<tries to remember the last time a sitting President was challenged from within his own party when he had already started his campaign–President Ford was the last eligible incumbent not to be the nominee, right?>
The presidential campaigns here are so long that it’d be way too late, I think, unless Bush is caught, as the saying goes, “in bed with a dead girl or a live boy”. No one can overcome his money and other advantages now–that’s not to say that nobody EVER could have, but we had a year or so when the Repubs, and pretty much every else, were occupied with much more important things than intraparty politics. We also have a thing about changing Presidents in a time of war that will work against the Dem. We’ll see. You say that the war is unpopular and if it goes really badly, Bush is toast? Two words and a number: Tricky. Dick. '68.
John Corrado:
You can’t trust the polls right now. There is a “Saddam captured” bump that is skewing things for the moment. In fact, that is precisely what inspired me to come up with the Saddam trial timeline, above. Bush could easliy, by manipulating the timing of the trial, recoup this “Saddam captured” bump in the polls at strategically important times between now and the election.
Again, note the bump in the polls. That’s an actual fact, not just an opinion. The trick is how to regain some of that come election time. With the economy doing well (or maybe even very well), that won’t be too hard. Especially if Dean wins the Dem nomination. Americans love a winner, and Saddam is a potent symbol of a Bush victory.
You need look no further than what the other Dems are doing to Dean right now to see what Bush can do: Images of mass graves and torture…Flash to a broken and dirty Saddam in captivity…If Dean had his way this man would still be in power-- raping, torturing, and killing.
That’s going to be tough to beat.
Jonathan Chance: Interesting note about the trial. Having it take place before the election would be politically helpful to Bush, but not completely necessary for him to gain some leverage in the polls (per the scenario I just described).
Sure, it makes a good bit of difference to me. I’m extremely disappointed that Bush didn’t make a better initial case that our reason for going in was a combination of humanitarian effort and stabilization of the Middle East. Actually, I’m more disappointed that my fellow Americans would have been horrified at the need for pro-active engagement and war in order to bring peace to the Middle East, and had to be lied to in order to get sanction for something that in twenty years will be seen as pivotal to bringing peace to the ME.
However, the question is a strawman. The real question isn’t “Do you feel George W. Bush is the best man in the country to be president, and has performed a flawless job as president?” The question is “Do you feel that Bush is the best of the available candidates actually running for office?” Until Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, or Bob Kerrey jump in the race as a real candidate, the answer to that question is “Yes.” Jonathan Chance- Sure, if you’re looking at all the candidates. Narrow it down. In the last forty years, the President has been his party’s candidate 7 times (1964, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1992, 1996). In 3 of those 7 times, the President has won re-election with better than 56% (1964, 1972, 1984). In 3 of those 7 times, the President lost (1976, 1980, 1992).
So, in only one successful re-election bid of the last 40 years has a President won less than 58% of the vote- Clinton in '96.
Seems to me that the odds are, if Bush wins re-election, Bush wins big.
Ah, I see. Can’t make an omellette without breaking some eggs, eh? Well, I see all the broken eggs. The corpses, the blood, the needless suffering, that sort of thing. And I have your entire assurance that, twenty years down the road, the omellette will have appeared.
That’s wonderfully reassuring, John.
But I worry that no one has relayed this information to the Palistinians and the Israelis. They seem to be, even now, with our splendid victory at hand, somewhat testy and bickersome. Did anyone think to tell them the wonderful news?
And when did this…this miracle take place, John? At what point did a military deserter, failed businessman and mediocre governor remarkable mostly for executions…when did such a man burst from his cocoon of incompetence to bloom into a collossus amongst men, a visionary of geo-politics? Did a dove descend from a cloudless sky, land upon his shoulder and coo “This is My candidate, in whom I am well pleased”?
So, twenty years? I take it then that the Rapture will be postponed long enough for all this to come about. Well, that’s all very good to know, gives one time to get one’s affairs in order.
Delete “Bush” and insert “Clinton,” then say this. Not that the sentiment you express is wrong, but we ain’t the only ones guilty of teeth gnashing etc., etc.
More’s the pity. GeeDubya would wake up on Nov. 6th feeling like he’d been fucked by a train. The Big Dog has forgotten more about politics than Fearless Misleader ever knew.
You forgot blabbering, coke addict, legacy Yalie, stupid guy with drunken daughers and wife who killed someone.
Must really gall the hell out of you to have him as your president. Odds are, you’ve got 4 more years to deal with it. Hope the therapy bills don’t run too high.
It’s called politics, 'Luci. He’s been good at it whether you can brign yourself to admit it or not. And, contrary to what many posters here believe, his policies are not evil. They simply represent a different point of view than you have. That happens sometimes in a democracy. The end of the world is not nigh.
Not at all. Those can’t be substantiated. I do not deal in slurs, I have no need. The truth is quite sufficient. Well, for me, at least. YMMV
**
Sure does. Don’t bother you any. Can’t imagine why.
