Today reminds me of 2004

[chris_in_pdx]

Liberals HATED Bush. Thought he was a warmonger, liar, general plague of American politics leading the country to destruction. Democrats pitted John Kerry against him, a somewhat wonky and sour war hero who was supposed to undercut Bush's war and foreign policy (perceived) weaknesses. Bush and the Republicans found enough holes to shoot through Kerry's war record and lack of a consistent message in various issues, plus pushed the general "likability" factor, that they were able to defeat the Democratic challenger in a very close election. Liberals were beside themselves, couldn't believe that the country would re-elect what they saw as a detestable character. Bush claimed that he had "political capital" to spend afterwords, and pushed some slightly more right-oriented agendas, and the Left twisted in the wind.

Now 2012. Switch the parties, candidates, and "war" with "economy" and you have almost the exact same scenario. The only difference is that the Internet and the 24/7 Corporate Media is much more mature in exploiting the reactions of the winners and losers, making the instant divide reaction more loud and marketable.

 

[mook]

Every presidential election is seemingly monolithic and world-changing at the time. I get my jimmies rustled just like everybody else (first started voting in 1992). Truth is that in hindsight a lot of them have been kind of meh.

In all that time, I think maybe 2000 and 2008 are the only ones where who won made a really, really huge difference. 2000 because of 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, tax cuts. 2008 because of Obamacare.

I think in 20 years we'll look back at 2012 like we did 2004 or 1996 or 1992, where (aside from Supreme Court justices) the country was going to do what it was going to do no matter who won.

 

[RR7]

Liberals HATED Bush. Thought he was a warmonger, liar, general plague of American politics leading the country to destruction. Democrats pitted John Kerry against him, a somewhat wonky and sour war hero who was supposed to undercut Bush's war and foreign policy (perceived) weaknesses. Bush and the Republicans found enough holes to shoot through Kerry's war record and lack of a consistent message in various issues, plus pushed the general "likability" factor, that they were able to defeat the Democratic challenger in a very close election. Liberals were beside themselves, couldn't believe that the country would re-elect what they saw as a detestable character. Bush claimed that he had "political capital" to spend afterwords, and pushed some slightly more right-oriented agendas, and the Left twisted in the wind.

Now 2012. Switch the parties, candidates, and "war" with "economy" and you have almost the exact same scenario. The only difference is that the Internet and the 24/7 Corporate Media is much more mature in exploiting the reactions of the winners and losers, making the instant divide reaction more loud and marketable.

I was thinking the same thing earlier reading some of the posts here, and seeing some general reaction elsewhere. Seems like now, it's more "dropping out", like maxie was saying with his company, than the I'm moving to Canada tune of 8 years ago. And we'll get through this just the same, I presume.

 

[crandc]

I think a big similarity is that you had a candidate saying "vote for me because I'm not the other guy". And that rarely works.

 

[donkiez]

Every presidential election is seemingly monolithic and world-changing at the time. I get my jimmies rustled just like everybody else (first started voting in 1992). Truth is that in hindsight a lot of them have been kind of meh.

In all that time, I think maybe 2000 and 2008 are the only ones where who won made a really, really huge difference. 2000 because of 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, tax cuts. 2008 because of Obamacare.

I think in 20 years we'll look back at 2012 like we did 2004 or 1996 or 1992, where (aside from Supreme Court justices) the country was going to do what it was going to do no matter who won.

I pretty much agree. I think most presidents need all 8 years to accomplish what they want. The 4 year election is just a sanity check to make sure they are on the right path. By 2004 the damage was done, Kerry actually avoided being in charge for the worst financial disaster, if he was elected then he would have been blamed and promptly ousted in 2008 for whoever the republican party nominee was. I've spent a lot of time wondering where we would be as a nation if Gore had won. A lot of shit happened in the 4 years after 2000 but Bush and Gore are polar opposites in their political philosophy.

 

[Eastoff]

I pretty much agree. I think most presidents need all 8 years to accomplish what they want. The 4 year election is just a sanity check to make sure they are on the right path. By 2004 the damage was done, Kerry actually avoided being in charge for the worst financial disaster, if he was elected then he would have been blamed and promptly ousted in 2008 for whoever the republican party nominee was. I've spent a lot of time wondering where we would be as a nation if Gore had won. A lot of shit happened in the 4 years after 2000 but Bush and Gore are polar opposites in their political philosophy.

I too wondered if the Iraq and 9/11 cluster fuck would have happened.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

I too wondered if the Iraq and 9/11 cluster fuck would have happened.

are you kidding me? you would blame 9/11 on W?

 

[mook]

are you kidding me? you would blame 9/11 on W?

I don't think you have to blame W for 9/11 to think it might not have happened with a different administration. Purely on a quantum butterfly flapping his wings causing a hurricane kind of thing, if nothing else.

At the same time, who is to say that the 9/11 attack fails under Gore, but a year later they crash a plane into the Supreme Court or a State of the Union address.

It could always be better, but it could also always be worse.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

I don't think you have to blame W for 9/11 to think it might not have happened with a different administration. Purely on a quantum butterfly flapping his wings causing a hurricane kind of thing, if nothing else.

At the same time, who is to say that the 9/11 attack fails under Gore, but a year later they crash a plane into the Supreme Court or a State of the Union address.

It could always be better, but it could also always be worse.

pffft...ok Marty, but you have to get your Delorean up to 88 miles per hour..

 

[Denny Crane]

If Gore were president at the time, he'd have blamed 9/11 on global warming.

 

[magnifier661]

If Gore were president at the time, he'd have blamed 9/11 on global warming.

inconceivable!!!!

