I always wondered why no republicans were standing up to Bush and the Iraq War. Why even though a lot of cracks were showing up in the Bush Govt. no one had taken a shot at declaring the possibility of an alternative republican candidate… someone who would have a better chance than Bush of surviving criticism against Iraq and tough questions about the UN, lack of diplomacy and terrorism. I figured they prefered to win the presidential election no matter who was in power…
Seems like the first moves have begun to maybe envision an alternative to Bush ?
Gringich's criticism about "metrics" was pretty good... not too strong nor too weak. Enough to shake but not to topple.
Are there credible (credible as in have a good chance of winning) alternatives within the Republican party ? Is this the beggining of some dissent... or are these republicans just looking for some limelight ?
Not really, no. They’ve almost all been so staunchly behind Bush into all of his follies, both international and domestic, that none can now go against him without appearing cravenly opportunistic and unprincipled themselves. McCain is the only real exception but he’s made it clear he’s not going to run again.
There’s plenty of things the GOP could criticize Bush on. Bob Barr, after being ousted, has teamed up with the ACLU to speak up against many parts of PATRIOT act. Bush’s willy-nilly spending isn’t that popular either with some GOP’ers, I imagine. The libertarian wing of the party, such as it remains, are probably quite fed up with Bush. But for now, he’s a pretty popular president, and someone whose coat-tails they’ll enjoy riding to reelection next year, so I bet most of 'em will just shut up and take what they can get.
2008 will be a big test, seeing what kind of candidate they toss up against Hillary.
Logistically, nobody has a chance of beating Bush in the Republican primary. First, he has over a hundred million in the bank already, while nobody else has anything. Second, it’s too late to even get on the primary ballot in some states.
However, I do sense some anger at him from most conservative sources that I read. Besides the obvious fact that his financial and foreign policy are almost the opposite of what have supposedly been conservative principals for the last few generations, there’s also the general view of his strategy. In the eyes of some conservatives, Shrub pushes a win-at-all-costs approach and reacts too violently whenever a Republican doesn’t support his plans. I could easily see this conflict that’s currently simmering only among some conservative think tanks boiling over a few years down the road and causing major infighting within the party.
And, lo, it came to pass…A charismatic, ultra-conservative, young, well-groomed… dogs GeeDubya’s every step, ankle-biting him every step of the way: Why isn’t abortion illegal yet? How come kids arent praying in school every day? How come gays get to walk around in the daytime? Bush gets Nadered!
I’ll do anything. Anything. Sacrifice my first-born to Yog-Sothoth! (Maybe not my first born. Somebody’s.) I’ll go totally Amish (that means “dial-up”, right? Not necessarily AOL, right?). I am willing to swear I will never even piss off a whale. And live my twilight years in peace, secure in the knowledge of a just and loving God.
Jul: Transfer of power to Iraqi Interim Gov’t.
Aug: Saddam trial date set for Sept
Sept: Daily Newscasts on all networks begin with the latest horror revealed in the trial
Oct: TV ads split screen: Dean//Saddam trial “horror of the week”
Nov: Bush wins
Throw in a possible ObL capture, and it’s all over, baby.
Well, as a consolation prize for liberals, Bush is a big spending nation builder who’s only major successes against liberal causes have been a series of infuriating but largely trivial and mostly for show postures to the social right: things like anti abortion measures that will never get anywhere anyway.
Frankly, if liberals would just get on board with the idea of being interventionist around the world (something I think they deep down know is the only logical end to their complaints about human rights abuses and so on), they’d have one hell of a president, no less flawed than Clinton. Instead of opposing the war, liberals should have been condemning Bush for not taking it farther to stomp out dictators everywhere, and making sure things were done right.
Speaking strictily as to how I think the process will play out (and not how I think it should play out), the only graveyards that will make an apperance will be Saddam’s mass graves, alongside first-person accounts of torture and the torture chambers where it took place. Powerful images that will be very diffcult for the Democrats to counter.
Actually, what they need to do is stop with the foaming-at-the-mouth hatred of Bush. Doesn’t matter if they’re right or not… nobody wants to be associated with someone that’s gnashing his teeth, red in the face, and screaming obscenities. Makes ya seem insane, don’tcha know.