Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 20, 2014, 08:04:40 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2004 U.S. Presidential Election
| | |-+  2004 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign
| | | |-+  Did Bush ACTUALLY run on his own Presidential record?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Did Bush ACTUALLY run on his own Presidential record?  (Read 1980 times)
Angel of Death
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1133
View Profile
« on: November 29, 2004, 03:11:02 pm »
Ignore

Seriously, Bush made it seem like the seat was empty like four years ago or even worse that he was the challenger! Almost all the time the tone seems to have been "Vote for me and as President I'll promise you this and that...". You're already President now! What did you accomplish in this term?

This speaks very poorly of the voting populace.
Logged

WARNING: Selling oil in euros has been proven to be hazardous to one's health.
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20702
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -1.74

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: November 29, 2004, 03:57:38 pm »
Ignore

Hahahahahahahahaha

My God.  This has always, from the begining of the Republic, been a time honored strategy.  Those Presidents that didn't use it have often lost.  When you are a President running for reelection, you are always supposed to run on a few good points about your administration, but make it seem as though the second term will be more vigorous, basically a fresh start.  You always try to get the populace to believe that they are voting for young blood, unless it is one of those rare races where expirience really counts.

George H. W. Bush ran solely on what he had done as President and lost.

Even in Britain, Winston Churchill lost the Prime Ministership, because his party ran on the idea that they were close to winning the war, but offered nothing fresh.

Only a rank amateur, or an extreme partisan would bother to point this out.
Logged

A18
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23836
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: November 29, 2004, 05:36:18 pm »
Ignore

Even an extreme partisan has to acknowledge that Bush accomplished a lot in his first term. You don't have to like what he accomplished (campaign finance reform, several tax cuts, taking over two countries), but he accomplished it nonetheless.
Logged
Mikem
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 84


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: November 29, 2004, 05:38:20 pm »
Ignore

Well one does vote for the future doesnt he?  Thus this is a very effective strategy.  ANd yes he did accomplish a lot, most of which I agree with.
Logged

Political compass

Economic Left/Right: 8.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.49
Lunar
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 30616
Ireland, Republic of
View Profile
« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2004, 03:28:27 am »
Ignore

Well, a lot of the big items for his agenda should have been passed sometime in the previous 4 years.  He had a Republican Congress to pass whatever he wanted, it wouldn't be hard to get tax reform or whatever done if he truly believed in it.

Kerry tried a few "Why isn't it done already?" speeches regarding Bush's various new proposals.  Obviously Kerry had to make them, even in retrospect.

Like Super pointed out, you can't run on old ideas.
Logged

this is real
Erc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4685
Slovenia


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: November 30, 2004, 12:03:54 pm »
Ignore

Kerry lost, in my opinion, because he [and the entire Dean-Democrat Establishment] spent too much time focusing on Bush's first term.  Past performance is an indicator of future results, yes...but if you don't present a credible alternative, people are going to go with what they know.

And "I have a plan.  No, really, it's on johnkerry.com"  just doesn't cut it.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines