NYT: Can Obama 2012 Replicate Bush 2004?

[TomClash]

He’ll have hundreds of millions of dollars, the bully pulpit, Air Force One and high-profile supporters from Warren Buffet to Lady Gaga behind him. But President Obama’s chances of re-election could come down to a single strategic question: To what degree can the history of 2004 be repeated in 2012?

. . .

The parallels are sufficient enough that Mr. Obama and his team have studied, and to a striking degree are replicating, the Bush re-election playbook.

Already they are building a narrative in which Mr. Obama made politically brave decisions to do what was right for the economy, even if those decisions were unpopular. It’s a theme that echoes Mr. Bush’s argument in 2004 that he did what it took to keep the country safe, and that even if you disagreed with him, you knew where he stood.

As for defining the opponent, Mr. Obama’s supporters are already hard at work hammering home the idea that Mr. Romney is an inveterate flip-flopper, a man without core or convictions who says and does whatever is necessary to advance his political interests. It’s an approach that bears a passing similarity to the Bush re-election campaign’s efforts to paint Mr. Kerry as an inveterate flip-flopper, a man with core or convictions who. … You get the idea.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/21/can-obama-2012-replicate-bush-2004/?hp

[sadbear]

1. They're going to swiftboat their eventual opponent

and steal Ohio?

[karynnj]

2. My comment

A better comparison would be not how Bush defeated Kerry, but how Obama defeated McCain. In 2004, Bush had to resort to lies to defeat Kerry. In addition to the lies that they outsourced to the SBVT, they distorted Kerry's Senate career.

As to flip flopping, Bush used an unfortunate shorthand answer as a soundbite. Kerry had just given a complete answer - he supported a Kerry/Biden version of the $87 billion funding for Iraq and Afghanistan by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the top 1% - then - as a protest vote due to how it was funded - voted against the Bush version of the bill. This was consistent with Kerry's having been the only New England Democrat to vote for Gramm/Rudman. Bush had indicated he would veto the bill if it rolled back the tax cuts - if Kerry took two positions, so did Bush.

If you read (or watch on CSPAN) Kerry's speeches, you can see there are NO major changes in his basic beliefs over his 30 year record. His views on international diplomacy are consistent with a speech he gave at Yale in 1966 as a student that Madelaine Albright excerpted in one of her books. He is an environmentalist. He is a social justice Catholic. He is more fiscally conservative than many democrats.

The Bush administration, with abundant help from the media, also distorted the legislation Kerry wrote in the Senate by crediting him only with the legislation where he was named as the fist sponsor in the Congressional record. This eliminated the veterans'bills that were McCain/Kerry - even though in McCain's book, Kerry is credited with leading on writing them. It also excluded anything that was taken into a bigger bill - such as the anti-international money laundering provisions of the Patriot Act, that have helped against international terrorists, or those bills passing without a roll call.

Like Romney, McCain had changed his fundamental positions - as claimed in this 2008 speech. sphttp://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/kerry-hits-it-home/

For those who forgot it here is a link to Kerry's 2008 convention speech where he did a wonderful job showing how the Senator McCain, who had been highly praised by tons of Democrats, differed from candidate McCain. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=kerry%202008%20convention%20speech&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCUQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DdO2PAm4iCtE&ei=0XShTobNFMHa0QGk5ZicBQ&usg=AFQjCNFn51pofSi8cSiise-ToMUHOc0M5g&cad=rja

This theme is everywhere. If the Obama administration is behind it, I am deeply disappointed in the fact that they are throwing Kerry, who has been personally incredibly loyal and helpful to them under the bus.

There is an additional reason why this theme is not true - that I did not use in the NYT - because it hurts Obama. The fact is that Obama is NOT in the same situation as Bush. Bush was not beleaguered at this point 7 years ago - he had a 60 + approval rating in December 2003. Kerry and the other Democrats and events succeeded in lowering that enough to make it competitive.

In addition, the overall economy was not bad, just the economy for the have nots. Then in early 2004, Bush's SEC chief changed the allowed leverage for financial institutions to go from 1:12 to 1:44 - juicing the economy - and adding fuel to the looming, but not completely apparent, housing bubble.

What I wanted to add was that this was in fact the OPPOSITE of the Bush attack:
With Kerry, they attacked his strengths - his war record, his character, his vision that was consistent from when he first entered public life and his wonderful wife. In Romney's case, he IS a flip flopper with no core convictions that he would not drop if it helped - attacking that is attacking HIS WEAKNESS.

[rug]

3. He already has.

[Robbins]

4. Yes

Obama's challenge Is to get those who like him personally but may not exactly approve of exactly how he did his job.On many key Issues Obama took a more conservative
tact and polls show on economy and Health Care the public supported a more liberal tact.And to show the republicans would make things far worse.

If romney Is the nominee He needs to be hit over the head on 2 fronts

1:Romney Is one of those rich people of wall street who has been making a forturne while the American people surfer.Romney's corporations are people need to be used In
ads.
2:Romney Is flipflooper.This needs to be hammered time and Time again.romney has no convictions.He will change postions at top of hat.This was guy who In 1994 claiming
he would be more ProChoice and ProGay rights than ted kennedy.And In 2001 claimed he was not part of Reagan and Bush Cwoad.ROmney IS weak on Health care since his
health care plan as Governor was model of the Obama Health care reform but considered even more Liberal than Obama's.

Obama doesn't have to lie as Bush did.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

5. The Republicans shamelessly accused Kerry of being a "flip-flopper"

when the "evidence" that they presented was very scant and open to interpretation. It worked in their favor in 2004 when going after Kerry for it (among other things) but Romney seems to be the "real deal" when it comes to flip-flops. My thinking is that, unless they have something really significant to hit Obama with, it's going to be hard for the Republicans to start it during the 2012 Election. After all, despite the heavy smearing they've done since the moment he was elected, Obama has STILL managed to be quite successful and indications are that the Republican Tea Party, particularly post-debt ceiling/downgrade, is wearing out its welcome in Washington DC and have given the Democrats plenty of fodder. They seem to be wearing out their welcome in states where they elected majorities as well. Let's just hope it's enough to get our voters to the polls.

[Recursion]

6. Bush had a 53% approval rating on election day 2004

I think the swift boating and flip flop things are red herrings: he won because he was an incumbent whose job people more or less approved of at the time.

[Awsi Dooger]

7. Exactly, and also the economic indicators were strong enough

Swift boating and flip flopping were convenient lazy reference points for people who refuse to believe that national elections are decided months ahead of time by traditional factors.

Bush's approval rating was climbing but the 53% in exit polls was surprisingly high.

There's nothing to indicate Obama can manage that type of comeback. For one thing, he's at the mercy of oil speculators. Even if the economy miraculously surged and unemployment rate dipped, the speculators would use that as full blast rationale to jump the gallon price to the $4.50 range, ruining any threat of Obama boost in approval rating.