Bernie Quigley, Pundits Blog Contributor, said:
No. It is a reach. It appears that the Democrats have nothing left but that last holdout, demagoguery. It also indicates their lack of tact and sophistication in understanding strategy. History will recall the invasion of Iraq as a necessary action in retaliation of 9/11. 75% of Americans supported it including prominent Obama staff like Biden and Hillary who supported, then opposed, then supported but showed neither character nor professional understanding, but expediency as they followed the polls. Obama has more class and substance than the Congressional Democrats. They are a ball and chain dragging him down.
Alan Abramowitz, professor of Political Science at Emory University, said:
Yes, of course. They continue to support his failed policies. Roosevelt ran against Hoover in 1934 and 1936 and Reagan ran against Carter in 1982 and 1984. Why shouldn’t Democrats run against George W. Bush in 2010 and 2012?
Larry J. Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said:
There’s ample precedent. Every Democratic national campaign from 1932 through 1952 prominently featured attacks on Herbert Hoover. The Republicans returned the favor by bashing Jimmy Carter consistently from 1980 through 1988. Dubya is still deeply unpopular, as recent polls have shown. But how much good does it really do? On the one hand, it may stir the languid Democratic base in 2010. On the other, it may anger the already energized GOP base. Rhetorically, it probably makes sense, and substantively there’s some justification for it. Yet when the election is over, I’ll bet that targeting Bush has little real effect.
Frank Askin, professor of law at Rutgers University, said:
Of course Democrats must run against former President Bush. As Obama has said, he and his backers drove us into the ditch and now they want the keys back. While it is true that the electorate has a short memory, the Democrats have to try to jog that memory and not let the Republicans blame them for the economic mess.