Liberty's Century: The Story of George W. Bush and the New Millennium

JVM

DTanza said:
Aw, I was hoping for a Mondale victory.
Click to expand...

So was I - the mere mention of the campaign caught me completely off-guard, since it's usually ignored despite being, IMO, a fascinating Senate race in it's own right. But thinking over the context of the TL again, the cards almost could not have been more in Coleman's favor.

Looking forward to the next update, whenever it comes. Great work as always.
 

NickCT

We're Back...​

Seriously weighing bringing this back. I think I will, to be honest. I wouldn't expect an update for some time as I must review my notes and research, but I think it's fair to say there'll be an update before Thanksgiving.
 

NickCT

Liberty's Century
Election Results: 2002​

United States Senate Elections, 2002

Alabama: Jeff Sessions reelected over Susan Parker - Republican Hold
Alaska: Ted Stevens reelected over Frank Vondersaar - Republican Hold
Arkansas: Mark Pryor elected over Tim Hutchinson - Democratic Gain
Colorado: Wayne Allard reelected over Tom Strickland - Republican Hold
Delaware: Joe Biden reelected over Raymond Clatworthy - Democratic Hold
Georgia: Saxby Chambliss elected over Max Cleland - Republican Gain
Idaho: Larry Craig reelected over Alan Blinken - Republican Hold
Illinois: Dick Durbin reelected over Jim Durkin - Democratic Hold
Idaho: Tom Harkin reelected over Greg Ganske - Democratic Hold
Kansas: Pat Roberts reelected - Republican Hold
Kentucky: Mitch McConnell reelected over Lois Combs Weinberg - Republican Hold
Louisiana: Suzanne Haik Terrell elected over Mary Landrieu - Republican Gain
Maine: Susan Collins reelected over Chellie Pingree - Republican Hold
Massachusetts: John Kerry reelected - Democratic Hold
Michigan: Carl Levin reelected over Andrew Raczkowski - Democratic Hold
Minnesota: Norm Coleman elected over Walter Mondale - Republican Gain
Mississippi: Thad Cochran reelected - Republican Hold
Montana: Max Baucus reelected over Mike Taylor - Democratic Hold
Nebraska: Chuck Hagel reelected over Charlie Matulka - Republican Hold
North Carolina: Richard Burr elected over Erskine Bowles - Republican Hold
Oklahoma: Jim Inhofe reelected over Davis Walters - Republican Hold
Oregon: Gordon Smith reelected over Bill Bradbury - Republican Hold
Rhode Island: Jack Reed reelected over Robert Tingle - Democratic Hold
South Carolina: Lindsey Graham elected over Alex Sanders - Republican Hold
South Dakota: John Thune elected over Tim Johnson - Republican Gain
Tennessee: Lamar Alexander elected over Bob Clement - Republican Hold
Texas: John Cornyn elected over Ron Kirk - Republican Hold
Virginia: John Warner reelected - Republican Hold
West Virginia: Jay Rockefeller reelected over Jay Wolfe - Democratic Hold
Montana: Mike Enzi reelected over Joyce Jansa Corcoran - Republican Hold

Senate Before: 55 (R) - 45 (D)
Senate After: 58 (R) - 42 (D)


United States House Elections, 2002

House Before: 223 (R) - 211 (D + 1 I) + 1 (I)
House After: 231 (R) - 204 (D + 1 I)


United States Gubernatorial Elections, 2002

Alabama: Bob Riley elected over Don Siegelman - Republican Gain
Alaska: Frank Murkowski elected over Frank Ulmer - Republican Gain
Arizona: Matt Salmon elected over Janet Napolitano - Republican Hold
Arkansas: Mike Huckabee reelected over Jimmie Lou Fisher - Republican Hold
California: Gray Davis reelected over Bill Simon - Democratic Hold
Colorado: Bill Owens reelected over Rollie Heath - Republican Hold
Connecticut: John Rowland reelected over Bill Curry - Republican Hold
Florida: Jeb Bush reelected over Bill McBride - Republican Hold
Georgia: Sonny Perdue elected over Roy Barnes - Republican Gain
Hawaii: Linda Lingle elected over Mazie Hirono - Republican Gain
Idaho: Dirk Kempthone reelected over Jerry Brady - Republican Hold
Illinois: Rod Blagojevich elected over Jim Ryan - Democratic Gain
Iowa: Tom Vilsack reelected over Doug Gross - Democratic Hold
Kansas: Kathleen Sebelius elected over Tim Shallenburger - Democratic Gain
Maine: John Baldacci elected over Peter Cianchette - Democratic Gain
Maryland: Robert Ehrlich elected over Kathleen Kennedy Townsend - Republican Gain
Massachusetts: Mitt Romney elected over Shannon O'Brien - Republican Hold
Michigan: Jennifer Granholm elected over Dick Posthumus - Democratic Gain
Minnesota: Tim Pawlenty elected over Roger Moe - Republican Gain
Nebraska: Mike Johanns elected over Stormy Dean - Republican Hold
Nevada: Kenny Guinn reelected over Joseph Neal - Republican Hold
New Hampshire: Craig Benson elected over Mark Fernald - Republican Gain
New Mexico: Bill Richardson elected over John Sanchez - Democratic Gain
New York: George Pataki reelected over Carl McCall - Republican Hold
Ohio: Bob Taft reelected over Tim Hagan - Republican Hold
Oklahoma: Steve Largent elected over Brad Henry - Republican Hold
Oregon: Ted Kulongonski elected over Kevin Mannix - Democratic Hold
Pennsylvania: Ed Rendell elected over Mike Fisher - Democratic Gain
Rhode Island: Donald Carcieri elected over Myrth York - Republican Hold
South Carolina: Mark Sanford elected over Jim Hodges - Republican Gain
South Dakota: Mike Rounds elected over Jim Abbott - Republican Hold
Tennessee: Phil Bredesen elected over Van Hilleary - Democratic Gain
Texas: Rick Perry reelected over Tony Sanchez - Republican Hold
Vermont: Jim Douglas elected over Doug Racine - Republican Gain
Wisconsin: Jim Doyle elected over Scott McCallum - Democratic Gain
Wyoming: Eli Bebout elected over Dave Freudenthal - Republican Hold
 

Cylon_Number_14

No love for Napolitano :(. The Republicans remain well padded for the eventual "six year itch" midterms. Would you consider most of the "extra" Republican legislators to be Moderates? The more moderates that there are, the more stable hold they will have.
 

NickCT

Cylon_Number_14 said:
No love for Napolitano :(. The Republicans remain well padded for the eventual "six year itch" midterms. Would you consider most of the "extra" Republican legislators to be Moderates? The more moderates that there are, the more stable hold they will have.
Click to expand...

In the House? They're generally conservative Republicans, but ones who understand and appreciate the value of compromise and working with the other side. By 2003, I would argue the "good ole days" of non-partisan workings and true legislating were not entirely gone.
 

Mr.J

d32123 said:
From what I've heard, I agree with you.
Click to expand...

He's definately smarter than the public image, just kind of lazy and out of his depth (though to be fair most people in the Presidency are out of their depth). He would've been a great commissioner of baseball, and he probably would've been happier too :(
 

NickCT

Chapter 8: Bring in the Opposition
Liberty's Century: The Story of George W. Bush and the New Millennium

AAJC001675_zps7769d90c.jpg

"An intelligent and conscientious opposition is a part of loyalty to country." -Bainbridge Colby​

"Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States!" The words have become famous for they mark the beginning of the president's annual state of the union address. In 2003, when they were said, a confident president followed. George W. Bush entered the House Chamber to thunderous applause, beaming faces, and a general attitude of "let's work together." There was no excessive partisanship, the Republicans, however, had dominated in the 2002 Midterm Elections, and there was no ill will towards the president. There were plenty of nerves. Senators and Congressmen sat weary of the president's policy on Iraq, after rumors began to swirl that tonight the president would clearly outline the administration's position on whether or not he would pursue invasion of the country. In the wake of the 2002 midterms there was significant speculation that Iraq may be developing nuclear weapons, and that it was very possible that President Bush would announce the administration was invading Iraq to remove the weapons of mass destruction, perhaps using the 9/11 attacks as a thin veil for justification. For months President Bush and his team had debated the issue, with Colin Powell facing off against neo-conservatives while the president sat in the crossfire. Soon enough a position had been formulated on Iraq, and the president's decision would be unveiled tonight -- with little rhetoric to disguise it. Despite the massive implications of the text of his speech, President Bush was shaking hands as he made his way to the Speaker's rostrum. He was calm, cool, and collected -- confident in his ability to deliver a powerful speech that evening. Finally, he made his way to behind the podium where he was formally introduced by Speaker Dennis Hastert. As the chamber erupted in to a second bout of applause, Bush used the opportunity to take a sip of water.

