Frank Rich: How to Lose an Election Without Really Trying

[Me.]

“COULD George W. Bush be a kind of Gipper-in-reverse and win yet one more for the Democrats? Clearly this White House sees him as the gift that will keep on giving. The 2010 campaign against the Bush administration is in full cry, with President Obama leading the charge. The Republicans are “betting on amnesia,” he confidently told the claque at a recent fund-raiser. “They don’t have a single idea that’s different from George Bush’s ideas.” It’s now the incessant party line.

Sounds plausible, but it’s Obama who’s on the wrong side of that bet, to his own political peril.

Betting on amnesia is almost always a winning, not a losing, wager in America. Angry demonstrators at health care town-hall meetings didn’t remember that Medicare is a government program, and fewer and fewer voters of both parties recall that the widely loathed TARP was a Bush administration creation supported by the G.O.P. Congressional leadership. So many Republicans don’t know Obama is a natural citizen — 41 percent in a poll last week — that we must (charitably) assume some of them have forgotten that Hawaii was granted statehood. The G.O.P. chairman is sufficiently afflicted with amnesia that he matter-of-factly regaled an audience with the counterfactual observation that the war in Afghanistan, Bush’s immediate response to 9/11, began under Obama.

The president is also wrong when he says that every single current G.O.P. idea is a Bush idea. Many are not. And those that are not are far more radical.”…cont…

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/opinion/08rich.html?_r=1&ref=frankrich

[napi21]

1. I disagree with Frank. I've heard many Dems using Shrub as

acampaign tool and even Obama has said we don't want to go backward. "Your car has a D & and R. D is for drive forward & R is for reverse!"

I think Obama is only going to come on rally strong in the latter part of the campaigns. He knows the American people don't have long memories and usualy the last one to speak is the winner.

[Me.]

3. August Seems To Always Be A Bad Month For Him

So the fall could be a change and who knows what further nuttiness the tea party will get up to. But Obama could help himself and fire up his base by appointing Warren.

[IndianaJoe]

2. I'm with Frank Rich

If 16 per cent of Americans are unemployed, working part time jobs, or 99ers, as Frank states, blaming it all on Bush isn't going to be enough. We need to try to do something. This is a terrible situation. Doing zip is going to get us booted out and then, Republicans being as they are, will likely put us in a hole we'll never be able to crawl out of.

[sendero]

4. He's exactly right..

.. that the electorate doesn't give TWO SHITS that this is a Republican-caused problem. We've had TWO YEARS to DO SOMETHING and the SOMETHING WE ARE DOING isn't working hardly at all.

If Obama wanted to keep the idea that this was all caused by Republicans alive, he should have started on DAY ONE and been relentless in his attacks. But no, he was "looking forward".

Obama deserves the loss of congress which is almost definitely coming.

As of right now, if I had to guess whether the economy will be better in Nov or worse, I'd guess worse, which will GUARANTEE a Dem trouncing.

If Obama grows a pair and DOES SOMETHING to jumpstart things, there is a tiny possibility things might actually be better in Nov. Very very tiny. And since Obama seems to be the most risk-averse president in decades, I'm not holding my breath.

[tabatha]

8. But the country does not deserve it.

What he needs is more votes. He cannot do anything without the votes!

[sendero]

9. If I had the slightest indication..

... that Obama wanted to do anything right, I'd be happy to vote for him and send his campaign money.

After the HCR and financial "reform" I'm convinced he's just interested in passing something/anything and hoping the electorate is too stupid to see that what has been passed is ineffectual.

Many presidents have gotten nuch less popular but needed legislation accomplished with much fewer resources in the way of guaranteed votes.

[tabatha]

10. No, you have it backwards.

He tried to get as much as possible as he could in the very negative, poisonous atmosphere in congress, especially with the blue dogs. This is what voters gave him to work with, and it ain't much.

[rusty fender]

12. Bush had less than Obama

and he got just about everything he wanted. Unless you think that Obama is fighting for exactly what he wants, which are half or less measures at best, then he really does not need more Dem congress people.:think:

[tabatha]

13. Obama has had the most filibusters of any President.

The Dems were threatened and too scared to use the filibuster during Bush.

Tom Delay was an arm-twister, a back-room dealer and corrupt - this is how Dems are supposed to behave?

[OHdem10]

5. IMHO, the people need to be reminded but not using Bush--instead

use REPUBLICANS. IT was Conservative Economic Fundamentalism
(Free Marketers) that brought us down.

Look, the GOP blames Bush and distance themselves. Yet they
voted to support his policies.

The Democrats continuously let the Republicans win because they
slither right past as the Democrats blame Bush.

Bush did not do one thing that was not Free Market Fundamentalism.
The Medicare Drug Program met Free Market Fundamentals and thus
was very expensive. The Republicans passed this and this was
a Republican Program.

Go after Republicans for putting us in the ditch--Bush is gone.

[katandmoon]

6. K&R. Obama is so detached from reality.

[tabatha]

11. Not at all.

He is reminded of the non-real reality he has to work with, every day.

[deaniac21]

7. Godamnit, that guy was a GREAT theater critic!!!!