So Republicans..Whose your guy/gal???

[Tupac Shakur]

What'd he do?

Managed the end of the Cold War extremely well, demonstrated intelligence and restraint in waging the first Gulf War, and raised taxes even though it hurt him politically because it was the responsible thing to do.

[Guynemer]

Yup. Actually seemed more interesting in governing than in getting elected, which puts him in front of roughly 536 elected officials currently serving in D.C.

EDIT: I should also say that he was inspiringly mediocre, which is indeed the best we have had recently. Clinton would be on par with that; Obama aspires to such mediocrity; and W aspires to such aspirations.

[Sava]

Yup. Actually seemed more interesting in governing than in getting elected, which puts him in front of roughly 536 elected officials currently serving in D.C.

He was an idiot that thought his "victory" in Iraq would allow him to coast to a second term.

[OzzyKP]

If he was running against Dukakis or Kerry it would have. Or if he didn't have Perot to contend with.

[Hauldren Collider]

If Perot hadn't been in the race, it's totally possible that Bush would have beaten Clinton.

[Sava]

If Perot hadn't been in the race, it's totally possible that Bush would have beaten Clinton.

Yeah. Bush totally would have won if he didn't lose.

[Mojotronica]

Perot siphoned votes from both Clinton and Bush, and most analysis leads to the conclusion that he didn't affect the outcome.

While many disaffected conservatives may have voted for Ross Perot to protest Bush's tax increase, further examination of the Perot vote in the Election Night exit polls not only showed that Perot siphoned votes nearly equally among Bush and Clinton,[25] but of the voters who cited Bush's broken "No New Taxes" pledge as "very important," two thirds voted for Bill Clinton.[26] A mathematical look at the voting numbers reveals that Bush would have had to win 12.2% of Perot's 18.8% of the vote, 65% of Perot's support base, to earn a majority of the vote, and would have needed to win nearly every state Clinton won by less than five percentage points.[27] Furthermore, Perot's best results were in states that strongly favored either Clinton or Bush, or carried few electoral votes, limiting his real electoral impact for either candidate. Perot appealed to disaffected voters all across the political spectrum who had grown weary of the two-party system. NAFTA played a role in Perot's support, and Perot voters were relatively moderate on hot button social issues.[28][29]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

[MRT144]

Let's get this straight. You think Bush and Obama had/have a bold, inspiring vision for the future?

In any event, do you think he doesn't shift with the wind?

Obama is a fire fighter president, not a architect president. W couldn't think about the impact of his policy beyond 12 months.

[MRT144]

Managed the end of the Cold War extremely well, demonstrated intelligence and restraint in waging the first Gulf War, and raised taxes even though it hurt him politically because it was the responsible thing to do.

It's shocking to imagine a time when raising taxes was on the table at all for a Republican. On the issue of taxes, the anti-tax people have clearly won the conversation at the peril of our nation.

[kentonio]

Obama is a fire fighter president, not a architect president.

No, Obama has been forced by events to be a firefighter president. He'd like nothing more (and be far more suited) to being a architect for social change.

[rah]

Leaders lead, those forced are not true leaders.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I dunno - it seems like Abraham Lincoln was forced quite a bit.

[rah]

He had choices and he led.
Obama would have probably just blamed the south for not compromising and not done anything.

[Wezil]

He had choices and he led.
Obama would have probably just blamed the south for not compromising and not done anything.

Agreed. Leaders make the tough decisions when they need to be made. They don't punt.

Obama has a strong kicking leg.

[Elok]

Honestly, I don't know how blame should be apportioned, but I can't see any reason why a second Obama term would be any more productive than the first. Perhaps Romney will do a little better, perhaps he won't. But he's one of the few in the GOP crowd who doesn't seem likely to make it worse. I hear good things about Huntsman, but I also hear that he has little chance. They said that about Obama, too, of course, but then Obama came from behind and turned into Muad'dib before falling flat on his face. What's a man to think?