It is too early yet to know if Obama has managed to be re-elected, but I see a real parallel between George W. Bush's re-election in 2004 and this race:
Both men were highly polarizing. To my view, the left (including the press) hated Bush and never saw his win as legitimate and therefore felt free to attack him with little regard for the good of the country. In Obama's case, he is polarizing because he has nothing but contempt for about half the country and we have noticed. Not to get too sidetracked, but each re-election only really mattered due to what it would prevent:
For Bush, it would prevent the left from pulling a Vietnam in Iraq and abandoning the cause after most of the effort was behind us.
For Obama, it is to prevent the overturn of "Obamacare".
There are a lot of differences too. The war was initially very popular and the Republicans made it a central point of the campain. Obamacare has never been all that popular. I don't think it has ever gone up to 50% and has fallen from its peak--though it is more popular now than the gulf war ended up being. Though, I suspect that if the president is in for another term, by the end of it Obamacare will be about as popular as the war ended up being. In any case, defence of the healthcare law has barely been mentioned and has not been a central theme.
Really, there hasn't been a central theme at all, just small snipey gripey things like threats of abortion being totally banned, big bird and tax breaks for millionares. Basically just a bunch of substanceless BS.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment