But we weren’t “still as much ‘at war’ in 2012.” The situation in Iraq in 2003 isn’t comparable with 2012. I agree that Kerry was an inadequate candidate, though I definitely disagree that liberals who explain Bush’s second term via the war are just voicing “sour grapes.” That seems sort of straw man-ish to me.
The GOP hasn’t managed to do a great job of distancing itself from Bush, though it has tried in earnest. So who knows? I don’t think most Americans care about Benghazi but the ACA might be a different story.
My point is it doesn’t matter if it is Cruz or any other GOP candidate, the leftist “mainstream” media will run them through the mud because the media (CBS, ABC, NBC, NBC/Wallstreet Journal, CNN, AP, Reuters, New York Times, and Hollywood) has become nothing else but the propaganda arm of the Democrat party. That’s why Republicans need to ignore them and just go for the most conservative candidate out of the party so that it won’t matter what the liberals think.
Sounds like sour grapes to me. Bush was a better candidate and a better president. He is certainly missed by many in comparison to Obama. Obama has made him look good.
Yeah…60 Minutes probably wasted their time. Democrats don’t care about incompetence that leads to an embassy attack and death of an ambassador and others. “What does it matter?”
Obama makes every president who came before him look good.
Let’s agree to disagree there. I’d rather claw my eyes out with acid-soaked fingernails than relive the Bush years. I’m aware that Republicans imagine Obama as the worst president in U.S. history – for Democrats, Bush trumps all. I’d like to see something wholly different than both in the next election.We get it. You are in the tank for Obama. Hey, he still has 3 more years. In Bush’s first term, he averaged a 62% approval versus Obama’s 49% in his first term. Considering Bush dropped 25% in his second ter! the only question for Obama is “how low can you go? How low can you go?”
I’m not claiming it’s good to disregard Benghazi – I trust that’s clear. Just pointing out what I think is the majority’s opinion regarding it. But folks in both parties have been known to defend some pretty atrocious stuff in recent years. I don’t see how one party is better than the other in that respect.
That’s funny – I don’t think I said I was “in the tank for Obama.” I think I said I’d like to see a very different kind of candidate in the next election.We get it. You are in the tank for Obama. Hey, he still has 3 more years. In Bush’s first term, he averaged a 62% approval versus Obama’s 49% in his first term. Considering Bush dropped 25% in his second ter! the only question for Obama is “how low can you go? How low can you go?”
I wouldn’t be surprised, but you can’t compare him to “Republicans.” Those less meaningful approval ratings aren’t the same as presidential approval ratings. A party is not a person. Despite the approval ratings of “Republicans,” they will probably maintain (maybe even grow) their majority in the House and possibly even increase their numbers in the Senate. Votes are for individuals, not parties.
The Republican Elites and the Democrats are the same people. Think about it. The Republican elites wouldn’t even allow Santorum to win Iowa on opening night because it would have caused people to stop and think about conservative social values. A few votes were lost for a few weeks. Think about it. Frail McCain hobbling around on stage during the '08 debate? “Really.” Like there weren’t a thousand people who would have advised the wounded Vietnam vet against that?? Moderator Candy Crowley arguing falsely for Obama during the 2nd Presidential debate?? Really?? Romney doesn’t hammer Obama on Bengazi during the 3rd debate when the debate’s topic is foreign affairs?? Really??
I’m sorry, but that is pathetic. People vote. The “elites” can’t keep the voters from voting for their chosen candidate. If Santorum couldn’t garner enough votes, he couldn’t garner enough votes. He would have been the candidate, if he could.
FWIW, I noticed that both GW and Obama used bin Laden in their last weekend of campaigning for their second term in some manner. It could have been the deciding factor for all we know.
I think this sentence is quite illustrative of the feelings some still have on the left toward Bush. Can I ask, gracepoole, what was it that Bush did that would make you say such a thing? Was it the expansion of medicare to include prescription drugs? The prosperity during most of his two terms? His leadership post 9/11? Perhaps it was Iraq? Wait - didn’t many Democrats vote to take action against Iraq too? Didn’t Colin Powell argue to go to war? Didn’t John Kerry? (before he was against it again). Why do you reserve such intense feelings toward Bush but not toward Colin Powell or John Kerry? Or Obama?
You might have a point: FDR was re-elected in 1944, even though many didn’t want him to have a 4th term. This was partly to have continuity in leadership during WW2. Of course he died relatively soon after.
Chevy Cruze?
It’s a wordplay on the name “Khrushchev”. I don’t trust that guy as far as I can throw him. I wouldn’t vote for him for dog catcher, much less the Presidency of the United States of America. The ACA is “Sugar”?
Puh-leeze. Tell that to my wife who we can now afford to insure. (I’m disabled and get V.A. medical if anyone wants to know why I was OK as far as healthcare goes.)