this economy to the heights it has achieved!
    Without them, why unemployment might be in the range 5% or so! Imagine!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Adopting the surge is more like redoubling one's efforts than changing course.

    And I do not think Bush getting some bipartisan bills through and Obama not says much about either administration, but rather about the electoral map each faced.

  • John||

    Adopting the surge is more like redoubling one's efforts than changing course.

    No it wasn't. It was a total change in strategy and represented a complete repudiation of everything Rumsfeld had spent the last six years trying to accomplish in the Pentagon. It was admitting that Shinseki was right and that Rumsfeld was wrong. It was a profound change of strategy.

    And I do not think Bush getting some bipartisan bills through and Obama not says much about either administration, but rather about the electoral map each faced.

    Of course you think that. That is because you are incapable of seeing anyone but Republicans being unreasonable. Those of us who can see things in a more realistic light understand both sides can be reasonable and unreasonable. If Bush can get Ted Kennedy to sign on to education reform, there was no reason why Obama couldn't have gotten Susan Collins to sign on to health care. The GOP moderates in the Senate were dying to sell out to Obama and he basically told them "I won and go fuck yourself". And thanks to that, the Democrats now totally responsible for the resulting disaster and will be paying for it for decades to come.

    The idea that it was impossible for Obama to reach out and work with people like Bennett, Lugar and the moron twins from Main is just absurd.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    John, Bush's troubles regarding Iraq were that we went in in the first place and that nation building does not work. Sending in more troops than before is hardly a repudiation of that.

    As to the bipartisanship, like I said, look at the electoral returns in 2000 and in 2008 and 12 and tell me what you see.

  • John||

    Sending in more troops than before is hardly a repudiation of that.

    I really don't have the time nor the inclination to give you lessons on the Rusmfeld Revolution in Military Affairs and the strategy used before and after 2006. You can use google just like anyone else if you are interested.

    I can't look into your heart Bo, so I won't call you a liar. But I can objectively say that your thoughts on this are both uninformed and frankly stupid. Come back and continue this discussion when you know enough to contribute intelligently to it.

  • Swiss Servator, Alps avast!||

    Bo,

    I was part of the surge - it was waaaaaay different than what had been done before. It was not just troop numbers going up, it was what they were doing. Rummy was a pretty good dude for beating procurement dorks over the head, and he really did want the best for us troopies, but he was NOT the right guy for strategy.

    BOOOOOSH, reversed what had been going on, basically saying "OK, that was effed up, how do we get out of this mess with a win?" Do you think the Lightworker would do that with O!care?

  • Pelosi's Rabbit||

    Of course you think that. That is because you are incapable of seeing anyone but Republicans being unreasonable. Those of us who can see things in a more realistic light understand both sides can be reasonable and unreasonable. If Bush can get Ted Kennedy to sign on to education reform, there was no reason why Obama couldn't have gotten Susan Collins to sign on to health care. The GOP moderates in the Senate were dying to sell out to Obama and he basically told them "I won and go fuck yourself". And thanks to that, the Democrats now totally responsible for the resulting disaster and will be paying for it for decades to come.

    Other than the word "decades" that's pretty much spot on. I don't think the ACA lasts past 2017 (thanks to the nuclear option), and people have short memories.

  • John||

    It will haunt them long after it is gone PR. From now on anytime a Democrat makes a promise even the dumbest Republican will have a come back "sure just like you could keep your health insurance."

  • 2ndClassProle||

    Other than the word "decades" that's pretty much spot on. I don't think the ACA lasts past 2017 (thanks to the nuclear option), and people have short memories.

    I hope you are right. Usually, these laws keep lingering on and on.

  • Pelosi's Rabbit||

    If the Republicans don't repeal it first chance they get, then they really can't hang it around Democrat necks.

    Then again, they're still the "Bush" tax cuts despite being renewed.

  • tarran||

    Bush also had a really well developed conscience and grappled with moral questions.

    IIRC he had a sister who died of cancer when he was a kid, and he made a lot of sacrifices to help her through the illness. I think much of his bad behavior in the twenties were him crawling into a bottle to deal with the pain of losing her. And when he was born again, he really took to heart the notion of self improvement that is the core of what it is to be a Christian. I vehemently disagree with Bush about almost everything, and am still angry about much of what he ordered done. However, I see him to be a terribly flawed man who did recognize that he was flawed and sincerely tried to do good.