"Mr. Speaker, Vice President Danforth, members of Congress, distinguished citizens and fellow citizens, every year, by law and by custom, we meet here to consider the state of the union. This year, we reflect on much success and prepare for potentially dangerous situations ahead," the president began. Much of the beginning of the speech dealt with success. He talked about No Child Left Behind, about campaign finance reform, and about the formation of the Department of Homeland Security. All of these, President Bush noted, were bipartisan triumphs. Then, the president transitioned to domestic policy. Bush talked about the environment and about alternative energy: "We will work for a 70% reduction in our pollution from power plants over the next 15 years," he proclaimed -- garnering substantial applause from both sides of the aisle. He continued, "We will not neglect the advantages of drilling here to produce our own oil, but we will not be afraid to explore the feasibility of wind, solar, and nuclear energies." The line again drew much applause. He concluded the environment section by addressing the need for America to lead the world in hydrogen-powered cars. After a surprisingly strong stance on the environment, the president turned his attention to a different, more stereotypically-conservative position.

chpt81_zps78f0b269.jpg

"Health care reform must begin with Medicare; Medicare is the binding commitment of a caring society," Bush told the Congress. In his speech, the president outlined proposed reforms for Medicare, but maintained that seniors currently satisfied should not be forced to experience major changes. He continued, " And just like you, the members of Congress, and your staffs and other federal employees, all seniors should have the choice of a health care plan that provides prescription drugs." The lines were drawing consistent applause. Both Democrats and Republicans were eager to see the president addressing concerns over Medicare. Quickly, however, some more liberal Democrats were put-off. " To improve our health care system, we must address one of the prime causes of higher cost: the constant threat that physicians and hospitals will be unfairly sued," and as President Bush articulated a clear policy on Medicare, it became clear that tort reform, or at least some regulation on frivolous lawsuits, would become necessary for the conservative Republicans to back the deal. While Bush was satisfied with that, some Democrats were left sitting on their hands. To many, however, it seemed as though the president was beating around the bush. They wanted to know about his policy on Iraq, and soon enough the address transferred from domestic to foreign policy.

Providing historical context about the rise of dictators and oppressive tactics used by rules, Bush transitioned in to modern times. "Now, in this century, the ideology of power and domination has appeared again and seeks to gain the ultimate weapons of terror." Bush went further, demanding that the United States accept its role as the globe's sole remaining super power, "Once again, this nation and our friends are all that stand between a world at peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm. Once again, we are called to defend the safety of our people and the hopes of all mankind. And we accept this responsibility." However, Bush made it clear that now was not the time for military intervention. Rather than call for a war against Iraq, the president made a different request. He asked for the nation to be prepared for conflict, but ultimately, he said, there was a need for more evidence: "Nuclear exploration shall not be tolerated by the rogue nation of Iraq, and if, beyond reasonable doubt, we can prove Iraq's exploration of these programs, we will not hesitate to protect the interests and security of our nation." The line drew great applause. Liberal, war-weary Democrats were excited that the president had decided force against Iraq was not in the nation's immediate future. Conservative Republicans were happy that the next election would focus on the successes of Bush's first term -- tax cuts, education reform, and health care reform, instead of debating a war against Iraq.

