D

Bob Barr wonders whether the 2004 elections will be a rerun of 1998.

Comments

[Constantine]

I think that Barr is misinterpreting the reason that Republicans lost ground in 1998. It had nothing to do with the omnibus spending bill. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember any public outrage about it. In fact, most Republicans probably loved it.

Barr simply refuses to admit that the reason Republicans were stopped in their tracks in the midterm elections was because of the public disgust with the desire of Republicans to barrel down the path of impeaching President Clinton, and they were offended at the circus atmosphere of Congress at the time.

[Jesse Walker]

Well, that was what drove a lot of the Democrats' votes. Barr is arguing -- with how much accuracy I couldn't say -- that the spending prompted a lot of the Republican base to stay home.

[joe]

What, pray tell, is a "Clinton-era deficit?"

I would guess that fiscal conservatives would love to go back to the deficit levels of that era.

[Swamp Justice]

"Clinton-era deficit" = Clinton's "moral deficit"? 😉

[Warren]

"The conservative revolution, which had given us welfare reform, a huge tax cut and a balanced budget -- all the direct result of Republican congressional stubbornness against the Clinton administration -- packed its bags and went meekly home"

AMEN

And all the good they did has now been undone and then some. Plus we have the neo-conservative scocial agenda as well: Military adventurism, war on terrorism, war on drugs, war on porn... War on America

P.S. Jesse, I was looking for you input in the "Tech Throwdown" post

[Andrew]

Dean

He got his war and he got his tax cuts-- both will stand if he gets re-elected. If Bush loses it isn't likely that it will be because of trouble with his base-- he will lose with the swing voters...and possibly because they worry about deficits.

IF Bush wins, and adds a few seats (likely even if he doesn't win, I'm told) then he won't have the same incentives to spend.

[Andrew]

Oh Hell!

Bush's spending programs were never intended to purchase the electorate, or any part of it-- do you know anyone out there who intends to vote Bush because of any of these items?-- they were intended to keep a good chunk of the congressional Democratic caucus on board with his tax cuts, and the war in Iraq (War requires, in effect, a congressional super-majority-- a fair-sized minority could have played hell with the 80-billion package).

The war in Iraq is controversial here, and even a libertarian could argue that the tax cuts were not woth the spending increases (although, I would LOVE to hear any of the editors go so far as to actually say that!), but conservatives who back the president on the war will forgive him this aspect of conducting it, even if they feel it was unnecessary. The tax cuts THEY like just fine.

[joe]

RC, Rove's reputation comes from his management of the campaign, not the presidency. He actually got that buffoon elected, against the most successful and respected VP in American history (how's that for damning with faint praise? the most respected VP in American history). But it appears that Rove, like Gingrich, is a lot better an opposition and insurgency than actually exercising power.

[thoreau]

Joe-

"the most respected VP in US history" is a rather slippery term. I certainly agree that very few (any?) people have gotten praise for their work as VP. "Hey, great job attending those foreign funerals and breaking Senate ties while waiting for the President to croak!" But some VP's have gone on to earn renown as President. Thomas Jefferson was VP under Adams if I recall correctly, and he was a very respected President.

However, I freely concede that he was probably completely ignored while serving as VP...

[R. C. Dean]

Well, Andrew, I would have to say that Bush's massive spending increases have failed of both their purposes - they haven't bought him any votes or goodwill from either the electorate or the Dems.

I'm still a little puzzled about why people think Karl Rove is such a genius. His basic strategy - pander to groups who don't like you much by throwing money, quasi-amnesties, whatever at them - is hardly original, and doesn't really work to move votes into your column in a systematic way.

The Rovian strategy has done an awful lot to piss off Bush's base, and hasn't done much of anything to bring in the swing voters. Rush Limbaugh spent a good chunk of his show yesterday ripping the Republicans in Washington - when that happens, you know there is trouble back on the ranch.

Bush half-learned his father's lesson - he didn't raise taxes, but he still managed to piss off his base.

In other words, absent the war, Bush would likely be a long shot for re-election. And for this, Karl Rove is some kind of backroom Svengali? Pfeh.

[joe]

thoreau, it was precisely the break in tradition and the inclusion of Gore in important roles, rather than traditional ones, that made Gore's vice-presidency so unusual. The "reinventing government" task force, and the major role in formulating foreign policy (Gore convinced Clinton to intervene in the Balkans, for example) were much more important than the roles that previous VPs had played.