That Washington Post title says everything you need to know about what the Democratic strategy will be for the midterm elections.
We all know that, every chance Obama and the Democrats are given, they always place the onus of our dour economy on the policies of President George W. Bush.
His latest article in the The Washington Post today, journalist Chris Cillizza piece is titled “Republicans=Bush?”
During this week’s Sunday talk show theater, Republicans juxtaposed the crappy economic mess we are in under Obama and his Democrats to the positive economic reality we had during most of the Bush Administration.
“People had jobs when Republicans were not only in charge but George Bush was there,” said National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (Texas) during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press”.
John Cornyn, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers” program that “Bush’s stock has gone up a lot since he left office,” adding: “I think a lot people are looking back with more fondness on President Bush’s administration, and I think history will treat him well.”
Score one for Bush.
Let’s take a look at the current Obama numbers.
The economy is atrocious.
Under 18 months of Obama, we have 9.7% unemployment, increased taxes on families making over $250,000 a year, 2 million federal government jobs dominated by greedy and corrupt unions, a $13 trillion national debt, and a budget deficit of $1.35 trillion dollars.
And don’t forget that the purse strings of Congress have been under the control of Democrats since 2006.
Bush 1/Obama 0
So, now that it has been years for Democrats to prove to the American people that they know what is best for our country, they should be standing tall on their positive accomplishments for re-election, right?
Well, if this is any indication of what their “strategy” for winning the mid-term elections is, in trouble, they are. (Little Yoda-speak there.)
The Dem rebuttal is predictable, at best.
“The men in charge of Republican campaigns made it crystal clear what Republican candidates plan to do if elected — take us backward,” trumpeted Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine in a release this morning.
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (N.J.) insisted that the November election will “be about whether or not we go back to the Bush economic policies that they espouse.”
Surprise! Blame everything on Bush!
You Dems feelin’ all optimistic yet?
WAPO’s take on this is obvious:
The work of the next four months (or so) for Democrats is to remind people of that link — that the vast majority of Republicans in Congress were in office when Bush was president and played a not-insignificant role in passing his agenda.
The data in the Third Way poll (described by Cillizza as “centrist Democratic” ?) suggest that if Democrats can (re)hang Bush around the neck of Republicans, it could greatly improve their chances of minimizing losses this fall.
Almost half (49 percent) of respondents said they would prefer a candidate who would “stick with” President Obama’s economic policies, while 34 percent said they would opt for a candidate who aligned with Bush’s economic policies.
But, if Bush — literally his name — is taken out of the equation, the voting dynamic changes, as it becomes clear that there is not a large reservoir of support for Obama’s approach to the economy.
A majority — 51 percent — say they would prefer a candidate who believed Obama’s economic plan is not working and “we need new economic policies that will shrink government, cut taxes on investment and support business growth,” while 42 percent said they would rather support a candidate who believed Obama had a plan for the economy and that we need to give it time to work.
In some ways, the findings are ho-hum. After all, it’s no secret that Republicans want to make the election a referendum on Obama (As it should be.), while Democrats want to make the midterms a choice between what Obama has done and what the GOP will do/has done.
But the disconnect in most Americans’ minds between the economic approach of Bush, which they detest, and that of Congressional Republicans, which they remain undecided about, is critically important to understanding the task before Democrats over the next 106 days.
These clowns are delusional.
Obama has been in office for 18 month, and has done more economic damage in less time then most any President I can recall. He couldn’t have done it without the help of the Congress held hostage by the Democratic majority, led by Pelosi and Reid.
You can hang onto “it’s his fault” only so long. That ship sailed a loooong time ago.
Obama was supposed to be the hopeful agent of change. The one who was going to honorably and quickly transmogrify the way things would be done in Washington.
The political savior.
He and his Democratic cohorts have enacted policies which have proved to be abysmal failures, and their only pathetic chance to win is to divert attention away from what they have done by continually attempting to place blame on a lame-duck President who has been out of office for 18 months.