Iraq was the last major section of the president's address that night. Bush concluded the address ("We Americans have faith in ourselves, but not in ourselves alone. We do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving god behind all of life and all of history. May he guide us now, and may God continue to bless the United States of America. Thank you.") and then left the House Chamber to a long-lasting standing ovation. It had been a successful night for the president and focus groups polled during the address had showed very positive initial results. It was clear that George Bush had won the evening, but Democrats would still have their chance to rebut. Senator Joe Biden, well known for his extensive knowledge over foreign policy, was chosen to give the Democratic Response to the State of the Union. It was not an easy task, but Biden laid out the Democratic position on the issues. Ultimately, however, it was difficult to respond to a rather bipartisan and reserved State of the Union.

chpt82_zps2b1c3e2b.jpg

"I agree wholeheartedly with President Bush on the issue of Iraq. We must make sure that evidence to support an invasion is undeniable. We cannot risk American blood over circumstantial evidence. We go one step further, however. Should the president come to the Congress to ask for an authorization of force in Iraq, I can assure you that the Democratic Party will insist that the president live up to the words he spoke tonight," Biden declared. "President Bush talked the talk this evening, and the Democrats will be happy to make sure he walks the walk." "I also hope that the president takes advantage of this opportunity," Biden said, "If we are not focusing attention on foreign nations then let us refocus and double down on our efforts here at home. Democrats have a positive, specific plan to turn our nation around." Also, unlike Bush, Biden spent a significant portion of his address talking about the economy and Democratic efforts to get the nation's economy moving once more: " It must give our economy an immediate jump-start; it must benefit middle-class families rather than just a few; and it must be fiscally responsible, so we have the savings to strengthen Social Security and protect our homeland." Biden continued by saying, "Now, the president's plan is worse than trickle-down economics -- it's upside-down economics." The speech did much to repair Biden's image on the national stage despite having a reputation as gaffe-prone. His response did much to advance his public profile, and Biden wasn't the only one hoping to get seen by voters.

In the wake of the State of the Union, attention turned to potential presidential candidates in 2004. There were talks that President Bush would receive a primary challenge from the left, but without an intervention in Iraq, talk quickly sizzled. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, well-known for his experience on matters of foreign policy and national security, began to tour New Hampshire and Iowa. He also started to participate in rather large fundraisers, which he justified as going towards his reelection campaign in the Senate (which is hard to do when his next senate election wasn't until 2008). After repeatedly showing up on national television programs and giving high-profile interviews, the rumor mill was swirling that John Kerry was seriously weighing a 2004 Presidential Bid. Kerry wasn't alone. There was also a great deal of speculation around Joe Lieberman. Lieberman had worked hard to keep his national profile high in the wake of his loss for the Vice Presidency in 2000. He was more in the center of the spectrum, in the primary, but ran as someone who would be a strong Commander-in-Chief who could also do a lot for the middle class. His message had some degree of appeal. In the wake of Gore's loss, Democrats were questioning their way forward. Would it be better to jerk to the left or try and appeal to independent voters? No matter what, George W. Bush would be a tough candidate to beat, and polling showed him easily coasting to reelection. Lieberman said he wasn't worried, "I think the next President of the United States will be a Democrat -- a Democrat will win in 2004. The American people are already growing tired of the Bush Administration." It was an incredibly weak and unsupported statement. Osama bin Laden was dead and Bush had responded masterfully to the 9/11 attacks. While the economy was not in great shape, Bush had passed substantial tax cuts, campaign finance reform, and education reform. He had done more than most had thought possible, and it had only been one term. Americans looked to at Bush's record and were eager to see how a second term would unfold. Ultimately, Democrats would run on the economy. Lieberman, before announcing a campaign, toured several factories and businesses to come across as a man for the average worker, but for some Democrats he was just too much of a centrist. As one Democrat would later say on the night of the Iowa Caucuses in 2004, "I want a candidate who shows contrast between him and Bush -- that's the guy who gets my vote."

