I don’t know if you noticed, but nobody has criticized Bush for “standing up to terrorism”. We are criticizing him for starting a war in Iraq, which turned out to have NO links to al Qaeda, despite Bush’s continued insistence that it did. If Bush were really trying to attack countries that support terrorism, Saudi Arabia should have been #1 on the list. Bush’s foreign policy has virtually nothing to do with fighting terrorism.
The idea of a Bush/Cheney second term scares the unholy crap out of me.
The idea of a four year time frame in which these two have no hope of reelection, in which they may dedicate all of their time and energy to helping out their buddies and laying the groundwork for complete Neo-Con control of all branches of government…
I mean, if I were Bush – or rather, if I were President, and I were the kind of person I think Bush is – I’d loot the place to the max, give away government grants, licenses, subsidies, contracts, and whatall else to everyone who ever sent me a dollar in the mail, appoint all the crazed reactionaries I could find to every court I could reach, devastate as much of the Democratic power base as I could access, and create a massive, ugly tangle of deregulation and general f*ckery that would ensure that the next President, were he a Democrat, would have no hope of accomplishing much of anything aside from cleaning up my mess…
…and then we could use the image of the “Do-Nothing Democrat” to get a proper Republican back in there in the next election. You may regard this as a prophecy, should he win the election, by the way. Once a President’s in there for the next four years, there’s pretty much no stopping him, short of Congress turning on him. And I think impeachment would bother Bush about as much as bad breath.
Bush has already made it clear that he does not give a damn for public opinion, private opinion, or world opinion. He does not care what the American people want, think, or need. He only needs us for one thing.
And if we give it to him, he doesn’t need us for much of anything any more, does he?
You folks will have a chance to come back here in a couple of years and see how many of your predictions have come true.
Terrorism is a problem that took 20 years to build and may take many more years to solve. The United States is able to acy unilaterally today to solve problems because we are the only game in town following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Other countries will deal with us on a pragmatic basis and we will do the same.
If you really think that Bush is sitting in the Oval Office rubbing his hands together and saying “Bwa-ha-ha! How many civil liberties can I crush today?!” you are letting idealogy rule you instead of logic.
Bush will be reelected. The world will not end. I promise.
Have we solved any problems by acting unilaterally?
Refresh our memory - did the Soviet Union collapse because we invaded it?
You mean like Lumpy’s examples? “Sanctions, breaking off diplomatic relations, NATO broken up, and China or Russia deciding to take action on their borders.” One really good reason not to just do whatever the hell you want as a country is that it encourages other countries to just do whatever the hell they want. It’s called “foreign relations”.
I wouldn’t be too sure about that.
Except that Republican-appointed Judges have a demonstrated history of favoring Constitutional “strict constructionism,” which has the effect of constricting the rights of citizens and limiting their available redress under the Constitution. That is no partisan fantasy; it is fact.
I won’t even get into the hypocrisy of those Judges (Scalia, I’m looking at you) who favor strict constructionism and “states’ rights” only so long as it suits the conservative agenda. Should a President need an assist with a troublesome election dispute, these judges are only too happy to abandon their strict constructionist principles to find a way to hand him the election.
The world is weary of Bush… 4 more years will make everyone hate americans for it. So many issues from Global Warming to Terrorism that require real leadership… leadership that the USA has mostly been best at. Bush is the great divider.
Naturally a bit of pragmatism will make people collaborate with Bush 2nd term... but still it will be half hearted. Terrorists will be "vindicated" in hitting US civilians.
He might even play Warmonger again and bomb another country.... invasions are unlikely though. Even Bush learned that one.
If Kerry fucks it up is another matter... but I do guarantee a lot of goodwill will be forthcoming once Bush falls... Kerry must be able to use that right away and get things moving. (outside the US...)Except, of course, that this misses the arguments made, the facts, and most of the history surrounding this issue.
1)Iraq and Al Qaeda did have links, just not the sorts of links which led them to cooperate on attacks against America.
2)Standing up to terrorism does not mean “attacking countris that supported terrorism”. It means attacking countries which supported terrorism and which would not cooperate with the American lead effort to end terrorism. Saudi Arabia certainly has a checkered past. However, their leaders are talking to us. And they are making some changes. Iraq, on the other hand had more than 12 years of just the opposite sort of non cooperative behavior.
How about this for a worse case scenario? Bush continues to increase the deficit marginalizing more and more fiscal conservatives. He continues to piss of the liberal portion of the citezenry mobilizing them to more and more action. Eventually, he is the primary cause for a Clinton presidency in 2008.
As US is about to declare war on Iran, Iran tests a nuke, and the Ayatollah answers, “Bite me. I’m radioactive”.
Haliburton successfully executes a hostile takeover of Microsoft, with diverted government grants.
Colin Powell and Rudolph Giuliani are slanderously outed as lovers by the right wing, fully discrediting them.
Terrorists gain their true ultimate goal–the high moral ground–when excessive interrogation by American contractors prove fatal to a 10-year old boy.
Damage to the Executive Branch? What damage? Bush has restored honor and integrity to an Executive Branch damaged by 8 years of blowjobs and felonies.
Your argument is moot, because you are starting from a false assumption.
Now, I’ll admit that in other forums I’ve said things to the effect of: I’m almost looking forwad to four more years of BushCo just to see how much trouble they can really get themselves into.
The effective word there, however, is “almost.”
Because I can imagine some real horror scenarios that aren’t really that far fetched.
How about: Dubya is assassinated or even impeached. Cheney is now President. At a nuclear nonproliferation summit, our illustrious leader tells the Russians, Chinese, and Iranians to all “go fuck themselves.”
