Our dear comrade leader’s tired “anti-Bush” campaign
Our dear comrade leader’s campaign spin machine has come up with a new tactic for the midterm elections – Blame Bush. WTF? When even left-leaning, comrade-loving Politico.com sees a problem with this, it must be headed for trouble. (story here)
President Barack Obama is trying to ride the wave of anti-incumbency by taking on an unpopular politician steeped in the partisan ways of Washington.
It doesn’t matter that George W. Bush left office 16 months ago.
The White House’s mid-term election strategy is becoming clear – pit the Democrats of 2010 against the Republicans circa 2006, 2008 and 2009, including Bush.
It’s a lot to ask an angry, finicky electorate to sort out. And even if Obama can rightfully make the case that the economy took a turn for the worse under Bush’s watch, he’s already made it – in 2008 and repeatedly in 2009.
It’s not clear that voters still want to hear it.
“If you’re the leader of a large corporation and you’re in power for a year and a half and you start off a meeting with your shareholders by blaming your predecessor, that wouldn’t go over very well,” said Merle Black, a political science professor at Emory University. “This is a very weak approach. … And I can’t imagine it having an impact on these very swing voters.”
Of course Politico misreads the mood of the country by calling it “anti-incumbent.” While incumbents are sure to feel the wrath of the voters, the real reason is that they are anti-big government, anti-profligate spending. They are simply holding incumbents responsible for it. This isn’t about democrats or republicans. It’s about returning to the ideals and concepts that made this country great.
Running against Bush worked 2 years ago but it won’t work again. The country is seeing where the democrats and the rest of the big spenders want to take us and we don’t want to go there.