The Biggest Loser of the Election is...

My friend Mark Evanier was expounding on one of his theories the other day. It always pays to listen, since he's so insightful and profoundly fair-minded. Even on one of those rare times I don't agree, it's worthwhile, because he not only still makes sense, but I end up wildly entertained by his diversions into great story telling.

Mark's theory is on who biggest loser in this election campaign will be. He says that whatever the final result, the biggest loser will not be John McCain or Barack Obama, however, but rather President George Bush.

His theory goes beyond the obvious, that Barack Obama and all Democrats have been campaigning against the Bush policies, and that even John McCain has finally joined most Republicans running for election in trying to separate himself from the Bush Administration and at last begun criticizing it at length, as well. Finding someone saying something positive these days about the Bush years is pretty much limited to critics who enjoyed Oliver Stone's movie, "W."

No, Mark's theory goes further. He says that President George Bush is the big loser for reasons that have nothing to do with the election. Instead, Mark notes that Mr. Bush is in a no-win situation regardless of what happens after the election. He makes his comparison to baseball and pitching.

In baseball, if a starting pitcher leaves the game with his team behind, there's no way under the rules he can be credited as the winning pitcher. It's impossible. The best that can happen is that his team comes back to win, but then the reliever who replaced him gets credit for being the victor. The worst is that he gets stuck for the loss.

And that, as Mark notes, is the position President George W. Bush finds himself in.

Whoever wins the election, if the Iraq War continues to drag on because of the mire we are stuck in, if the economy worsens, if the overbearing burden of the national debt keeps America from being able to move forward - then all blame will be placed on the cause of it all. President George W. Bush.

But let's say things work out - let's say the Iraq War ends soon, our troops pulled out and Iraq is able to take over for itself. Whoever is the new president will get full credit for that, not Mr. Bush. If the economy eventually turns around and $700 billion bailout repaid, the new president - whoever he is - will get credit that that, as well, from his programs and steady hand. Not remotely President Bush. And if the national debt finally gets trimmed, if the budget deficit is eliminated...whoever the new president is will get the credit. It won't be President George W. Bush.

Indeed, whatever happens in the next administration - if anything goes well, it will be due to the new president. If the nation continues hurtling down the wrong track, where 81% of the public believes it is headed, it will be because of the momentum with which George Bush sent it, and the disastrous hole he has dug.

Which is at it should be.

President George W. Bush has dug a hole that would make the Grand Canyon envious.

It is a hole so deep that, despite eight years as president, Mr. Bush is not even allowed to take a final "victory lap" and campaign to the cheers of a single Republican crowd, but rather must stay hidden away. It has to be mortifying. Yet try as he and the Republican Party might to make him disappear during this election, he is not only here in the forefront, but his disastrous legacy will live far beyond him.

It's worth mentioning here that another of Mr. Evanier's long-held theories has been that President George Bush's approval is far less than we see in the polls, even at just 23%. It's sort of like a Reverse Bradley Effect. Mark suggests that all the people who view George Bush unfavorably say so in the polls. But many Republicans who are mortified by President Bush's actions feel that they still have to support their Republican Party, and therefore tell pollsters that they do favor him.

Back to this election. The good news at least for Barack Obama is that, being from a different party than George Bush, he will stand separate from whatever happens next. For John McCain, though, he will forever have an anchor tied to him. That's what comes when a "maverick" follows his leader 90% of the time. And as damning to his judgment as was selecting Sarah Palin, that 90% voting record is the longest-lasting evidence of all. Should he lose, both will be the anchors that Sen. McCain forever tied on himself.

But huge as that would be, it's small potatoes. Because in the end -- and in the long run -- the biggest loser is still, and ever will be, President George W. Bush.

Read more Election Day Liveblogs, Reaction and Analysis from HuffPost Bloggers

Comments

[K.J. Dwyer - Huffpost Blogger]

George W. Bush, without a doubt, is the worst American president in history.