    He aslo maintained pretty good humor despite having incredible abuse directed at him; Bush was a terrible public speaker. I suspect he had incredible stage fright. He wasn't stupid, but people painted his stuttering and nervous tics and malaprosisms as evidence that he was a moron. He handled it with pretty good humor.

    In contrast, I've never seen any sign of humility in Obama. The guy uses people. He lurches from disaster to disaster and shows now sign of being chastened by it.

    On the day of judgement, I'd much rather be in Bush's shoes than in Obama's.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Overcoming what appeared to be problematic alcohol and drug use was also a commendable thing.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Yeah, Bush was asked if he had made any mistakes in 2008 and he couldn't think of one. He was a sociopath that pulled wings off insects and laughed when he was asked if he felt remorse for execution Karla Faye Tucker.

    Torture and war never bothered him in the least. He externalized it as Gawd's Will the true sociopath he is.

  • WTF||

    BUSHPIG!!!11!!!!!CHRISTFAG!!!11!!!!!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Well, he has a point about the torture and Tucker (when you offend Tucker Carlson you must have been fairly callous).

  • John||

    Obama has tortured more people than Bush ever did. If you want to understand Obama's character, consider this one telling contrast,

    In 1991 Bush I and Collin Powell, both actual combat veterans, went against their ground commanders' recommendation and called a ceasefire in the first Gulf War. The main reason they did was because both of them felt morally they could not continue the slaughter of Iraqi forces. Yes, they didn't want to go to Baghdad. But they could have continued the war another 12 to 24 hours and destroyed pretty much all of the Iraqi military. And by all accounts they were not morally willing to do that even though all of their commanders recommended doing it.

    Obama in contrast has bragged "I am really good at killing people". The man has neither moral nor intellectual depth of any kind.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "Obama has tortured more people than Bush ever did."

    Do you have a citation for that?

  • The Last American Hero||

    You're right - the torture stopped around the time the Lightworker closed Gitmo...oh wait, what? It's still open?

  • tarran||

    Bush clearly felt obligated to protect "Good people" from "Bad People". He had empathy, but he limited it to "Good People".

    I think that was his major flaw. He drew a circle, and the people in it were worth defending to the utmost, and the people outside of it deserved everything they got. He thought that was how he would do good to the world. Being blind to the fact that in the future the circle would be drawn and redrawn and one day the people he cared about would be outside the circle, he didn't really recognize the evil he was unleashing.

    That and he really didn't believe in compromising with Evil. That pretty much meant he had to engage in endless war.

    In geopolitics, that is untenable because all the actors are evil. In fact, he was forced to compromise with the Saudis who are some really evil guys.

    I've long argued that the Saudi has an economic knife to the throat of the U.S. economy, and that as a result they have been exercising a veto power and even occasionally dictating U.S. foreign policy in the mideast. And the Saudi monarchy are really scummy people. They cut off heads of witches. They foment terrorism abroad. At least some members of the royal family facilitated the 9/11 attacks.

    It would be interesting to understand how we worked himself around to justifying doing their dirty work for them.

    I think Bush is an interesting case of a guy who wasn't a sociopath doing some very sociopathic things with the best of intentions.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "And the Saudi monarchy are really scummy people."

    That is a good point. How they escaped the 'Axis of Evil' is a tale worth discussing.

  • 2ndClassProle||

    I think Bush is an interesting case of a guy who wasn't a sociopath doing some very sociopathic things with the best of intentions.

    I believe C.S. Lewis said something about the tyranny of good intentions.

    What I hated about Bush was his saying "You are either with us, or against us" I hate fucking absolutes.

  • tarran||

    Oh and one other thing I hate about Obama:

    He has actually made me miss Bush as president. And 5 years ago I would have said that was unpossible.

    I mean, I didn't expect Obama to be a good president. I knew he would be a disaster. But I completely underestimated how bad he would be.

