I'm getting a little tired of the comparisons being drawn between Bush 41 and Bush 43. From what the talking heads would have us believe, their Presidencies are nearly identical. In truth, they're a little like the two most famous versions of The Last Supper (by da Vinci and Tintoretto): Just about the only thing they have in common is their name. Bush 43 is a lot more like Reagan, or JFK, or LBJ, or even Teddy Roosevelt than he is like his dad.
Let's look at some key points:
- The first Bush raised taxes; the current Bush cut them.
- The first Bush came into office as one of the most experienced hands in Washington, particularly with regard to foreign affairs; the current Bush was relatively inexperienced and couldn't even name the leader of Pakistan.
- The first Bush built a full-sized coalition to fight a half-assed war against Iraq; the current Bush built a half-assed coalition to fight a full-scale war against Iraq.
- The first Bush was a one-termer. The current Bush looks nearly unstoppable in 2004, barring disaster.
Thoughts?
Article comments
1 - Michael Croft
"The current Bush looks nearly unstoppable in 2004, barring disaster."
Just you keep thinking that. It's not very different from assessments of his father's presidency in May of 1991. Or of "anyone who doesn't drool on stage"'s odds against WJC in 1996.
The president, generally wrongly, gets a lot of credit or blame for the state of the economy. And running against a republican congress may not be so easy.
I'm hoping it's an interesting campaign, not an inevitable annointing. Here's to the future.
JMC