Why George W. Bush Will Decide the 2012 Election - Newsweek and The Daily Beast - 3 views
www.thedailybeast.com/...-decide-the-2012-election.html
george bush election barack obama romney mitt romney historical
shared by cody s on 11 Sep 12
- No Cached
-
cody s on 11 Sep 12This article addresses the effect of George Bush's legacy on the current election and how it was reflected in the conventions. Clinton, in his speech at the DNC, compared the net job creation of the two parties. This article says that ultimately, not just this sentence but Clinton's entire speech came down to that point: evoking the successes of the Democrats while reminding voters of the many failures of George W. Bush. Clinton's presence, the article says, turned the race into Obama and Clinton vs. Romney and Bush. The article cites some interesting historical examples of presidents who were able to win despite the temporary unpopularity of their parties at the time, and how those candidates distanced themselves from the failed policies with concrete, factual differences in their philosophies. Romney, the article says, has failed to do so.
- ...2 more comments...
-
John West on 16 Sep 12I'd also add that it's no coincidence, like Eli's article mentions, that Bush wasn't even at the Republican National Convention, contrasting Clinton's overwhelming presence at the DNC. In the same way that Obama is using Clinton to his benefit, I agree that Romney needs to distinguish himself from Bush in a deeper way than physical distance. For me, this comes down to his fiscal policy. He hasn't painted his plan for recovery (as a "fix-it man") in any terms other than blanket conservatism. One strategy I saw a little of in the Romney speech, like you mention, is the use of history. I'm wondering which would work better for his image: evoking situations where a fiscal conservative US thrived before Bush, or separating himself from Republican party of the past in any way he can. From what I can tell, creating his own distinct image seems like Romney's best bet.
-
Anna Schutte on 17 Sep 12It is interesting how past presidents influence voting. At the DNC, Obama compared his deep doubts and controversy to those experienced by Lincoln. I doubt voters today have any idea that Lincoln was a Republican. I think I remember Romney quoting FDR in his speech even though his position about government's role in solving economic problems is in many ways the opposite of FDR. The article suggests that the only way for Romney to shake the ghost of Bush would be to define himself as a strong, distinct character like Eisenhower. Can a successful businessman do what a successful general did? It's hard to imagine how.
-
miles henderson on 18 Sep 12Great post. I really enjoyed reading this article because I do believe that the legacy of the last elected party plays a major role in future elections. If a president from a particular party succeeds in his own term, his political party gains more credibility because people will connect a president's success with his party. For example(hypothetically speaking), If a democratic president successfully relieves the U.S from economic depression, in the future if depression occurs people would begin to think a democrat is the right candidate to fix the problem.
-
mabel taylor on 19 Sep 12I agree that the Republican's avoidance of anything too heavily Bush-related is not working in their favor, and like this article notes, whenever a political sensitivity makes a candidate vulnerable, ignoring it is certainly not the best course of action. But this article also shows how Romney is just not well-suited to actually addressing the past failures of Republicans, both because of the early failures in his campaign to sell himself as the type of economically-focused candidate voters want and his unclear values and opinions, and makes it clear that the Republican who will erase the legacy of Bush will not be Romney.