The following are the comments from Saturday, January 03, 2004 as of 11:15 PM on Monday the 5th:
- Robertson may be a loon, but I'm afraid that he's right about the election.
The latest CNN poll shows Bush beating Dean by only 5 points (51-46).
"Just to put that into perspective: in April of 1992, Bill Clinton trailed George H.W. Bush by 20 points."
Full report @ http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/002928.html
So things are looking much better than your comment implies.
Good to hear from you (good news too). Congratz on moderatorship over at ephilosopher.com.
- April of 1992 the democrats had their candidate, January of 2004 the democrats do not. Much will happen when the primaries and cacuses start, especially since Dean has very little support from the party higher-ups, regardless of Gore's endosments.
History has shown that this country doesn't like to change presidents during "wars," I hope that this is the exception, but am prepared for the other.
- Thanks, Johnny.
Party high-ups are nothing if the people vote Dean into candidacy. Rest assured, once Dean is official, we'll get support from higher-ups (since they clearly prefer a Dem over Bush, even though they would have preferred Gephardt/Kerry).
History shows we dropped Bush Sr after a MidEast war. , so Bush Jr is in the same boat his pappy was.
Okay, so history does show that Bush Sr was dropped in '92, but his war was over for a year. It ended because his adversary withdrew much more quickly than he wanted and he at least had enough humanity in him to not outright invade a country and slaughter innocent people on a person to person basis (bombs were good enough to do that for him, and the next president as well). If Gulf War Episode One: Kuwait Invaded had lasted through the presidential election, I think Bush Sr would have been president for the next four years.
Why do I say this? Because in the history of this nation it no president has been voted out of office while a war (or "war") is going on. I'm starting with the American "Civil" War because it's the first war that I can find that runs through more than one presidential term.
American "Civil" War (1861-1865): Lincoln is the president (as we all know), but he was only elected with 40% of the popular vote. States want to leave the Union, the Union refuses to allow this to happen and declares war with parts of itself. 1864 rolls around and Lincoln is up for re-election, he won. True, he probably wouldn't have one if the southern states had exercised their right to vote (they were still part of the Union, right?), but the rest didn't want to kick out their commander-in-chief.
Spanish American War (1898-1902): War declared during McKinley's first term. Most of the fighting in Cuba was done by the end of the year, but the war continued in the Philippines and wasn't really over until after McKinley's death in 1901, but the man did get re-elected to a second term.
World War I (1917-1919): Okay, the U.S. wasn't involved in the fighting during Wilson's first term, but since it started in 1914 in Europe I have to count it. I mean, for the people who vote were following the war. They knew that the US was sending goods (including munitions) across the Atlantic. And they knew about the sinking of the Lusitania. It was gonna happen, they just didn't know when and they re-elected Wilson in 1916.
World War II (1941-1945): The war in Europe started in '39 and Roosevelt was re-elected the first time in '40 most likely because the economy picked up due to the war across the ocean. In '44, he's re-elected again (only president to do that, ever). Was it because he was a good president, or because the people of the nation were on a patriotic kick and put him back in office? Then Truman took over and unleashed a horrible, horrible devise on the world.
Korean "War" (1950-1953 or present, depending on how you look at it): Okay, this one didn't help anyone, but that's only because in 1952, Truman decided not to run for re-election. Would he have won? I'm not sure, but I think he would have.
Viet Nam "War" (1964-1973): First, let me say that this "war" was a small fucking mistake that became a huge fucking mistake which eventually led to the fucking mistake that President Jr started. Fucking Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Okay, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident happened in August and Johnson was elected in November with 61% of the vote. He probably would have won even without the incident, but I'm sure it boosted his popularity. Even though the war was becoming unpopular, I bet Johnson would have won in '68, but he dropped out of the election, which let Tricky Dick into office for (almost) two terms. I'm sure that Nixon could have pulled out of Viet Nam earlier, but he didn't, he wanted to wait until the election was over. I'm sure that he would have won his re-election even if he hadn't cheated because he had a war to complete.
There's my history lesson for all of you out there. Because of those things, I think that this nation doesn't like voting out presidents during times of war (and "war").
I admit, Nihilo makes a good point in saying that "the recent Iraq war is now over." I believe it and I'm sure that much of the nation thinks that too, but President Jr doesn't. He says we're in it for the long haul, until it's over. He even said, "There's a variety of theaters. So long as anybody's terrorizing established governments, there needs to be war." (He forgot to add that it doesn't count if it is the US terrorizing established governments.) Besides, if most people in the US think the "war" in Iraq is over there's always North Korea, Iran, Palestine, or the sudden and remarkable capture then execution of Osama bin Ladin to help him win the day.
I hope he loses though. I don't want four more years of this Texas idiot. Please let it end.