A Republican backlash against Bush? Sorry, I don’t buy it – while there may be some folks in the GOP who’ll rumble loudly at George’s governing, in the end they’ll just fall into lockstep behind him, because he’s Our Candidate™.
The current Republican Party is too rigidly locked into uniform groupthink to support the kind of dissent needed for such a scenario to occur.
The only chance for Republican defectors is if a Democrat takes up the mantle of small government. Because that’s the only area where President Bush has really failed his constituency.
The moment is still good for republicans… be it Bush or not. I thought the GOP party would like an exit strategy if Bush starts dropping too much in the polls.
I know Bush is a strong contender... though I think he is an ass... but exchange him for another republican and you get rid of all sorts of criticism. You can't throw Iraq at all republicans... only Bush. So if Bush dips badly in the polls a few months before election it will look way more opportunistic then unless they have been opening alternative possibilities.
The timing at least seemed suspicious for criticism... what does Gringich want with it ?I asked the very same thing only a few weeks ago - Sofa King kindly provided me with this reply.
And just like his father GWB will win on the strength of his foriegn policy.
I think there is one reason those images wont be powerful. Because they are Iraqis. Almost nobody cared when Iraqis died under Saddam, likewise with Iraqis dying during the Iraqi war and with the Iraqis dying right now.
I mean its not like all those arguements were enough to get America to go to war in the first place.
There are no alternatives among the republican party, no one will oppose him, and no one else will run against him, not even Pat Buchannan will run this year.
Bush is no conservative, and he is a foreign interventualist(?)/meddles in other countries business(not a conservative principle). Fiscally, he is no conservative either with his massive balance of trade and federal budget deficits.
You are stuck with bush until next January.
I also dont think the republicans will be smart enough to figure out why they will lose the election, and I dont think you will see any alternatives in the republican party in the future either.
Uhhh, dont you mean that:
just like his father GWB will LOSE re-election because of his foreign policy and his ignoring of the american economy?
Oh, he’s not ignoring the economy. He can’t ignore it any more than you could ignore a grizzly bear gnawing on your ankle. Its just that he’s already administered the prescribed Republican medicine of giving great gobs of money to people who don’t need it, and therefore won’t spend it. Rather like treating anemia with the applications of leeches.
Still even if your a Bush lover… you must admit that Bush is a all or nothing proposition for the Republicans. If a month before election things go nasty somewhere or in the economy Bush gets shot down faster than you can say “Saddam was captured”.
Whilst another republican can act like the whole mess isn’t his fault… and still defend a strong armed foreign policy that conservatives seem to like.
Its just my opinion/analysis. Bush seems a sure ticket now… but can implode pretty quickly.
Oh, come on.
Right now, with the economy barely going into recovery, and the insurgency in Iraq still ongoing, 63% of Americans approve of Bush. 61% of Americans thought the war in Iraq was worth it. 65% of Americans approve of how Bush handled the post-war insurgency. 54% of Americans are against troop withdrawals from Iraq, and 56% of Americans think that the war in Iraq has made America safer.
Most importantly: Bush gets 55% of the vote to Wesley Clark’s 40%, and 59% to Dean’s 37%. Do you really think that, as the nominees get known better, those numbers are going to improve? Most voters know Dean as “the anti-war Democrat” and Clark as the “pro-war Democrat”, and as time wears on, the candidates are just going to go down in the polls as they’re forced to make their positions clear on issues.
The economy isn’t going to get worse- the worst anyone is predicting is that the recovery won’t grow as fast as it could.
Bush is going to coast to victory, with all the wailing and gnashing of teeth it will cause among the Democrats here.
If he is such a sure bet… why is Gringich taking shots at the white house ?
Possibly because he wants the VP slot?
Hell, John, I’m not even a democrat and I’ll take that bet.
I’ll bet that regardless of who the democratic nominee is they will face approval numbers (as demonstrated by their percentage of the electorate) greater than 40%.
To say otherwise is silly.
And John Mace, the news I hear is that the trial of Saddam won’t happen until AFTER the election.
Or maybe because he thinks that he’s right and Bush should change course?
Geez- it’s not like Gingrich is known for being outspoken, full of his own ideas and self of importance, and willing to pontificate to bizarre lengths on his own brilliance.
Likewise, just because Republicans don’t slavishly love Bush and agree on everything he does doesn’t mean they expect to vote for him in the next election. There are a dozen people I’d rather see in the White House, including at least one Democrat- but as they aren’t running, and even if they were running they wouldn’t be winning, so I’ll be voting for Bush.
Jonathan Chance- sure, they’ll be above 40%… but if as a mostly-vague candidate they’re not hitting 40%, there’s no way that a fully defined, unfortunately human candidate will hit 50%.
Newt said he’s retiring from elected positions.
He might have genuine issues.
Yeah, but that’s not what you said.
I know it was hypderbole on your part but it’s worth noting that even a landslide (which I disagree with you about) in the United States isn’t really huge as a percentage of voters. Many ‘electoral’ landslides and actually fairly close as total voting goes.
You’re right, and I retract any statement or allusion that the Democratic candidates will have trouble rising above their current status in the polls.
I assert, in its stead, that the Democrats will have a very hard time making much headway in the polls, especially in reaching over the 50% mark.
I still have no doubt that Bush will win re-election with 56% of the vote, and over 350 electoral votes, and I think I’m being (pun intended) conservative with those estimates.
Do lies matter, John. Not you, John, you John!
Do lies matter? What do you make of the fact that a majority of Americans still believe that Saddam was directly involved in 9/11? Do you share this ignorance? Do you promote this ignorance? Would you have your fellow citizens rally around in triumph a proven liar?
Or does any of this make the least difference to you?
OK, you realize that would be astonishing, don’t you JC?
Presidential Winners
2000 GWB 47.8%
1996 Clinton 49.2%
1992 Clinton 43.0%
1988 GHWB 53.37%
1984 Reagan 58.8%
1980 Reagan 50.75%
1976 Carter 50.1%
1972 Nixon 60.69%
1968 Nixon 43.42%
1964 Johnson 61.05%
1960 Kennedy 49.72%
1956 Eisenhower 57.38%
1952 Eisenhower 55.13%
1948 Truman 49.55%
1944 FDR 53.39%
1940 FDR 54.79%
1936 FDR 60.80%
1932 FDR 57.42%
So while those 55%+ landslide may well have been popular in the past there has only been 1 in the last 30 years.
Do you really think that GWB will be as popular as Reagan in 1984? The mind boggles.
Info from: http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/frametextj.html