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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3455GI_uGs4[/video]
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.
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.
i think it's a generic look at the voters and the sentiment, not comparing specific policies across the board as being the same.
