Do not make the mistake of thinking that because my conclusion is the same as another person's that my reasoning is the same
Shockingly, Kristol manages to show a difference between biased and dishonest by providing a decent look at the possibilities while making his preferences clear.
By William Kristol
Tuesday, December 9, 2003; Page A27
… Could Dean really win? Unfortunately, yes. The Democratic presidential candidate has, alas, won the popular presidential vote three times in a row -- twice, admittedly, under the guidance of the skilled Bill Clinton, but most recently with the hapless Al Gore at the helm. And demographic trends (particularly the growth in Hispanic voters) tend to favor the Democrats going into 2004.
But surely the fact that Bush is now a proven president running for reelection changes everything? Sort of. Bush is also likely to be the first president since Herbert Hoover under whom there will have been no net job creation, and the first since Lyndon Johnson whose core justification for sending U.S. soldiers to war could be widely (if unfairly) judged to have been misleading.
And President Bush will be running for reelection after a two-year period in which his party has controlled both houses of Congress. The last two times the American people confronted a president and a Congress controlled by the same party were in 1980 and 1994. The voters decided in both cases to restore what they have consistently preferred for the last two generations: divided government. Since continued GOP control of at least the House of Representatives seems ensured, the easiest way for voters to re-divide government would be to replace President Bush in 2004. And with a plurality of voters believing the country is on the wrong track, why shouldn't they boot out the incumbent president?
Posted by P6 at December 9, 2003 11:47 AM | Trackback URL: http://www.prometheus6.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2467That is surprisingly honest. I'd like to see more of this from the conservative blogosphere.