Does Bush care that he's a major reason the Republicans had such a bad election?

[ieffinhatecardio]

I wonder if Bush cares or even acknowledges that he's one of the biggest reasons the Republicans failed so badly at the polls? I'm not saying he's the only reason but he was certainly one of the bigger reasons. Hell, Rhode Island had a Republican Senator (Lincoln Chafee) that was running on the position that he didn't agree with Bush and that the country needed a change.

That's one hell of a Presidency when members of your own party are running campaign ads separating themselves from you.

[OzmO]

Nah,  he's just probably doing what most loyal finatic Rush dittos heads are doing and blaming the LIBERALS! 

[ToxicAvenger]

he made his $...he'll be found mostly on vacation playing golf for the next 2 yrs..

mark my words

[ieffinhatecardio]

he made his $...he'll be found mostly on vacation playing golf for the next 2 yrs..

mark my words

Good point, nothing like a lame duck Presidency. Not that he didn't take an awful lot of vacation time anyway.

I'm still curious if he ponders his legacy though. It's pretty telling when your Presidency is a major contributor to the demise of your party.

[ToxicAvenger]

I'm still curious if he ponders his legacy though.

if he is a mason he could care tuppence 

[Cavalier22]

hes probably happy. now he can give amnesty to all the illegals. He is no true conservative, never was

[Cavalier22]

honestly, you guys talk about legacy and yet you know nothing about history. 

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.

Even Ronald Reagan lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and six Senate seats in a sixth-year election. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a "tsunami" – as MSNBC calls it .

During eight years of Clinton, Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House – only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.

Meanwhile, the Democrats' epic victory this week, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate – and that's assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats' total gain is less than this week's gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.)

[240 is Back]

hes probably happy. now he can give amnesty to all the illegals. He is no true conservative, never was

What do you mean, 'true conservative'?
Neo? Moderate?

[ieffinhatecardio]

honestly, you guys talk about legacy and yet you know nothing about history. 

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.

Even Ronald Reagan lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and six Senate seats in a sixth-year election. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a "tsunami" – as MSNBC calls it .

During eight years of Clinton, Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House – only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.

Meanwhile, the Democrats' epic victory this week, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate – and that's assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats' total gain is less than this week's gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.)

You're right, I don't know the history of those elections but I'd be curious to find out if those Administrations were directly responsible for their parties losing elections? Perhaps they were but in this particular situation Bush played a major role in the Republicans losing ground and many pundits would say he's the MAIN reason.

[Cavalier22]

I am not denying that Bush is a large factor in the republicans defeat, but for a midterm election results such as these are pretty normal.

He's not a true conservative:  he has not used his veto once, nor has he cut any federal programs.  federal spending (which obvi has a lot to do with the war and 9/11) has not decreased at all. You would think other programs, even a few of the MANY MANY bloated departments would face any significant cuts.  He has done nothing on illegal immigration other than provide rhetoric.  And now he is working towards Amnesty. 

Also, a true, classic conservative would never have gone into Iraq.  But on that point, it is very debatable.  Pat Buchanan, a real throwback repub, has been loudly against the war from day one.

[pumpster]

honestly, you guys talk about legacy and yet you know nothing about history. 

Your pomposity's priceless. If you're going to talk down to others with lengthy pontifications, at least attempt objectivity.

Evoking the names of better presidents while trying to distort  the current fiasco with past parallels based only on some numbers is simplistic & disingenuous. Another attempt to minimize this debacle. Do not pretend to be objective with this shite!

I am not denying that Bush is a large factor in the republicans defeat, but for a midterm election results such as these are pretty normal.

Is your last name Rove? The degree & significance of the shift in this context isn't "normal". More BS from a spinmeister.