  • 2ndClassProle||

    Whats sad, Obama is not even a good Progressive. I knew deficits, spending, taxes would go up, but I thought well we could get better on civil liberties.

  • Loki||

    I knew deficits, spending, taxes would go up, but I thought well we could get better on civil liberties.

    A lot of people thought that, but I'm not sure why. There's nothing about the "Progressive agenda" that even suggests they would be better on civil liberties. In fact in order to enact their various bans, regulations, tax increases, and miscellaneous other policies would pretty much require an oppressive police state that routinely tramples on people's privacy and other civil liberties.

    I think they just give lip service to it the same way that many conservatives give lip service to reducing spending and smaller government. It plays well with some independant voters, but they don't mean a word of it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I am a young man, but it seems to me in my life that each President has been the worst one ever until the next one.

    I hope that is not a trend that continues much longer.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    In the year following her execution, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson questioned Governor George W. Bush about how the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles had arrived at the determination on her clemency plea. Carlson alleged that Bush, alluding to a televised interview which Karla Faye Tucker had given to talk show host Larry King, smirked and spoke mockingly about her.

    A true sociopath.

  • WTF||

    Braised Beef Cheeks

    Active time: 1 1/4 hr Start to Finish: 4 1/4
    Ingredients
    • 4 tablespoons extra-virgin olive oil
    • 4 (12-oz) beef cheeks, trimmed of excess fat
    • 1 medium onion, finely chopped
    • 1 medium carrot, finely chopped
    • 1/2 celery rib, finely chopped
    • 1/2 teaspoon unsweetened cocoa powder
    • 2 cups red wine (preferably a dry Lambrusco or Chianti)
    • 1 (28- to 32-oz) can whole tomatoes including juice, chopped (3 cups)
    • 1 1/2 teaspoons salt
    • 1 teaspoon black pepper
    Preparation
    Heat 2 tablespoons oil in an ovenproof 6-quart wide heavy pot over moderately high heat until hot but not smoking. While oil is heating, pat beef cheeks dry and season with salt and pepper. Brown beef, without crowding, on all sides, about 20 minutes total, and transfer with tongs to a bowl. Pour off fat from pot, then add remaining 2 tablespoons oil and cook onion, carrot, and celery over moderately low heat, stirring occasionally, until softened, about 10 minutes.
    Preheat oven to 325°F.
    Stir cocoa powder into vegetable mixture, then add wine and scrape up any brown bits. Increase heat to high and boil until liquid is reduced by half, about 10 minutes.
    Return cheeks (with any juices) to pot and add tomatoes with juice, salt, and pepper. Bring to a simmer, then braise, covered, in middle of oven until very tender, about 3 hours.

  • John||

    BUSHPIG.

    The really bad thing Bush did was execute that retarded guy when he was running for the nomination just to show how tough he was on crime.

    Oh except that was Clinton. Go die in fire you lying little retard. Seriously, die. No one will care or miss you and the world will be a better place.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    John, do you not see how your comments here are mirror images of PBs? Both of you are obsessed with the idea that someone might be passing on a criticism of the leader of the other team and neither of you are willing to concede even an inch in criticism of the leader of your teams. Look at the comments from tarran or 2ndclassprole or myself, we can concede good things about Bush but also note serious flaws. Try not to be so Manichean.

  • Generic Stranger||

    John may be Red Tony, but he's still not nearly as bad as Buttplug.

  • SOFL Hockey Fan||

    +1

  • UnCivilServant||

    the only name under-30 Dems tossed out was Cory Booker, who is now a do-nothing senator from New Jersey

    If he's doing nothing in the senate - leave him there. I'd rather have an inactive senator than a repeat of moving an inactive senator to the presidency.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    This applies to Warren as well, not just for the inexperience factor but because of the strain of rampant personality cultism that defines the current Blue team.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    But Romney would have been the spawn of a fourway between Bush, Satan, Obama, and Hitler.

  • John||

    And birth control. What about birth control?

  • ||

    Well if only Romney had been willing to provide access to birth control, maybe Bush, Satan, Obama, and Hitler wouldn't have spawned him, now would they?

  • JWatts||

    "Well if only Romney had been willing to provide free access to birth control"

    Fixed it for You.

