"Shame on you, Barack Obama"

[UGAalum94]

I think that Bush's lack of international experience would have hurt him had he been running for the first time under the same conditions as the present candidates.

But I think most of us were more concerned about domestic issues back then, and remember at that time , he ran against Gore, who let's be honest, probably couldn't have won the nomination against present day Obama, especially if we think pre-canonization as a Global Warming Saint, Gore, as he was then.

All the retroactive comparisons are hard to pull off because so much of the reason any particular candidate was electable had to do with when they ran and who they ran against. Don't you think that B. Obama, or bizarrely even McCain, could have beaten Bush in 2004, had either found himself running in the general election against Bush*? But instead, Bush got to run against Kerry, probably the only person that three million voters could reliably like less than Bush.

* I realize that this wouldn't work in reality; my point is just that we've had people win nominations and elections that they couldn't have won had they run in a different year.

[Velocity_14]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Don't you think that B. Obama, or bizarrely even McCain, could have beaten Bush in 2004, had either found himself running in the general election against Bush?

Nope.

But, I feel where you are coming from though.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Velocity_14

Nope.

But, I feel where you are coming from though.

Really, you think people were that jazzed about Bush or just that Obama and McCain are weaker than I think they are?

[Velocity_14]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Really, you think people were that jazzed about Bush or just that Obama and McCain are weaker than I think they are?

Honestly, I think some people were that jazzed about him (I sure as hayle wasn't---I can't stand the man)...especially considering that September 11, 2001 happened very shortly into his first term (and a day b/f my 21st birthday).

I actually like both Obama and McCain (I still think he is too old) and I think they are both strong candidates but against W then...I don't think so. Against W now....W would get the breaks beaten off of him...

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

You hold your tongue!

If it was McCain v Bush right now, I'm confident that Bush would have MUCH more support from the republicans. McCain has far too many liberal tendancies.

Oh, honey, no. I voted for Bush twice, but there's no way that you can say now, knowing everything we know, that Bush ended up being a particularly conservative or a particularly effective President and that he would have more support than McCain. I don't think Bush could get elected dogcatcher now, unless he was running against Kerry.

ETA: I think there's some hope for his legacy once we're free of him, especially if we allow ourselves to stay and succeed in Iraq, but no, I don't think he's popular today.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

Oh man! Maybe I am wearing those rose-colored glasses nittanyalum was talking about!

LOL. Yours, my friend, are very, very full-on opaque red, I'm thinking.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by SECdomination

Oh man! Maybe I am wearing those rose-colored glasses nittanyalum was talking about!

I don't know about that, but conservatives can do better than McCain or Bush.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I don't know about that, but conservatives can do better than McCain or Bush.

You gotta break the party from the religious right first, though. The hard right twists "true" conservative values into a morality play with religious overtones and demands candidates pander to them. Until the GOP can operate independent of the evangelicals, the party won't cyclone a different kind of candidate to the forefront.