I only hope that no one, Republican or Democrat, ever challenges him for that title.

[davidly]

I with you there. Let's hope that his is not the standard against which we hold future leaders to account, but rather what we truly, deeply, and honestly believe to be right and wrong.

[kroses98]

I think it's the entire Republican Party!!!

[PT6]

Bush left the game losing 50 to 0 when he and Cheney "Faked" the WAR In IRAQ! About half way through the Second Inning!

Since then we have been run on "AUTO-Rove­-Cheney-Pi­lot" (the relief pitchers) and have run amuck in every way possible!

The real LOSERS are ROVE AND CHENEY who used Bush as a TOOL in their GAME of Gimmicks and TRICKS that Made the RICH RICHER and the Middle Class the tools of the Wealthy.

I am NOT trying to excuse BUSH as he graduated from Yale University and KNEW what was going on with Rove and Cheney!

But Bush simply rested in the White House except for an occasional Teleprompter speech and allowed this to happen!

[caterpol]

Er, isn't this just a fancy way of saying that despite what happens, history will not absolve GWB of the crim-es he comm-itted on the American people? That he'll be held accountable 'til kingdom come?

You give your friend too much credit.

A guilty man isn't less guilty because another man does something worse---OR because another man does something better. A crime isn't mitigated by another criminal OR another saint's behavior.

What am I missing here?

[burpgun]

My only wish would be that Bush had been the Big Loser in 2000!

[ThePeacemakers]

The Bush's latest civil liberties attacks is an attempt to get a list of all the people who want to see the end of the Neo con mess. Activists, bloggers, etc. This will be given to the appropriate thugs after he leaves office or for McCain's use in the longshot event of an upset.

[vegas9999]

Lets face it, Bush was in a no win situation with Iraq. Every major Democrat and every major intell. around the world said there were WMD'S. If he did nothing and they were there and somehow used, it would have been said that he should have acted.

[jotunloki]

False. The French, Germans and the Russians all said that our supposed evidence was wrong. We accused them of being motivated only by money, as they had minor contracts with the Iraqis, especially the Russians.

[caterpol]

Oh please. The Bush doctrine preceded 9/11. 9/11 was a convenient excuse.

[dlinguist]

Read former Bush Treasury Secretary's The Price of Loyalty. Bush camp had Iraq targetted from the outset, and before 9/11. As for "every major intell. around the world said there were WMD'S" is not true. Intel is a three step process: Gathering, Interpretation, and Dissemination. The White House strongly manipulated the latter two. Sometimes they didn't even bother with any of the three. Ask Dick Armey what Cheney did to him re: miniature atom bombs. The bulk of international intel did not back up the assertions of the Bush and Blair camps.

[NamelessGenXer]

Every major intell said there were NOT WMD in Iraq. Please read up on PNAC (aka The Wolfowitz Doctrine) before you spew the usual BushCo apologist talking points.

[dlinguist]

My watch list between now and the inauguration:

1. The Concession Speech - Will it sound disingenuous because of the sordid attacks during the election?
2. The Bush Administration's actions during the official lame-duck period. How much more damage can it do?
3. The first real salvoes of the Republican Civil War. Finger-pointing will go from Obama to each other.
4. Bush's Pardon List. This one has the potential to be a January surprise.

[WhatsThis]

Dude, haven't you been paying attention. The Republicans have been trying to place the blame for the financial collapse on the fact that the Democrats have "controlled" Congress for the last two years. They tried to blame the bank mortgage fiasco on the CRA. What makes you think come January 20, 2009 they won't start calling it the Democrat Depression and blame the socialist bailouts on them too? Just like Bill before him, Barack will face "the vast right-wing conspiracy" just as soon as he is sworn-in. What we owe him is to not back down, to answer back, to write letters and post on blogs. Answer all charges!

[JennyJay]

The visual I like best is when little Georgie goes back home to Texas after causing all his friends,
his father, his family, his wife's family, his family's friends, everybody he knows - to lose two thirds
of whatever money and savings most of them had, in the mess he created in the economy.
Little dumb Georgie might have the words "outcast" stamped on his forehead for life.
Sure, he gets a nice pension, but he might be a pariah in the neighborhood.
He is a non-entity right now to everyone in D.C., and it might be the same back home.
- - - - - - Now that's an image I can live with - - - - - -

[mommadona]

Your friend is wrong.

George Bush accomplished EXACTLY what he and his minions wanted.

LARGEST TRANSFER OF STOLEN WEALTH in the history of this country: "privatization of the military"- "outsourcing" anything that wouldn't stand still.

BUILDUP OF LARGEST PRIVATE MILITARY FORCE IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND - on the backs of the US tax payer - Bush et al NOW HAVE ACCESS TO EVERY MILITARY SECRET AND ACCESS TO ALL EQUIPMENT - all packaged and ready to rumble for their very own private use.

DROWNED THE BABY IN THE BATH WATER: cronyism/family fealty awards for EVERYONE - placing inept shills at every level of the federal government with ONE INTENTION - to 'shut it down' - make it so unpalatible that NO CITIZEN would want to support it with their taxes. Grover Norquist has finally gotten his rightwing nut wet dream.

Nah...Bush is PROUD - PROUD.
He's finally put his daddy in his place and ruined the old man's legacy.
That's a proud black sheep baaaaaaaa ing away.

[fiftyseven]

It really pisses me off that on Bush's final day, he will depart with the usual fanfare and cruise mindlessly back to Texas in a helicopter and/or plane that I'm paying for. He should have to take a Greyhound home, at his own expense, and we should have the opportunity to throw rotten tomatoes at him.

[kapo]

Just remember that Bush is not done yet. A window is open until January for Bush to finally take care of his Iran problem. Oil is in a surplus supply position now so the upside pricing risk is less grim and he has no fear of any electoral implications. Obama is not going to launch an airstrike on Iran without being egregiously provoked, so the neocons know this is effectively their last chance to tidy up unfinished business. In any case, it is very likely that Israel has already been given the green light on this - Note the anti-missile system recently placed there.
Also be watchful for dramatic currency movements as certain regimes with huge cash hoards and which are friendly to the republican party might want to bring president Obama to heel by shifting their holdings out of the US dollar. It might be too risky now, given the economic situation, but it has been done before when democrats were elected.
The biggest battles are still ahead.

[Libsmasher]

If anything goes well, it is because Obama made it happen. But if things go wrong, it will be all Bush's fault. Uh huh. I knew that was coming.

The Democrats will control all branches of government, but if they fail, the blame goes to Bush. Obviously. Democrats can do no wrong, so if they screw up, it has to be someone else's fault.

[Pupadup4oBama]

No, you are wrong, if the DEMOCRATS screw up, then THEY screw up, but since Bush, himself has screwed up everything he touches (the reverse Midas touch, if you will) then yes, he is to blame, and McCane will be to blame for continuing his policies.

you just don't get it - do you?

[Mnemanth]

The real loser is the American people!
The powers-that-be don't want to streamline the voting process, or implement an easy program which captures- objectively- the wishes of the population. By keeping it complicated, rule intensive, and non-standardized, they can stir the mud and come up with an outcome that falls in line with the wishes of their corporate keepers.
Yes- regardless of party affiliation.
The two party/ two extremes governence and choices that we have are preposterous. The lack of inclusion or coverage of the other far more moderate affiliations is transparently biased. The manner in which we "capture" the popular vote is, at best, convoluted and exasperating for the public. The "electoral college" is the government's version of a faceless corporation and should have no place in the voting system.
Until we demand better, prepare for another stolen election.

[Sumocat]

Turnabout is fair play. We all got the shaft while Bush was in office. He deserves the same in return when he leaves.