  • ||

    God, JWatts, what do you think access is? Do you even have a heart???

  • JWatts||

    Oh yeah. If it's not free, clearly it's only accessible to the rich.

    {hangs head in shame and shuffles away}

  • JWatts||

    And Mormonism! He'd have legalized Polygamy instead of Gay marriage, which is just kooky!

  • Swamp Think||

    Wacko crazy kooky birds!

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    While I know his spokespersons talked about it a bit, I honestly do not remember many Obama campaign ads about birth control. I remember the '47%' stuff being repeated quite a lot.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Of course, you probably didn't see the DNC convention where a 30 year old law student who somehow couldn't obtain birth control without big-daddy government and was given a key speaking slot and received uproarious cheers from the crowd.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    But Bush did it too!

    /PB

  • thom||

    the only name under-30 Dems tossed out was Cory Booker, who is now a do-nothing senator from New Jersey.

    As opposed to what, a do-nothing senator from Illinois?

  • Jerryskids||

    Where is the next generation of Democratic leaders?

    One of them is currently the governor of New Jersey and highly touted as a 2016 presidential candidate. Just sayin'.

  • John||

    Booker ran a horrible campaign and managed to let a nobody get within ten points of him in an election he should have won by 20+. You never know but I think the country doesn't have much appetite right now for a unqualified black man for President. The bloom is a bit off that rose I think.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Yeah! Time for an unqualified white woman!

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Symbolism, warm, fuzzy, symbolism.

  • John||

    Isn't it a woman's turn CN?

    It will be interesting to see how that plays out. I am skeptical the "but isn't it great to elect a woman" appeal will work nearly as well as the "I have always wanted to vote for a black man" campaign did. Women are not politically united the way blacks are. You could count on 95+% of blacks voting for Obama. But women hate each other. You can count on a decent minority of women voting against Hillary for spite.

    The other thing is that only the most beat down beta men, who will vote Dem anyway because their wives tell them to, feel any sense of guilt towards women or any duty to elect a woman President. Hillary might win. But if she does it will be because the Dem was going to win anyway not because she is a woman.

  • wareagle||

    Obama also ran as a blank slate. Hillary is anything but and she leaves no gray area; people either love her or hate her. And I'm curious just how inconsequential an issue Benghazi will be for Uncle Joe.

  • John||

    That too. Obama won because he never said anything and people were free to assume he was what they wanted to be. Hillary doesn't have the luxury.

  • kinnath||

    I'm pretty sure my wife would drive a spike into Hillary's back given the opportunity. There's a good chance my daughter would as well.

  • fish||

    If you can get that to "Pay per View" I'm buying!

  • Swamp Think||

    Yeah, you could call it "Two Minutes of Hate". Why not have her ass-raped-in-prison? At least THAT could be a series. Think of all the monocles one could purchase with the profits.
    #sarc

  • The Last American Hero||

    Tell her to aim for the heart, and make sure the stake was soaked in holy water. If you don't get 'em in the heart, they just get mad.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is less voting for a woman per se than 'the chance to make history' which will draw young and independent voters.

  • kinnath||

    I doubt young voters give a shit about Hillary.

    There are perhaps some young feminists that care, but feminism is severely stratified by age groups, and I don't see young women caring about an old woman who stood by her cheating husband.

  • John||

    Young voters don't care about Hillary. And moreover, Obama has given them a real dose of cynicism. I doubt they are too interested in "making history" right now.

    But Bo has to sing the DNC song. And "but our 70 something school marm will appeal to the young and hip" is likely to be the DNC song in the coming two years.

  • kinnath||

    Hillary's supporters are middle-aged, professional women who care most about the glass ceiling. These women already vote democratic.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "But Bo has to sing the DNC song."

    Talk about not being able to understand one's ideological opponents! John, you are allowing your wishes to cloud your vision. I bet you were thinking Romney had the Presidency sown up last year because no one would be stupid enough to vote for Obama. One does not have to sing the DNC's song to know what tune they will play at the dance.

  • John||

    I fully understand you BO. I have never once seen you take any position that wasn't the DNC song. There is never a fault with a Democrat that you can't concern troll by pointing to some equal flaw in a Republican.

    I am not the only one who sees this. it doesn't take a lot of intellectual depth to see your game. You are free to play it. But don't kid yourself into thinking anyone is fooled.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    There are tons of faults with the Democrat Party, and I am happy to talk about them with you, but I am right now only talking about how I think that Party will play a Hillary run. I am not supporting Hillary at all, just describing how the Democrats will push her. And you are so caught up in your own partisanship that someone talking about what the Democrats will do and say becomes in your head endorsing or supporting it.

    Like I said, I bet you were looking at the returns last year with a shocked face. Passion for your team can be a good thing, but when it clouds your ability to see what is going on with the other team it is tragic.

  • John||

    nd I am happy to talk about them with you, but I am right now only talking about how I think that Party will play a Hillary run.

    Sure you are, you just never do. See right now you have to stay on topic as opposed to every other thread when you constantly change the topic.

    Give it up Bo. We are not that stupid. Why don't you just be honest? No one will care and they will respect you more. There is nothing that will alienate people quicker than being a concern troll.

    I can imagine that shreek probably embarrass you as a Dem. I can certainly understand that. So just be honest and show the world that there are Democrats who are demented retards like Shreek.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    John, can you really not see the difference between someone saying 'this is how the Democrats will push Hillary' and supporting that? When you watch football and the color commentator describes what he think the team you dislike is going to do to try to win do you assume he is rooting for that team?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I bet you were thinking Romney had the Presidency sown up last year because no one would be stupid enough to vote for Obama.

    John said it every day for six months. He was just so CERTAIN.

    I told the dumbass he would be wrong yet he persisted in his willful myopia.

    It was fun though. And I will be here to gloat when Obamacare turns into the big So What? I have been predicting for the midterms.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I will take some of that action. If Obamacare does not cost the Democrats the Senate I will be almost as shocked as John must have been last November.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Like I said, it will not be about caring about Hillary, it will be about 'making history by voting for the first woman President.' The Democrats learned how that was how to sell that kind of campaign with Obama.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    If Biden runs, he's got a better track than I think most people realize. He's mostly viewed as a mostly harmless, goofy uncle, and he can actually point out that he has a track record of compromising with Republicans to Get Things Done--for instance, he was brought in to negotiate the budget talks in 2011 because Reid was being an obstinate asshole and McConnell essentially said, "I can't work with this guy anymore."

    He can easily craft a campaign around times that he worked together with Republicans. "I've known a lot of these guys for most of my career and we mostly get along even if we don't agree. I've shown I can set aside politics and work with them; my opponents can't say the same." Most people only care about the government Getting Things Done, and this plays to Biden's strength, not Hillary's or Warren's or anyone else's.

  • John||

    I think you are right that Biden is more dangerous than people think. No one will admit it publicly, but one of the things that is most wearing on the country is the fact that Obama is such an angry hateful person. We can't say that because he is a black man. But everyone knows it and feels it. Biden's goofy uncle routine would be a welcome contrast to the nastiness of the Obama years. That would have a lot of appeal to people, especially after the media gets done spending a year portraying the Republican nominee as the embodiment of evil and someone sure to cause the Left to spend four years going insane. Voting for Biden just get to people to shut up for a while would have a lot more appeal that "vote for the woman".

  • Floridian||

    I would be tempted to vote for Joe just because I don't think it matters anymore. If he got elected it would be fun to watch the media have to constantly cover for his stupid remarks.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I do not think Biden will even run. What in the world is the base he thinks he can count on?

  • kinnath||

    I can't think of any way that Uncle Joe would be worse than Obama.

  • John||

    He wouldn't be. He might be better. For all of the gaffes and buffoonery, I think he is probably smarter than Obama. He certainly has a better understanding of Congress and the country at large than Obama. I would trade Obama for Biden in a heartbeat. He would be a bad President but I doubt he would be an epically bad lawless one.

  • Sudden||

    I can think of one Uncle Joe who might've been marginally worse than Obama.

    Marginally.

  • Sudden||

    I can think of one Uncle Joe who might've been marginally worse than Obama.

    Marginally.

  • JWatts||

    "If Biden runs, he's got a better track than I think most people realize."

