McCain got outspent 4 to 1. Bush still might have won the Rep primary, if he had not opted out of the system. Who knows? But we can say that very few politicians can win when they are outspent 4 to 1.
I'm not underestimating him at all -- on either front. I think he'll be very tough to beat and I also think he'll go down as one of the worst presidents of all time. He's not done doing damage yet and with a Republican Congress he can do plenty. He won't go down as a bad president because he's dumb (and he is very, very dumb) or ineffective (which he's not). He'll go down as a bad president for the things he'll be able to do in the next few years.
The 2000 presidential election was Gore's to lose, which he did. Gore ran a very tepid campaign that did not excite the electorate. Gore assumed that the electorate would see what kind of man Bush really was in the debates. Unfortunately, Gore's debate performance wasn't any better than Bush's, which was Gore's own damn fault. The fact that Gore could not carry his home state says more about him and his failed bid for the Presidency than anything else. The 2004 election presidential election will be Bush's to lose. This time around he won't have spend any of his money in the primaries. Thus, Bush should be able to freely spend in the general election, in order to repair all of the damage his presidency has done. In the end, Bush will likely win if the economy has righted itself by then. The Democratic 2004 presidential candidate will likely mop the floor with Bush, having learned from Gore's mistakes. Bush has the $$$ to right any of his debate failures. Bush's record as President will be shredded by historians. Mark my words. His record is also very open to very damaging political attacks, which still remains to be seen if the Dems have enough balls to pursue. If the attacks are properly done, even Bush's excessive $$$ will not be able to save his ass. Only a war with North Korea (Bush's ace in the hole) could save him then. My bet is that the economy will have rebounded by the 2004 election and that the Democrats will not effectively attack Bush's record. I see Bush winning, without my vote of course and without starting a war with North Korea.
I agree with Madmax that he's far too easy to misunderestimate. Seriously. I don't forsee any mopping of floors (except for Gore, who should become a janitor, IMO). Batman Jones, party spin, of course, casts long shadows into the historical record. How long do you think it will take before some sort of objective analysis (relatively speaking) could emerge concerning the Dubya presidency? 50 years?
Spending plays a part, but you can spend you ass off in politics and that does not mean you will win (Tony Sanchez). He shows what happens when a bad candidate spends mass amounts of money to attempt to buy an election. So to make that statement holds limited water. BTW, were you complaining about Sanchez's spending while voting for him? Go back and look at the spending of Clinton when he ran the first time and defeated Gore in the primary. Did he outspend Gore by 4 to 1? You also may want to look at why & how these guys are able to spend that amount of money. Rarely do you have a guy who spends mass amounts of his own money (save Sanchez). In most cases, this is contributed money, and typically your better candidates are the ones who will have the most backing as few people are willing to contribute large sums of money to some one that is not a good candidate, its a bad investment if you will. Strong candidates will typically get the votes and money for the campaign b/c they are just that, strong candidates.
I am guessing you were just too upset that he spent like a Rep b/c he certainly spoke like a dem. You were just really stumped on that one I assume. You had a Rep who was once a dem running versus a dem who (in your part'y eyes) spent like Rep. Damn, what to do?!?! The party had no problem accepting and supporting him though. Anyhow, you are off the hook on that one (b/c I take you at your word), go do the research on Clinton vs. Gore in the primarys and get back with me.
Raising money is a popularity contest of the incredibly rich, which goes a long way to determining who runs and wins. Isn't it funny that you used the word investment in descibing these political contributions.
