the Bush Economic Crisis. you mean the one started during the Clinton administration that bush and mccain warned a democrat controlled congress about? seems to me these days that whoever controls congress and the house do what they can to make the current president look bad. except in obamas case. he had a democrat controlled congress for first 2 years and a democrat controlled senate still. maybe that's why they're still in the blame bush mode. he got stuck with democrats controlling both houses for last 4 years. i reckon i better be careful talking about barry or his Obama Truth Team might come get me.
In politics, "facts" don't matter, really... perception does. Voters will perceive him to be the problem. Lucky for him there may not be a Republican candidate "electible" enough to cost him the election.
No, I'm talking about the 2008 economic crash which had nothing to do with Clinton. I have no idea what you are talking about, the 90's were rocking economically and Clinton posted budget surpluses and was paying down the debt before George Bush irresponsibly cut income and greatly increased spending by borrowing. You invent history. :lol: Bush had a republican house and senate for 6 years and ran amuck with it adding three huge unfunded mandates in Medicare Prescription Drug Plan (a trillion dollar expense), No Child left behind, and the Dept. of Homeland Security. Then he piles two huge unfunded wars on top of that. The truth hurts doesn't it? It blows lies away.
The public is smarter than you imagine. Perception matters, but when it doesn't jibe with the facts, it can change very quickly. It's hard to hide lies in this day and age, and when they get caught lying too much in their political spin, perceptions can really, really change.
The media, yes. The public, I'm not so sure. I've seen people on the street randomly asked questions like, "Who is our govenor" and them not know. I get what you're getting at. There's more accountability with internet, etc. Further, the media loves to go back 4 years and pull a sound bite where a candidate is flip-flopping but I'm not sure how smart the public is, overall. Perhaps smart is not the best descriptor here and apathetic might be a better choice. I mean c'mon, we're going to argue perception about issues when we know how far good looks, alone, goes with a male candidate in getting elected? >http://shine.yahoo.com/fashion/do-we-vote-for-attractive-candidates-2595859.html<
A little more on this........... Pain at the Pump and in the Wallet: Surging Gas Prices Fuel Inflation Spike
Not just looks but charisma. My Mom voted for Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barrack Obama all for the same reason . . . they seemed like nice young men. But honesty is huge. Any candidate who starts sounding like a liar or can't defend their positions in a debate with actual facts is in trouble. Ask Sarah Palin or Rick Perry.