    Damn you make some good points. Your post completely surprised me, but it bears thinking about.

  • 2ndClassProle||

    If the GOP were smart they would run Condi. She is capable, and status quo, but convulsions on the Left would be entertaining.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    They can not run Rice because she is pro-choice. The GOP will not allow that on the ticket.

  • 2ndClassProle||

    Dude, I said if they were smart. Seeing interviews with her, I would suspect she is just as progressive as any Dem.

  • kinnath||

    Condi's time has passed.

  • Floridian||

    Condi hasn't gone full democrat yet? Truthfully I don't follow her but I thought she had moved left.

  • robc||

    She probably golfs with some democrats.

  • Mike M.||

    She is capable

    Capable of what?

  • Swamp Think||

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Condi's claim to fame was incompetence as NSA and as a neocon.

    Why would she be a smart choice?

  • JWatts||

    She's an extremely talented smart black female with a lot of charisma.

    She'd get 60% of the black vote without trying. She'd probably break 50% of the female vote. So if she could make the GOP nomination (which she probably can't) she'd be a shoe-in.

  • 2ndClassProle||

    This right here. I would say, too, JWAtts, that she could get some Dems on her side.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    She was actually critical of the deranged neocons and their plans in tat administration.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    But Booker's a crypto libertarian (the Cosmos told me so) and has imaginary street thug friends.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Bush wasted no time plotting an expansive vision for his second term, ordering speechwriters to produce an Inaugural Address that made "ending tyranny in our world" official U.S. policy.

    And yet, the EPA remains alive and well.

  • Sevo||

    ..."Hilary Clinton represents a bridge to the past, not a superhighway to the future."...

    Back to when communism was the future. When market economics were not even considered. When labor unions ruled Detroit.
    She'll be elected in a NY minute; that's exactly what proggies want.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Time for an unqualified white woman!

    Ugh!

  • sarcasmic||

    Fake Indian?

  • Lord Humungus||

    my thoughts exactly.

  • creech||

    "Where is the next generation of Democratic leaders?"

    Leaders always arise unexpectedly. Who knew about an eye doctor from Kentucky in 2006? Or a community organizer in Chicago in 2000? Or a womanizing Arkansas governor in 1990? While Vice President Hobart was still alive, who could have predicted McKinley would need the N.Y. police commissioner who would soon become president? Or a rich kid do-nothing Senator whose claim to fame was he allowed his highly maneuverable PT boat to get run over by a Jap destroyer?

  • John||

    There is always some craven hoodlum willing to stand up and fill the void. The problem is that for President at least, that usually when an unknown gets elected is when the other side is in power and has fucked up badly (Carter after Watergate, Obama in 08). Clinton was an unknown and Bush hadn't particularly fucked up. But he is a real outlier I think.

  • The Last American Hero||

    Interesting question - Had McKinley known he would be assassinated, would he have put Roosevelt on the ticket with him?

  • wareagle||

    ...Ron Fournier lays out nine analogues.....

    hmmmmm.

  • Lord Humungus||

    Damn British!

  • Rich||

    Obama's white whale

    RACIST!

  • Michael Ejercito||

    But..but what about demographics?

    Of course, arguments about demographics applied with even more force in 1917, when the Dems controlled both houses of Congress as well as the white House.

  • John||

    Amazingly enough, Mexicans and other minorities might not be too fond of having their health insurance ruined.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    That will hardly matter if the GOP continues to go out of their way to insult them.

  • WTF||

    So you're saying that imagined insults will outweigh the damage done to their wallets and health insurance plans? I'm sure the democrats will try to play it that way; I'm not so sure too many will buy it.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Who has to imagine? Remember Steve King has already announced he is running. The debates will be fireworks.

  • John||

    Yes Bo we know, it is always a sunny day in Democrat land. Is there anything the Democrats ever do wrong in your mind?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    John, your projection is incredible. How does noting that GOP politicos trying to outdo each other often make politically unwise comments become support for the Democrats in your mind? You really should get a hold on your partisan passions.

  • John||

    Bo,

    I say bad things about the Republicans and Republican leadership all of the time. We have played this game with Joe from Lowell. Yes sure you have all of the criticisms against the Dems. This just isn't the time. It never is is it?