 

[3RA1N1AC]

are you kidding me? you would blame 9/11 on W?

he ignored warnings, so its fair really

maybe gore would have ignored them as well, who knows

 

[mook]

pffft...ok Marty, but you have to get your Delorean up to 88 miles per hour..

I tried, but Al Gore outlawed gas engines. I can do 20mph for 3 minutes on solar, though. I tried to get him to change his mind, but he wouldn't listen!

[video=youtube;3455GI_uGs4]

 

[barfo]

2012 is indeed a lot like 2004. And we liberal types would be wise to remember that only 4 years after the Kerry disappointment, we won the presidency back. It looks like the Republican party is in disarray right now, but all it takes is one strong candidate to recover. I frankly don't see any on the Republican side right now, but one may emerge.

barfo

 

[chris_in_pdx]

2012 is indeed a lot like 2004. And we liberal types would be wise to remember that only 4 years after the Kerry disappointment, we won the presidency back. It looks like the Republican party is in disarray right now, but all it takes is one strong candidate to recover. I frankly don't see any on the Republican side right now, but one may emerge.

barfo

Rubio or Jindal could be the answer to their prayers, if they can get the redneck southern racists to accept a non-white as their candidate.

 

[maxiep]

It's not at all like 2004. Bush was a big government social conservative, but people still had the right to an abortion, to marry whomever they chose in certain states and all the other "rights" they have today.

What we have now is a fundamental shift in the role of government in our lives. Unless the system collapses, new "benefits" tend to have a ratchet effect. It only goes one way.

It's nothing like 2004 at all. This mess cannot be undone.

 

[Denny Crane]

It's not at all like 2004. Bush was a big government social conservative, but people still had the right to an abortion, to marry whomever they chose in certain states and all the other "rights" they have today.

What we have now is a fundamental shift in the role of government in our lives. Unless the system collapses, new "benefits" tend to have a ratchet effect. It only goes one way.

It's nothing like 2004 at all. This mess cannot be undone.

To be fair, Bush and Rove orchestrated a pretty massive multi-state anti-gay marriage initiative.

 

[maxiep]

To be fair, Bush and Rove orchestrated a pretty massive multi-state anti-gay marriage initiative.

Are you really equating the impact of gay marriage with Obamacare?

 

[RR7]

Are you really equating the impact of gay marriage with Obamacare?

i think it's a generic look at the voters and the sentiment, not comparing specific policies across the board as being the same.

 

[Denny Crane]

Are you really equating the impact of gay marriage with Obamacare?

You talked like Bush was tolerant of certain social issues. I don't think he was, and it was ugly.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

bush just SAID that he was against gays and abortion, so he was liberal at heart really...

 

[maxiep]

You talked like Bush was tolerant of certain social issues. I don't think he was, and it was ugly.

No, I talked like Bush couldn't do anything about certain social issues.

 

[Denny Crane]

No, I talked like Bush couldn't do anything about certain social issues.

Ah, but he could, and did. I think he got ballot initiatives against gay marriage on the ballot and passed in 11 states and he also pushed for a constitutional amendment banning them. In order to get those on the ballot and passed in the states, it took a considerable amount of funding and coordination; feet on the ground, advertising, polling, and so on. I thought it was downright vicious.

 

[maxiep]

Ah, but he could, and did. I think he got ballot initiatives against gay marriage on the ballot and passed in 11 states and he also pushed for a constitutional amendment banning them. In order to get those on the ballot and passed in the states, it took a considerable amount of funding and coordination; feet on the ground, advertising, polling, and so on. I thought it was downright vicious.

Sweet. Let me know how that went. He tried something and failed. Obama tried something and succeeded. Oh, and that success will NEVER be repealed. It's done.

You equate something as piddly as gay marriage (it's important to some, but far down the list to the majority) to taking over 1/6th of the US economy. He helped mobilize state ballots, but people had a direct vote. Massachusetts elected a REPUBLICAN specifically to stop Obamacare and the Democrats got around it on a technicality. It's a ridiculous comparison.

 

[MickZagger]

Sweet. Let me know how that went. He tried something and failed. Obama tried something and succeeded. Oh, and that success will NEVER be repealed. It's done.

You equate something as piddly as gay marriage (it's important to some, but far down the list to the majority) to taking over 1/6th of the US economy. He helped mobilize state ballots, but people had a direct vote. Massachusetts elected a REPUBLICAN specifically to stop Obamacare and the Democrats got around it on a technicality. It's a ridiculous comparison.

A REPUBLICAN got us in this economic mess. I don't trust a REPUBLICAN to get us out of it.

 

[maxiep]

A REPUBLICAN got us in this economic mess. I don't trust a REPUBLICAN to get us out of it.

Please, do tell me how a REPUBLICAN got us in this economic mess. I'm waiting with bated breath for your response.

 

[MickZagger]

Please, do tell me how a REPUBLICAN got us in this economic mess. I'm waiting with bated breath for your response.

Its not worth my time. You twist and spin everything. If you don't think Bush got us in this mess I don't know what to tell ya.

It must of been a rough 24 hours for you.

 

[maxiep]

Its not worth my time. You twist and spin everything. If you don't think Bush got us in this mess I don't know what to tell ya.

It must of been a rough 24 hours for you.

Meaning you have no answer other than the Obama spin line. I accept your surrender.

As for the election, it was tough for me. This country isn't the one I thought it was. There are now more takers than earners. It's unlikely to change until it collapses.

 

[MickZagger]

Meaning you have no answer other than the Obama spin line. I accept your surrender.

As for the election, it was tough for me. This country isn't the one I thought it was. There are now more takers than earners. It's unlikely to change until it collapses.

...and you're still an Independent, right?

 

[maxiep]

...and you're still an Independent, right?

Absolutely. You still check the boxes for the party line so you don't have to think, right?