Bush vs. Carter?

Back in the long-ago dark ages of late 2007, when it appeared that Hillary Clinton was the inevitable Democratic nominee, there was much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth over the notion that the 2008 election -- and a potential Clinton Administration -- was going to turn into a re-hash of the 1990s.

Now, with Barack Obama the nominee, it appears we're going to re-hash the 1970s instead:

“Senator Obama says that I’m running for Bush’s third term," McCain said.  “Seems to me he’s running for Jimmy Carter’s second.”

Zing, indeed. Well, I guess it's better than re-hashing the election of 1896.

TPM's Greg Sargent says we can "expect more evocations of Carter. Lots more." Politico's Jonathan Martin seems to agree, writing that Carter is one of the few "convenient and resonant Democratic bogeymen" available.

P.S. On an unrelated note, John McCain wants to veto beer!

Heh.

Comments

[john]

Yay, I hate earmarks.

[Angrier and Angrier]

This is a great line of attack for McCain. He sets it up by saying he has been called Bush's Third Term. What a f-ing idiot. Never...NEVER...repeat a negative. It is PR 101.

[john]

Angrier, good point. I totally expect to see his self damaging line snipped and put on TV in October.

[yea]

he is getting really desperate really fast.

Who? Angrier and Angrier? No kidding.

[Angrier and Angrier]

So if we are talking about Obama having Jimmy Carter's second term, that means high gas prices, surging food prices, a sluggish economy, increased joblessness, a housing crisis, a weakened military, a falling dollar, the declining stature of America and Iran threatening us....HELL! That's BUSH's second term!!!!

[CORNHUSKERS 94 95 & 97]

McCain has no business running for President and the speech he gave the night Obama clinched was just the worst I have ever seen.

That smile of his is so scumbaggish! like he could just leave his wife for a younger woman and it not bother him at all, oh wait he did that!

[Rasmussen, July 2007]

Jimmy Carter
Approve: 57
Disapprove: 34

George W. Bush
Approve: 41
Disapprove: 59

[Alasdair]

Pseudo-Rasmussen, July 2007 - and what were Congress's Approval Ratings back during the Carter period ?

In many ways, this is a much less civil time that it was back then, when it comes to such things as approval ratings ...

It makes sense to compare Obama to Carter since so much of Obama's ideas sound like Carter with a less-Southern accent ...

[Scientizzle]

Veto beer?!

Is McCain reliving prohibition? (I think he was in his late thirties 'round then...)

[JD]

No, no, we'll be reliving 1968. The media is only too willing to take that narrative and run with it. Any other narratives that can be made out of this campaign are going to be hard to stop too.

(I think Brendan's decision to stop blogging is based in part so he won't have to tell any of us how he voted!)

[Leanna Loomer]

"The year was 1896 and I was just sixteen,
And Altgeld ruled in Springfield, Illinois..."

[i just can't resist quoting from that poem. i love that poem.]

[Angrier and Angrier]

Alasdair-

To my earlier point, the 2nd Bush term looks a heck of a lot more like the Carter Administration than anything Obama is proposing.

Carter = Bush

Out of control gas prices
Islamic radicals in Iran threatening the U.S. and Israel
Gold at record highs
A historically weak dollar
A decline in U.S. prestige around the world
A war in Afghanistan
A threatening Russia
Out of control food prices
A horrific housing market
Rising unemployment
A weakened military

Bush IS Carter.

That must make Obama the new Reagan ;-)

heard you the first time

[Angrier and Angrier]

It needs to be repeated.

[Alasdair]

"Since 1980, four Congresses clearly stand out as the most unpopular — all averaging below 34 percent approval in the months preceding the election — 1980, 1982, 1992, and 1994. " from here ...

So - it would seem that Congress during Carter at least managed to have Approval ratings over 30% ... the current Democratic-controlled Congress has to leap high to get UP to 20% and has been at those abysmal lows for months ... even Bush's popularity is 50% higher than that of the current Congress (or better) ...

[Alasdair]

A&A - from here, you can see that Gas Prices in late January 2007 were around US$2.16 per gallon ...

Late January 2001, Gas Prices were around US$1.50 per US gallon ...

About a 44% increase in 6 years ...

Same President, but Congress changed control to the Democrats ... and we're up to US$4 per US gallon ...

That's about an 85% increase in 1.5 years ...

And, during that 1.5 years, what has Congress done, actively, to help ?

Twice the increase in 1/4 of the time ... now *that's* an achievement, isn't it ?

[Alasdair]

Brendan - HELP ! It has been a LONG day !

(Note to self - "USE PREVIEW, *twit* !")

[David K.]

I love how Alasdair always tries to blame everything on Democrats when its clear that Bush and his policies have gotten us to where we are. The war is HIS fault, congress abrogated their responsiblity but Bush commited the crime.

[Alasdair]

David - in your little analogy, if a crime was involved, since Congress made the payments both to cause and to allow it to happen, Congress should be considered at least as criminally responsible as the President ... the person who pays for the hitman is at least as responsible as the hitman himself ...

I also note that, since you found you could not challenge the points I was making in my comment, you made your classic Davidian attempt to shift the focus away from the points I made ...

[Sandy Underpants]

Let's see, the Bush Administration presented unsubstantiated and out of date evidence to dupe the congress into giving their authority to declare war to the President, and then 5 months later, in the face of the UN and the Weapons Inspectors saying war was not neccessary because they had not found evidence of WMD in Iraq, Bush pulled the trigger.

Guilty. String him up.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080605/pl_nm/iraq_usa_intelligence_dc

[David K.]

What points? You equated correlation to causation. You also ignore the fact that Bush is vetoing Democratic legislation, so how pray tell do you expect that they will make change happen? This is still the results of the GOP dominated congress and white house. Changing who is in congress only took away Bush's rubber stamp, it didn't stop the policies he allready had in place. I love how you blamed Clinton for the problems in the begining of the Bush administration, but now when the shoe is on the other foot you don't blame Bush but blame the Democrats. You are not only a liar you are a hypocrite too. Bravo Alasdair, bravo.

Congress made a mistake, Bush commited a crime. A better analogy would be if congress was a storekeeper and Bush was a burgler. Bush told congress he really had to pee and then proceeded to burn the shop down. Sure Congress was stupid for letting Bush in the store, but Bush used that opportunity to do far worse damage. Oh, and congress WAS punished for what happened with the shift to a democratic majority. If Bush and co. hadn't been so succesful in lying to the American public and the truth had been known before the 2004 election, Bush probably would have been held accountable too.

[Alasdair]

David - pray tell what "Democratic legislation" Bush vetoed that would have done anything to bring down the cost of a gallon of gas ???

[Sandy Underpants]

Please Alice, what legislation did Bush propose to bring down the price of gas? He's been president for 7 years watching it go up every day and all he can do is kiss and hold hands with the crown prince of Saudi Arabia?

Well Bush lettered in Cheerleading at Yale, so what did you expect really? He may have taken it one step further behind closed doors.