Thomas: “Ferguson -- a Glaswegian by birth -- must have a weak grasp of American political history. Parties in this country hold onto power by holding onto it, not by abdicating it. Thus the Jeffersonian Republican dynasty of 1801-25, the new Republican dynasty of 1861-85, the Democrat hegemony of 1933-69 (broken only by Ike's winning popularity), and the Republican hegemony of 1969-2005 (interrupted only by Carter's one-term debacle and Clinton's Perot-assisted two terms).”
Pejman Yousefzadeh: “Ferguson assures Republicans that John Kerry is a weak candidate--just like Neil Kinnock (the British Labour Party leader in 1992) was, and therefore, that he is fated to serving only one term as President. How he comes to this conclusion is a mystery. Many Democrats consoled themselves after the 2000 election, believing that George W. Bush was fated to only be a one term President, but here he is, with a fighting (and some might say excellent) chance at being able to serve another four years. Many Republicans consoled themselves after 1992 in believing that Bill Clinton would only serve one term as President. That belief was only strengthened by the disastrous performance of the Clinton Administration in its first two years, and with the election of Republicans to majorities in both houses of Congress in 1994. You know what happened next.”
Both are in response to Niall Ferguson's argument that the Republican Party is better off in the long run if George W. Bush loses in November
