John Kerry in 2004 showed that it's a poor strategy to rely on your base turning out to vote "against" a polarizing sitting president by voting "for" a mediocre, uninspiring candidate.
Mittens is John Kerry 2k12.
The difference though is as much as we might disagree with everything Bush did in his first term, he was very active, and I'm not sure moderate voters then were willing to see what a different candidate could do, especially considering the fear that 9/11 stirred up.
Bush was very active? The guy spent a third of his tenure on vacations at Camp David or retreats at the Crawford ranch.http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html
That's kind of insignificant. For him or any president those are basically working vacations. I'd say he was pretty active regardless of whether you agree with what he did.
I guess I need a clearer definition of "pretty active". All I can come up with is tax cuts, No Child Left Behind, and the Medicare drug benefit. If 9/11 hadn't happened, that's about the extent of what his legacy would be.
I'd feel different if Bush had led differently on some of these things. Contrast how Bush pushed NCLB through with how Obama did health care. We could have easily had a year-long debate about what to do about education in this country, like we had on health care, but Bush never reached out to the other side. Then he told us to go shopping after 9/11. He didn't want a public discussion or decision on really anything he did. This is why I think he came off as not as "active" to me. He didn't engage the public. He just did what Halliburton wanted and then let Fox News and others sell the ideas.