Mitchell
10-06-2004, 11:25 AM
I want to start a thread with a bit of political history here. In 1992, during campaign season between Bush 41 and Bill Clinton, the economic conditions in this country, and conditions around the world, were not nearly as bad as they are now, and yet, Bush 41 was defeated in the election due to perception of an anemic recovery.
While Iam aware that some have more money now due to opportunity and investment, as the stock market (Dow Jones Average) on the day Clinton took office was 3300, and is now 10,000. (Cited from someone I know who is an investment advisor, and historical sources by the way) The fact is that Bush 41 didnt have 1000 soldiers dead in a misgided war, with no end in sight, and the world not ready to help us. In fact, according to historical sources I've read, both impartial political sources, as well as stated by Clinton and Bush themselves, the economy was in fact recovering in 1992, and supposedly grew at a more than 5% rate during the last quarter after Bush 41 was defeated, and before Clinton took office. Clearly, Bush 41 was a victim of bad timing, and many historians I've heard, both in my college, from history books, as well as my own concession, is that if the 1992 election had been held 3 or 6 months later, it is likely that Bush 41 would probably have won. Bush 41, while considered by many to be out of touch and a bit clueless, did not have the resume of 1000 soldiers dead. Also, it is probable that like in 2000 with Al Gore, Bush 41 was a victim of the Perot factor, as Perot got 19 percent of the vote, with the winner, Clinton, getting only 43 percent to Bush's 37.5 percent. (Again cited from historical sources)
My point in posting this piece of history is this: While I didnt vote in 1988 because I was still a confused 18 year old college student who didnt care, and while I did admittedly vote for Clinton in 1992 because I felt the country was suffering, and we needed new leadership, the fact is that in many ways, Bush 41 was not nearly as detrimental to this country as his son is, being more an out of touch man who was a moderate Republican, more moderate than Reagan, and certainly more moderate than his son, and yet, he lost the election because the country felt he was detrimental to our nation with his policies. This was a man, who while he made mistakes, didnt have the stigma of a misguided war with 1000 dead and no end in sight on his resume. While I believe his defeat was justified due to the slow recovery, I also think that Mr Bush Sr got a bad rap, and was a victim of bad timing. I have heard him admit on TV that if he was president, he would not have gone into Iraq the way that we did. What does this say about his son, if his own father, the former president,with a history of public service that is much more lengthy and distinguished than his son's, having been Congressman, CIA chief, and Vice President, says these things criticizing his son's policies? While parents and children can still love each other and disagree, I feel this makes a very strong statement about what 41 thinks of our current policy.
The point of my thread was to present conditions in 1992 compared with today. While the economy was poor back then, and in an anemic recovery, Bush 41 didnt have 1000 dead in a misguided war, with no end in sight, and had not allienated our allies. Bush 43 has caused serious problems, and in reality, perhaps it would have been more justified that his father been re elected then it is that 43 is re elected, as if he is, there will be more of the same, and 43 will not be held accountable for his misguided war with 1000 dead, a number that grows steadily every day.
Mitch
One final point : Iam aware that Bush 41 was held accountable for his famous saying during the 1988 campaign:" Read my lips, no new taxes", and then raising taxes. While that was bad, and Clinton called him on it in 1992 saying "Mr Bush, It isnt going to be read my lips"
While breaking a promise to raise taxes is bad, and Bush 41 should have been held accountable for it, in reality, how can it compare to Bush 43 misleading us by insisting that Saddam had WMD's, going to a misguided war with 1000 dead, and then having the non partisan 9-11 commission decide that Saddam had no WMD's? These serious issues are why I feel 43 should be defeated in November, and if we put his father out due to a slow recovery, and a broken campaign promise on taxes, how can we in all conscience vote 43 back in there when we have 1000 dead in a misguided war, over 100 billion spent, our surplus eaten up, and the largest deficit in history? The numbers speak for themselves, and now the voters have to decide.
While Iam aware that some have more money now due to opportunity and investment, as the stock market (Dow Jones Average) on the day Clinton took office was 3300, and is now 10,000. (Cited from someone I know who is an investment advisor, and historical sources by the way) The fact is that Bush 41 didnt have 1000 soldiers dead in a misgided war, with no end in sight, and the world not ready to help us. In fact, according to historical sources I've read, both impartial political sources, as well as stated by Clinton and Bush themselves, the economy was in fact recovering in 1992, and supposedly grew at a more than 5% rate during the last quarter after Bush 41 was defeated, and before Clinton took office. Clearly, Bush 41 was a victim of bad timing, and many historians I've heard, both in my college, from history books, as well as my own concession, is that if the 1992 election had been held 3 or 6 months later, it is likely that Bush 41 would probably have won. Bush 41, while considered by many to be out of touch and a bit clueless, did not have the resume of 1000 soldiers dead. Also, it is probable that like in 2000 with Al Gore, Bush 41 was a victim of the Perot factor, as Perot got 19 percent of the vote, with the winner, Clinton, getting only 43 percent to Bush's 37.5 percent. (Again cited from historical sources)
My point in posting this piece of history is this: While I didnt vote in 1988 because I was still a confused 18 year old college student who didnt care, and while I did admittedly vote for Clinton in 1992 because I felt the country was suffering, and we needed new leadership, the fact is that in many ways, Bush 41 was not nearly as detrimental to this country as his son is, being more an out of touch man who was a moderate Republican, more moderate than Reagan, and certainly more moderate than his son, and yet, he lost the election because the country felt he was detrimental to our nation with his policies. This was a man, who while he made mistakes, didnt have the stigma of a misguided war with 1000 dead and no end in sight on his resume. While I believe his defeat was justified due to the slow recovery, I also think that Mr Bush Sr got a bad rap, and was a victim of bad timing. I have heard him admit on TV that if he was president, he would not have gone into Iraq the way that we did. What does this say about his son, if his own father, the former president,with a history of public service that is much more lengthy and distinguished than his son's, having been Congressman, CIA chief, and Vice President, says these things criticizing his son's policies? While parents and children can still love each other and disagree, I feel this makes a very strong statement about what 41 thinks of our current policy.
The point of my thread was to present conditions in 1992 compared with today. While the economy was poor back then, and in an anemic recovery, Bush 41 didnt have 1000 dead in a misguided war, with no end in sight, and had not allienated our allies. Bush 43 has caused serious problems, and in reality, perhaps it would have been more justified that his father been re elected then it is that 43 is re elected, as if he is, there will be more of the same, and 43 will not be held accountable for his misguided war with 1000 dead, a number that grows steadily every day.
Mitch
One final point : Iam aware that Bush 41 was held accountable for his famous saying during the 1988 campaign:" Read my lips, no new taxes", and then raising taxes. While that was bad, and Clinton called him on it in 1992 saying "Mr Bush, It isnt going to be read my lips"
While breaking a promise to raise taxes is bad, and Bush 41 should have been held accountable for it, in reality, how can it compare to Bush 43 misleading us by insisting that Saddam had WMD's, going to a misguided war with 1000 dead, and then having the non partisan 9-11 commission decide that Saddam had no WMD's? These serious issues are why I feel 43 should be defeated in November, and if we put his father out due to a slow recovery, and a broken campaign promise on taxes, how can we in all conscience vote 43 back in there when we have 1000 dead in a misguided war, over 100 billion spent, our surplus eaten up, and the largest deficit in history? The numbers speak for themselves, and now the voters have to decide.