    Write about a four paragraph rant about what nasty incompetent assholes the Democrats are, referred to them as the stupid or evil party, as I often do to the Republicans, here and now or shut the fuck up. Screaming projection isn't going to do any good.

    Just be honest and have courage of your convictions. Think anything you like. But by being a concern troll and constantly denying your actual views, you are just giving the board a reason to ignore you.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Look, John, it is actually quite easy for you to see how your projection is affecting your basic grasp of what is in front of you. Why don't you excerpt one comment of mine, one mind you, indicating I support anything Democrat.

  • John||

    Look, John, it is actually quite easy for you to see how your projection is affecting your basic grasp of what is in front of you. Why don't you excerpt one comment of mine, one mind you, indicating I support anything Democrat.

    Sure you don't. That is why you didn't take the invitation to give you know actual criticisms of Democrats that are not accompanied by a "but the Republicans..".

    You had your chance and still do have a chance to win this argument fair and square. Just write a good rant about how much you hate the Democratic Party. I have done so regarding the Republicans numerous times when people accused me of taking their side too much. It is the easiest win of an argument you can ever have.

    But you refuse to do it. And that is because you are a fraud and a concern troll who couldn't bring himself to put his name on such a rant. Funny how lefty concern trolls can lie about everything but that.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    So let me get this straight: you have no comments of me supporting the Democrat Party here, but the absence of comments criticizing them is your evidence I support them?

    This thread was about who the Democrats would nominate and how they would run them. That is what I was talking about. Your partisanship is so high you took that to be support. That is just sad, really.

    If you had a decent memory, or just browsed my comments here in the past six months, you would see many comments critical of the Democrat Party (in fact, I have argued several times that they are the greater of two evils currently). But I can see nothing is going to convince you. You are like those people who were convinced Clint Eastwood was sneaking secret Obama support into a Chrysler ad.

  • John||

    If you had a decent memory, or just browsed my comments here in the past six months, you would see many comments critical of the Democrat Party (in fact, I have argued several times that they are the greater of two evils currently).

    Sure you have. You just don't link to any of that or give any specific criticisms or call out any actual Democrats out of kindness. You just can't do it can you?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Wait a minute here. I know I have made these comments, sometimes in conversations with you actually. You have not caught them in your fevered partisanship. And somehow it is on me to produce links to what, prove I hate Democrats, because in a discussion on what who and how the Democrats will run in 16 I described what I think the Democrats will do?

    John, I have agreed with you many times in the past, but you sound deranged here. You would be so much better off if you jettisoned your 'team' approach to American politics and just embraced libertarianism.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If you even paid attention to this very thread you will see where I criticize Democrats and predict electoral doom for them. But of course that all just zooms by your head in your current Red frenzy.

    If you can not notice examples in this very thread I am certainly not to be expected to hunt up links from the past.

    Sheesh.

  • John||

    Bo I am just enjoying you trying to spit this hook. Don't feel bad Joe never could either. It is funny. You would think you could easily rattle off a whole bunch of nasty things about liberalism and Democrats. But you guys never can. Joe from Lowell couldn't do it either. He did exactly what you are doing, screamed about how I was projecting and deranged and said anything and everything except something bad about Democrats. It is just uncanny. If I didn't know any better I would think you are Joe and have slinked back into the board under a new name. But you are not quite as nasty as he was.

    Feel free to take up my challenge any time. But I somehow doubt you will. And saying "I once said this" doesn't feed the bulldog. If you said it once, great. Say it again, here and now for all the world to see. Come on Bo, win the argument and set out all of the ways the Democrats are loathsome.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You are coming off as deranged John. Describing what the Democrats will try to do in 16 is not supporting the Democrats. That you spin it that way says something sad about you, not me. That you compound your error by even ignoring the explicit criticisms of Democrats by me in this very thread (!) makes it almost funny in a dark humor sort of way.

  • John||

    You are coming off as deranged John

    Sure I am Bo. How could I possible expect you to give an specific list of criticism of Democrats.

    You are coming off as deranged John. Describing what the Democrats will try to do in 16 is not supporting the Democrats.

    So what? I am still waiting for you to tell me how you can't stand the Democrats and liberalism. Feel free to do so any time. Do you really think anyone here doesn't see you for the concern troll that you are?

  • ||

    That will hardly matter if the GOP continues to go out of their way to insult them.

    ...substantiated by...?

  • John||

    The talking points Bo and Shreek received this morning.

    But remember the Democrats' problems getting the white male vote is all about the racism and bitter clingers and has nothing to do with Democrats going out of their way to insult white males.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I get that you are wrapped up in your team John, but even your team seems willing to talk about problematic statements by GOP contenders regarding Hispanics and minorities in the past without somehow seeing that as Democrat talking points. Of course this does not mean the Democrat Party does not have some truly repulsive racial tactics and comments on their plates, it just means the GOP has some issues of their own. Why close your eyes to it? Do you want another shocked look on your face in future Novembers? Who does that help?

  • John||

    Of course this does not mean the Democrat Party does not have some truly repulsive racial tactics and comments on their plates,

    It just means the Republicans are worse. Got it.

    It is a prime directive, no fault can ever be admitted in a Democrat unless it is juxtaposed with an equal or greater Republican fault.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    There are many areas, in fact most, where the Democrats are worse than the Republican Party. I said that, and I also said I would be happy to talk about any of them if you would like. But what is sad is that you took my prediction of what the Democrats will say and do in 16, and what will be a challenge for the GOP, as endorsement of something. The world must be a hopelessly biased place when seen through that kind of mindset.

  • John||

    There are many areas, in fact most, where the Democrats are worse than the Republican Party. I said that,

    No you didn't. You couldn't and haven't named what those areas are. So you haven't said anything. You have just equivocated, which is what you always do.

  • WC Varones||

    "Cory Booker, who is now a do-nothing senator from New Jersey."

    Be afraid. Be VERY AFRAID of do-nothing senators.

  • ||

    So Cory Booker it is then! oy vey

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    It is a shame Ron Wyden is not being considered as a candidate for the Democrats. Ideally we would have Paul running against Wyden.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Brian Schweitzer would walk away in a general election - by 16 points easy.

    A bolo tie, a rifle, a fracking pedigree - and enormously popular.

    But Hillary has her fat ass in the way.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    You have to be known to be President, and I barely know who Brian Schweitzer is other than some of his more rank class warfare comments I have read of.

  • 2ndClassProle||

    They were talking about this guy on Morning Joe, today.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Schweitzer fires up branding irons to veto bills

    Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/new.....z2nkYusJ00

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Schweitzer is for flat out Canadian style socialist health care laws. Perhaps he is better than the average Democrat nationally on some issues, but that is not much to brag about

  • ||

    Wyden is for single-payer...

  • R C Dean||

    Here's one thing Bush had to deal with that Obama doesn't:

    A relentless and disciplined opposition. Not to mention a relentlessly hostile media.

    OK, that's two things. Still, pretty big things.

  • John||

    If the media went after Obama like they did Bush, Obama would have been successfully impeached in his first term.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Brian Schweitzer would walk away in a general election - by 16 points easy.

    Yeah, right. Schweitzer declined to run for Baucus' Senate seat, which "everybody knew" was a total gimme. He didn't want the scrutiny of a Senate race in a state with a million people. He's not going to run for President. Even if he wanted to, do you really think the party's "gunz r teh EEEEVUL" fetishists would allow it? He'll stay home and count his money.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Of course, history doesn't have to repeat itself but there's a lot of reasons to believe that Obama will start becoming less relevant to his own party any second now, especially given that the Dems need to figure out who will be their standard-bearer in 2016 and beyond.

    Won't that be proof that they're racist?

    I'm not sure how the media can divest their interest in Obama after so openly proclaiming him the savior for so long, carrying his water as well as any state controlled media would.

  • John||

    The media can't and won't turn on Obama. He is one of them. It would be too emotional of an event for them to ever do it.

  • RishJoMo||

    Dude seems to know what he is talking about.

    www.AnonGoes.tk

  • Raymond Luxury Yach-t||

    Oh, my bush is so inflamed

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement