Probably a really lame conspiracy. But are republicans secretly thinking “We got rid of sadam, job done there, but we’ve made a bloody great mess of doing it. So let’s lose the election and dump this problem on the Democrats”.
Ok, I’ll get my coat.
Preposterous.
Well, I HAVE kinda been wondering why Dubya agreed to debate Kerry. Saying “no” to a debate has a downside, but it seems neglible compared to the risks of going one-on-one against Kerry. I had just figured they were overconfident after “winning” the debate against Gore. But it should have been obvious to them – as it was to everyone else – that after that victory, people would no longer figure anything short of publicly wetting himself as a “victory” for Bush.
The secret desire to lose does accuont for things rather nicely.
I used to have the same theory about Michael Dukakis and John Major. But I’ve come to realize that that just doesn’t make sense. Politicians make all kinds of preposterous mistakes and errors in judgment, and I’d say the Bush administration has done more than a few of those. I doubt they want to lose; they’ve just made terrible mistakes and are about to have to pay for them. Even those who run lousy campaigns want to win, I’m sure.
What kills me, though, is that the Bush administrations screw-ups seem so obvious: opposing stem cell research, invading Iraq, politicizing September 11, cutting taxes so deeply—it’s easy to conclude that they did it on purpose. I kind of wish they had; thinking that this was honest bad judgment really shakes my faith in the resiliance of the American government. But though I prefer to think it, I don’t.
No less so when applied to the Democrats. Kerry/Edwards are the best they could do? [Sick Boy] 'es not bad, but 'es not great either, is 'e?[/Sick Boy]
Can’t we just write in Colin Powell and have done with all this?
You see I thought this about the 2000 election. I figured:
“Okay, Bush is such a HORRIBLE candidate that the Republicans are INTENTIONALLY trying to lose the election. I mean, McCain didn’t win and he was AWESOME!”
“Ah-HA!” says I.
“Everyone with a brain can see the internet bubble is about to burst so bad that the economy is going to tank for probably the entire next four years. They are going to let Gore take the fall for it! I’m onto you Mr. Republican! I’m voting Libertarian again! PPPTTTTHHHHPTTTT!!!”
But then Gore ran such an AWFUL campaign that the Republicans said, “Uh-oh! This guy is going to be President? Crap!”
Then the Neo-Cons and Fundamentalists came to power and have been slowly destroying the actual conservative ideology of the Republican Party.
That was my theory back then.
My theory for the Iraq war was:
- Saddam Hussein actually died and his sons are keeping him “alive” by using his body doubles.
- Russia accidently lost a nuke and Saddam’s sons found it.
- They were going to nuke Israel.
- Russia cried crocdile tears as the US was going into Iraq.
- They found the nuke, but kept it super hush-hush to save face for Russia.
Yeah, I like conspiracy theories.
You want citations of facts? You want proof?!?!
You are part of the conspiracy you monster!
I actually do believe there are some high ranking Republicans who privately wish for GW’s defeat. My opinion is based upon the idea that some share my view of Iraq – whichever party wins this time will get blamed for the Iraq outcome and its costs for a decade or more and there really is no solution the American people will kind acceptable.
So basically, could one say that Kerry will play Gerry Ford to Bush’s Nixon?
Well, here’s a rank-and-file 'pubbie hoping… for something.
I voted for Bush in 2000 (for which I sincerely apologize), but cannot bring myself to do so again.
But I cannot vote for Kerry, either. Can’t stand him.
I would like a nice, conservative third-party alternate candidate.
But if enough people feel as I do, that’ll let Kerry in, and I don’t want to contribute to that.
So I’m back to voting for Bush, simply because he’s not John Kerry.
But I cannot bring myself to vote for Bush… 
They have to acknowledge there was a problem first before they can dump it on anyone.
No, what they do is dump it, then try to make it seem like the problem was created by the subsequent administration. (much like the tories did for the early years of the Labour govornment in the UK, except the dumping part)
Hey, ExTank! Piss off everybody: cast a protest vote for Ralph Nader!
:smack:
Thanks AHunter3; that’s just what I needed to break the hopeless cycle I was stuck in.
Here’s the site for you, ExTank: Kerry Haters For Kerry
*FAQ
Q. Do I have to hate Bush to be a KH4K member?
A. No! Many KH4K members don’t hate Bush. They simply don’t think his reelection is in the national interest!*
Sounds like it’s right up your alley…
But if Kerry wins, who will the republicans put up in 2008 to go against him. I know it has been said that the dems want Kerry to lose to put up Hillary (yeah, it’s nutty, but I done heard it). Assuming that they want to dump the mess on a dem and hope for the best in four years, do they have a challenger to go against him?
I will say that personally I hope the repubs lose and actually put up a candidate that I could vote for. The left wing has been getting a bit shrill lately. 
How about voting out all the neocons and fundies now, and maybe the Republican party will go back to being a conservative alternative?
Harborwolf—I agree the Hillary Clinton as president notion is completely nutty. Even if Kerry loses this year, I’m sure she won’t run for president. I’m sure she never will.
I think the Republicans’ problem is that they really don’t have a likely candidate for 2008. This is really a whole other thread, but in short, McCain won’t do it, Pataki’s too dull and Giuliani’s too liberal. Jeb is out because I predict Bush fatigue by 2008 (but you never know for sure,) so I’m saying the Republicans’ best hope is Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. And even then, his chances are dodgy, since the Republican Party is increasingly divided between the fiscal conservatives and the social conservatives; these divisions could make the 2008 Republican primary season full of raucous political jostling.
And your emoticon after your comment about how the “left wing has been getting a bit shrill lately” I’m going to take as an affirmation that you’re being ironic. We really don’t hear much from America’s left wing anymore; I’m convinced they no longer exist. (But that’s probably a whole other thread, too…)
Or like the economy going south…
Believe it or not, I’ve heard Rick Santorum mentioned as a possibility.
shudder
Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party. He is on the ballot in 48 states, vs. about 35 for Nader. Some polls show him pulling in 1% to 3% of the vote. To a much greater extent than Nader, Badnarik is an equal-opportunity spoiler–he pulls at least at much support from Bush as he does from Kerry. His message is balanced budgets, low taxes, and minimal government