Bush-Clinton Fatigue is a Myth
Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 08:26:25 AM PDT
Let's say you're a young intrepid AP reporter covering DC politics. Let's also say that you are writing a story about the latest DC conventional wisdom. So you try and gather experts and data to substantiate that conventional wisdom. Now let's say that all of your research contradicts that conventional wisdom. Now what do you do? Well, if you're Nancy Benac, you write the story anyways and bury the contradictory evidence in the fifteenth and twenty-fourth paragraphs as well as spin the data to make it look like it supports the conventional wisdom.
Here's the best part. In most cases of journamalism you have to go to outside sources to prove your point, but in this case, it's all right there in the story for any critical thinker to notice.
Let's start with the decleration that Bush-Clinton fatigue is becoming the conventional wisdom.
Forty percent of Americans have never lived when there wasn't a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. Anyone got a problem with that?
With Hillary Rodham Clinton hoping to tack another four or eight "Clinton" years on to the Bush-Clinton-Bush presidential pattern that already has held sway for two decades, talk of Bush-Clinton fatigue is increasingly cropping up in the national political debate.
So there's the conventional wisdom. Then to her credit she tries to get some "experts" to lend credence to this theory. One guy was David Gergen:
David Gergen, director of Harvard University's Center for Public Leadership and an adviser to presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton, said there does seem to be concern about the possibility of giving "the two dynasties" another four or eight years.
"I think we would be fundamentally healthier if we broadened the zone of candidates who could make it to the top," he said.
Historically, politics has been open to newcomers who rise up to reflect the grass-roots sentiment of the country, Gergen said.
This is from the eighth, ninth, and tenth paragraphs of the story. However, his quote that completely contradicts this Bush-Clinton fatigue idea is buried in the twenty-fourth paragraph!
Gergen said any fatigue factor Clinton faces is "overwhelmed by the positive nostalgia for Bill Clinton among Democrats."
This isn't even the worst part. In the middle of story she does some what I would call "fun with numbers". Apparently there was an actual poll to test this thinking:
An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll taken over the summer found that fully one-quarter of all Americans said that the prospect of having at least 24 straight years of a President Clinton or Bush would be a consideration in their vote for president in 2008.
Even among Democrats, 17 percent said it would be a consideration. That compared with a third of all Republicans.
25%? That's it? It doesn't even say 25% won't vote for another Clinton or Bush, just that it would be a "consideration" in their 2008 vote? This is of course in the shadow of Hillary running for president. The partison breakdown even shows that. 33% Republicans call is a consideration vs. only 17% of Democrats. If you believe the partisan breakdown numbers from rasmussen reports. of America and do some math, You come out with only about 25% Independents taking it into consideration.
Just to compare how small 25% really is in American politics, let's look at some other numbers at or around 25%.
25% approve of George W. Bush's handling of Iraq.
25% believe that ALL forms of Abortion(no exceptions) should be banned.
28% think that evolutionis definitely false.
26% Think that Larry Craig should stay in the Senate.
28% would rather cut taxes than save programs like Social Security and Medicare.
Hell, 33% still believe in an Iraq 9/11 connection.
And Yet, did you see how the reported tried to spin 25% as this huge number? 25% is half of Hillary's current unfavorables. This apparently is not an issue for most people, and of those it is, they probably wouldn't be voting for her anyways.(see 33% of Republicans above)
Finally, the article ends on what I would call wishful thinking on my part.
How long could this dynastic dynamic play itself out?
"Keep an eye on their children," Gergen quips.
And, there's always presidential brother Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida. His oldest son, George P. Bush, is considered likely to carry the family's political tradition into the next generation.
A Bush-Bush ticket for 2012? By George!
Wouldn't it be awesome if republicans were THAT dumb to nominate another Bush in 2012?
Permalink | 14 comments