**
Ran as a centrist. Lost the popular vote, and proceeded to govern as though he were mandated by a landslide victory. That’s not politics. That’s delusion.
Well, that’s certainly a relief! I kind of thought, you know, with all the lies stacked on top of lies, devoted to the purpose of causing death, pain, and destruction, that would be, like, “evil”. You must have gone to a different Sunday School than I did.
elucidator:
Are you proposing that Bush’s policies (or at least many of them) are evil? If so, I’ll start a thread to debate that so we don’t have to hijack this one.
Well, that’s such a loaded word. Ham-fisted, short-sighted and galactically stupid, I’d be happy to defend those premises. And, as I said, I do tend to regard littering the landscape with corpses as “evil”. Clearly, you regard it as “visionary realpolitik”.
Just as you say, its entirely a matter of viewpoint. A pity spiritualism is so unreliable, we might get the dead folks view on all of this.
I appreciate the sarcasm- no, really, I do- but the question comes up: what else works? Ten years of sanctions against Saddam and… well, there he is, starving his population, paying off Palestinian terrorists, but now it’s our fault, according to the left, that children are dying in Iraq because of our eeeeevil sanctions.
Straw man, 'luci. Did I ever say it would happen overnight? Or in a year?
Look, no terrorism stops in the ME or anywhere else until living conditions improve. Once people feel that there’s an available process for grievances- and between Israeli intransigence and Arab dictators, there ain’t any- and living conditions improve in the ME to the point where casually throwing one’s life away in hopes of a glorious afterlife is more folly than norm.
This is a first step. A free Iraq can be a beacon of hope to the rest of the ME, it can make forced changes in Saudi Arabia and Jordan and etc. along with a change in American priorities, which, according to Bush’s latest speeches on the ME conflicts, is what this administration is moving to.
Believe it or not, this was the easiest first step. No American government has the balls to step down support for Israel for two reasons- first, because the American voters will react to that like vinegar was poured in their eyes, and second, because no President wants to be known as the guy who allows Holocaust II: Hitler’s Revenge. No American government is going to abanon Egypt and Saudi Arabia because no one can guarantee that if their regimes fell to more extremist groups, the American economy wouldn’t buck and jive and shiver for the next fifty years.
So, instead, focus on a country that we have a pretext for action against (flimsy though it may be), a country that has already been removed- via sanctions- from the world economy, so if it goes shitsville, it doesn’t hurt anything- and give it a chance to move on the upwards path, and maybe pull up the rest of the Arab world with it.
Is there a guarnatee? No. Twenty years from now, things might still be bad. But the alternative is to sit back, twiddle our thumbs, and pretend that the avenues which have yet to work- negotiation, talks, discussion, intense negotiation, talks, sudden breakthrough, crashes, and violence punctuated by further discussion and resolution- has done nothing except feed the resolve of hard-liners on both sides. It’s time to try something new, and I think this is it.
Oh, the visions that did befell me, when Christ himself appeared in a vision and said unto me, Lo, This is your Candidate, and he shall be…
I have no idea what you’re asking or inferring here. Bush’s foreign policy has finally come around to what I consider a correct view, and I support him.
Actually, the thesis I would like you to defend is the one that goes like this:
[ul][li]The President told lies about Iraq and WMD [/li][li] He knew they were lies when he told them[/li][li]Iraqis died as a result of the military action he took based on those lies[/li][li]The military action he took was ineffective in achieving its stated goals[/li][li]Therefore, he should not be re-elected.[/ul][/li]
Regards,
Shodan
I think we get off the mark a bit when we center our thoughts around a candidate running within the Pubbie framework. Given GeeDub’s enormous advantages in money and organization, that’s pretty much impossible.
But consider…the Pubbies have held the Troglodyte Right close to their breast for, lo, these many years. People whose lunar opinions cause the Honest Conservative to recoil in disgust. Thus far, they have represented an unshakeably loyal and enthusiastic base of support. But what have they got for it?
They demand a return to the Golden Age of OzzienHarriet, of picket fences and well-scrubbed children without a shred of improper thought. They demand an end to abortion, all the Bushiviks can come up with is demonizing a seldom-used procedure and making it illegal, in a fashion that most likely will not survive scrutiny. They demand prayers in schools, all the Bushiviks can say is that God’s Will is thwarted by those Evil Democrats (you knew that Howard Dean has a plan to force Eagle Scouts into gay marriages, didn’t you…).
But the tighty Righties have a grip on all three sectors of governance, and still can’t deliver. Now, if they should get restless, and shift thier allegiance to a third-party True Blue American Patriot, and GeeDubya loses even half of that support…
Huh. Bill Clinton funded 100,000 new police officers early in his first term.
Surely some of them died in the line of duty. Does that mean that Clinton was evil? Sending these poor, unenlightened, benighted police officers into harm’s way, when, had he not provided the extra funding, those police candidates would instead have safe office jobs, and evil criminals could just go on and kill each other?