Since Bush promulgated an Executive Order that gives ex-Presidents and their heirs veto power over the release of documents, it could be a century or more... The Lincoln family didn't make Abe's papers available until the 1940's. The Bush EO goes against the Presidential Records Act passed after Watergate and a number of groups, including historians, librarians, and archivists are challenging the ruling. The EO even gives executive privilege to VP's, something that has never before been asserted. Here's some info: http://www.apsanet.org/new/hornletter.cfm And here's testimony by historian Robert Dallek, who has written a biography of LBJ among other things... Dr. Robert Dallek Testimony before House Committee on Government Reform April 11, 2002 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify at this hearing about your proposed legislation nullifying President Bush's Executive Order 13223 revising procedures for release of presidential documents established under the Presidential Records Act of 1978. As I understand matters, the Executive Order would give a sitting president as well as past presidents and their heirs the power to withhold presidential documents for as long as they believed necessary. This control of historical papers would also extend to vice presidents. I read President Bush's Executive Order as essentially nullifying earlier legislation making presidential papers public rather than private property. If Mr. Bush's Order is left standing, I believe it will return us to the era when presidents owned and controlled access to the documentary record generated during their administrations. The committee's amendment to the Presidential Records Act would eliminate this return to a state of affairs the Congress ended in the 1970s. My work over the last 30 years in five presidential libraries-FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson-for books on presidents Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Johnson leaves me unconvinced that President Bush's Executive Order, as the administration alleges, will contribute to a more orderly release of presidential documents, particularly greater assurance against breaches of national security and of privacy rights. To the contrary, the President's directive will make the study and understanding of recent presidential history more difficult. It will undermine Justice Felix Frankfurter's definition of democratic government "as the government which accepts in the fullest sense responsibility to explain itself." Attorney General Ashcroft has asserted that the Executive Order was essential for protecting "national security, enhancing the effectiveness of our law enforcement agencies, protecting sensitive business information and, not least, preserving personal privacy." I find the Attorney General's statement unconvincing. The 1978 Presidential Records Act makes ample provision for the protection of both national security and personal privacy. More to the point, in my 30 years of work in presidential libraries, I have never heard of a breach of national security by premature release of presidential documents. Nor do I know of any notable violation of personal privacy by an unauthorized release of documents in the holdings of the libraries. I will leave it to others with greater expertise than I have to comment on the claims of executive privilege asserted by the President as an additional basis for his Order of November 1. I can say, however, that, to the best of my knowledge, it is unprecedented to claim that presidents maintain executive privilege after they have left office. Nor will I speculate on what exactly motivated President Bush's Executive Order, except to say that it is hard to believe that either national security or personal privacy are genuine central considerations. I would like to focus instead on the importance of opening presidential records to journalists and historians in a timely fashion. No one interested in the country's well-being favors inappropriate release of presidential materials. Some matters relating to national security and personal privacy should remain secret for the proper functioning of our government. As my colleague Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. said in a letter to this committee last November, "A measure of secrecy is certainly essential to executive operations. But secrecy should be rigidly reserved for specific categories - weapons technology and deployment, diplomatic negotiations, intelligence methods and sources, personnel investigations, tax returns, personal data given the government on the presumption that it would be kept confidential. Secrecy, carried too far, becomes a means by which the executive branch dissembles its purposes, buries its mistakes, manipulates its citizens, escapes its accountability and maximizes its power." Holding back presidential documents impoverishes our understanding of recent history and handicaps a president wrestling with difficult contemporary policy questions. The more presidents have known about past White House performance, the better they have been at making wise policy judgments. President Franklin Roosevelt's close knowledge of President Woodrow Wilson's missteps at the end of World War I were of considerable help to him in leading the country into and through the Second World War. Lyndon Johnson's effectiveness in passing so much Great