chpt83_zps7617d725.jpg

John Edwards was the liberal that most progressives wanted to see go to the White House. He spoke to key issues, such as poverty and welfare. He talked about supporting the middle class. As a young and charismatic senator he persuaded many that he was the choice to help the struggling economy. "We're not in dire straits yet," Edwards declared, "but believe me: we need a strong president in office if we're going to prevent that." The quote, an answer to a question during an interview on Meet the Press, was typical of the statement Edwards made in the wake of the 2003 State of the Union, leaving many to believe he had his eye on the White House. Edwards was a populist who talked openly about helping and aiding poor and middle class Americans. The first of his family to go to college, Edwards showed a passion for helping the underprivileged reach great success. Despite his own elaborate attention to his appearance and his sprawling mansion, Edwards was as close to a people's candidate as the Democrats were likely to get that year. Progressives rallied behind Edwards early on, but he was unsure about if he wanted to run for president. Perhaps it was based in narcissism, but Edwards believed he could win the presidency easily, but 2004 didn't seem like the year. Surrounded by advisors, Edwards frequently debated whether or not this was the year to enter. His advisers were also split. "I know I can win," Edwards told his staff, "but I don't know if this is the year that I can. Bush is too damn popular." His staff seemed to agree, until one brave individual stood up. Ed Turlington, a political activist from Edwards' home state, said that he thought the best way forward was for Edwards to enter the 2004 race, talk about the issues and run a campaign of principle. If he won the nomination, even better, but 2004 should be used, Turlington thought, to prepare Edwards for 2008. A successful showing in 2004, even a loss in the general as long as he beat expectations, would make Edwards look like the clear favorite in 2008. He was young, energetic, smart, and articulate -- he could bounce back from a general election loss. Soon Edwards' team seemed to rally around this path to the White House, as beating Bush seemed unbeatable, but waiting until 2008 without doing anything could cause him to be overshadowed by more prominent names in the future, he needed the attention now.

By contrast, Hillary Clinton did not need the attention. She was a well-known figure within the nation, having been first lady and now as a U.S. Senator. Clinton wanted the White House and she and Bill talked at length about the future. There was significant debate about if now was the time for Clinton. The Senator believed that it could be done. "I think there's an opening," she told her supporters and family who were gathered at the New York home. "All the polls say I'm the Democrat with the best chance to win against him, and the potential of the first woman president -- that's a strong argument to make." Bill disagreed. The former president argued that despite the attention she would receive as the first female with a significant chance at the White House, she would not be able to overcome Bush. "Will you win the primaries? Undoubtedly," he said, "but no one can take down Bush. You're behind by five or six points, now isn't the time, let's wait it out. Build a record in the Senate, make a name there, and move on. It'll be successful. Wait." Hillary was reminded of 1988, when a young Arkansas Governor, Bill Clinton, had decided to run for the presidency. Only days before he was supposed to announce his campaign, the governor was talked out of his bid by his wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Now, 16 years later, the positions were reversed. Here, an ambitious former first lady, a United States Senator, wanted to take the step and announce a campaign to be the first female president, and it was her husband, Bill Clinton -- the last U.S. President -- who told her to wait another four years. If it had worked in 1988, surely, Hillary believed, it was worth trying again in 2004.

On the day that the Clintons decided Hillary would not run in 2004, Joe Lieberman announced at a major rally in New Hampshire that he would run for the United States Presidency. Lieberman talked about strong leadership on issues of foreign policy, and the need to address domestic issues. He talked about strong leadership on the economy, and the need for effective management of the Afghanistan War. Such an argument was tough to make. The Afghanistan War was viewed as justified because of the attacks on September 11th. It was hard to say it wasn't effectively managed when Osama bin Laden was already dead. The Democrats were grasping at straws. Only the economy was an issue to debate, but it hadn't dipped too substantially. There was no solid platform, no one issue that could stand as a roadblock in George W. Bush's path to reelection. His approval rating was high, and as Joe Lieberman announced his campaign in late January of 2003, the nation was looking for a presidential election that had no clear focus and no obvious issues of discussion. It was up to the candidates to find the issues and start the debate.
 

THE OBSERVER

Like to know why some Senate seats, such as Washington, Florida, and Michigan remained Republican in 2000? Also, wish you took a page from hcallega's "Decision Points" and had Wellstone and Cleland reelected in 2002, while having Johnson and Landrieu defeated in reelection. The Senate total would be 53-47 Republican. 5 seats less, but still reliably Republican, and allowing for bipartisanship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top