Society legislation in 1965 and 1966 partly rested on direct observation of how Roosevelt had managed relations with Congress. President Truman's problems in the Korean war following the move across the 38th parallel into North Korea was one element in persuading George Bush not to invade Iraq in 1991. Every president uses history in deciding current actions. The principal victim of President Bush's directive will be himself and the country. The study and publication of our presidential history is no luxury or form of public entertainment. It is a vital element in assuring the best governance of our democracy. No one has a monopoly on truth or wisdom in the making of public policy. Nor can historians or history offer a foolproof blueprint on sensible courses of action. But it is a useful guide in helping an administration make decisions about domestic and foreign affairs. The more we know about our past the better we will be able to chart a sensible future. Your amendment to the PRA will serve the nation. Thank you for listening to my remarks. I will be happy to answer any questions that could in any way be helpful to your deliberations. Robert Dallek Washington, D.C., April 11, 2002
Gotta run right now. Will post more later re: Bush presidency. I didn't vote for Sanchez either. Had more to do with his positions and the cynical tactic the party used, thinking just because he was Latino Latinos would vote for him and just because he had a (D) by his name Dems would vote for him. I also didn't think he ran like a Dem (made all kinds of noise about how he supported Bush) and I'm always offended by anyone trying to buy an election. I could speak more on this later, too. But the real reason I'm posting is that it is you, TheHorns, who needs to go do research on Clinton v. Gore. Mostly because they never ran against each other. Gore last ran in 1988. Clinton ran against Brown, Tsongas, Kerrey, Harkin and Doug Wilder. I know cause I worked for Brown. Early on, in the primaries that counted most, I don't think you'll find too much disparity between the money spent by Clinton and the other two presumed frontrunners (Kerrey and Harkin), but you're way off asking for a comparison of Clinton and Gore's spending since Gore spent $0 on the 92 primary.
Trader Jorge, I assume like most conservatives, you love the fact of having Lieberman be the nominee. It's then heads I win and tails I win. Fortunately the dork factor can not be overcome in his case. The guy is clueless about this. BTW where are all the conservatives who should be claiming that he can't win since he is from the North East?
bump Now I mentioned Hiliary Clinton about a year ago and I got pounded in here. "The country isn't ready for a woman president", blah blah blah. I'm telling you, if the Repubicans don't repair the economy and wrap up the Iraq thing by summer it's gonna get ugly for the president. The founder of Clonaid could run for president against Bush and win.
a) Elections are a popularity contest and again you are missing the boat, PEOPLE WILL NOT CONTRIBUTE JUST b/c THE CANDIDATE IS "POPULAR", the candidate must have an AGENDA as well and be some one you believe in b) Incredibly rich????? I am not "incredibly rich" and I contribute. c) Incredibly rich????? Either you are blind, in denial or you have failed to look at the candidates/possible nominees for YOUR party. What percentage of the candidates/possible nominees for YOUR party in the past 20 years were NOT millionaires? Call it what you want, it is an investment to me. An investment in our country's future. An investment in what I believe in. You know what else is an investment to me: 1) Paying money for my son to attend school- investment in his future 2) Paying my taxes- investment in our country 3) Money I give to charities- investment in people who need help 4) Paying association fees- investment in my community 5) Contributing to my Church- investment my religious beliefs What do you call all of that? Hand outs?
It was last evening when I recalled that the '92 was not the Gore run, he actually ran against Michael Dukakis. I own up to my mistake, and would have made note of it in the forum sooner had I been online. Regardless of if you agree with my stance on issues or not, I will ALWAYS be the first to admit when I make a mistake. Just as I always take people like yourself and No Worries at their word when you state you did not vote for Sanchez. There is no reason to lie, its all a discussion and I think that is important to an open discussion. Thanks for noting the inaccuracy, I only wish I could have done it before you. Thanks.
Let's do the math. Bush raised over $100 million ($150+ million?) in his 2000 presidential bid. How many average Joes who give $100 is that? 1 million. How many would that be if they contributed the max, $1000? 100,000. How many max PAC contributions would that be at $10,000 a pop? 10,000. How many soft money contributers (giving to the party asking it to be earmarked for a candidate)? 100 contributers giving $1 million each. When an investigatory committee examines the viability of their candidate, who are they going to talk to first about financial backing? Needles to say, those who give the most will have better access to the candidate if elected. Right or wrong, this is how the system works (except for the soft money which will have to use a different route next election).