Yea, George. I have no doubt Dick Cheney can be president.
A dick of a president.
Oh, and I should add that the whole Supreme Court Appointee issue is the reason I most don’t like the idea of another 4 years of BushCo.
For those of you following the Why Vote Nader thread, the SCOTUS issue may even be enough for me to “vote strategically” for Kerry, rather than for a Green or Independant.
There are a lot of replies so rather than respond to quotes I’ll just address the scary possibilities that have been brought up.
More government money in churches and more church in government? No prob.
Perhaps but remember that Bush was unable to get his faith based initiative through Congress and was limited to what he could accomplish with the executive powers. So that’s it. He has already done what they think he can get away with. I believe there are lawsuits attempting to restrict these moves and there will be more if Bush tries to take it further.
Another constitutional amendment? No prob.
Zagadka doesn’t specify what kind of amendment but no matter. The constitutional amendment process is so difficult that basically any controvertial amendment can be halted. FDR once said that with $1 million dollars he could prevent the ratification of any constitutional amendment. As FDR well knew repealing constitutional amendments is just as difficult. The 22nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere without bipartisan opposition.
More tax cuts for the rich? No prob.
The Republicans have gotten some tax cuts passed since the first Bush tax cut but they are smaller things and they haven’t been able to make the big cut permanent. The way I see it any further cuts would also be small and would merely take a bad situation and make it worse. Putting off a return to fiscal sanity in the form of a Democratic Administration would put more strain on the economy and the general fund but I don’t think it will lead to the financial collapse of the USA in the short term. Of course, I’m not an economist. See below.
Somehow making Iraq WORSE? Hmmmm.
As I said, I think people in Iraq would bear the hardest burden for a 2nd Bush term. The Bushies have demonstrated their inability to deal with the reality of Iraq. I think it will get worse for as long as America trys to control that country no matter who is in the White House.
An increase in worldwide anti-Americanism? No prob.
I don’t doubt Bush is capable of becoming even more hated but do have reservations as to how that ill will can manifest itself. As I said, he has already increased Muslim support for Al-Qa’ida. Are non-Muslims going to join that jihad in any great numbers? I doubt it. Sure pissed off countries are less likely to cooperate with the US but that’s already happened. Nations aren’t going to openly or even covertly side with Al-Qa’ida. They know what can happen to them if they do. They may hate Bush but they don’t want him to bomb them.
Lowering the standards that measure a president? Are you serious?
I don’t understand this one. A bad president makes mediocre presidents look good? How is this different from the last 200 years? Since I don’t believe we’ve ever had any good presidents to start with this argument has little chance to sway me.
Attempt to destroy the civil service? No prob.
I alluded to this in the OP. Bush and Company have already started this through willy-nilly outsourcing. Four more years will give them more time to hamstring the Executive but either way there will be a mess to clean up when a responsible administration takes over.
Other nations will act aggressively against the USA? No prob.
We are still the big dog. Don’t let our manpower shortage in Iraq fool you. That’s just politics. For ideological and political reasons Bush continues to try to run Iraq on the cheap. We certainly could authorize an increase in the size of the military but that would raise awkward questions about how to pay for it.
People will stop investing in the US? Hmmmm.
I’m not an economist but find this troubling. Still, I believe Republican leaders ( other than Bush ) understand that we need foreign investment. If it starts disappearing they will act, whether Bush likes it or no.
Invasion of Iran? No prob.
I don’t think it likely Bush would invade Iran. Iran doesn’t offer the potential benefits that Iraq did. No oil, no opportunity to change America’s view of foreign involvement, no making Bush a “War President”, no revenge for Daddy, et cetera. But if it does happen remember that Iran doesn’t have much oil so holding it isn’t a priority. We sliced through Iraq in three weeks. I imagine we could do about as well with Iran given a prolonged bombing campaign to soften them up and allow us to move more assets into the region.
Trouble with China or North Korea? Irrelevant.
Others might start trouble whatever we do or whoever does it. Adding such factors unnecessarily complicates our analysis.
More ultraconservative lower court judges? Not much of a problem.
As I said in the OP, Bush would in all probability be able to turn the judiciary more to the right. But the Dems still have the filibuster to keep the most outrageous candidates from getting lifetime appointments.
I think that pretty much covers it. If I missed yours please let me know.
he he he. Good one. You guys crack me up sometimes.
No, that would be stupid and unrealistic. He’s not a comic book villain. He’s a businessman, plain and simple.
However, a businessman is not a statesman. Businessmen are in business for two reasons:
- To accumulate money.
- To accumulate power, and/or intangibles related to power (prestige, respect, ego aggrandizement, the acclaim of one’s fellow men, whatever).
Hardly any businessmen get into business for the public good. True, some do become interested in it when playing the game of Business begins to pall – Carnegie became famous for funding libraries, and we’ve all heard of Alfred Nobel – but most active businessmen are only in it for Number One and Number Two, up there.
President Bush is not a statesman. He’s barely a politician, considering his horrendous public speaking skills and apparent inability to think on his feet. He is a businessman, and not a very good one, at that. If not for his family connections, he’d be – at best – back in Texas trying to make his oil company show a profit.
President Bush has behaved not like a statesman, but like a businessman, ever since he got into office. This would not be that big a deal, if the peace and prosperity that existed when he took office had continued apace. But they did not. We can’t blame him for 9/11, but I think history will say that of all the things an American president could have done after such an event, Bush managed to badly fumble the ball on nearly all of them, while demonstrating an iron single-mindedness to the pursuit of his own agenda… and often at the cost of the good of the American people, and perhaps even the world*.
*particularly considering his administration’s near-destruction of American prestige and credibility on the international scene, and its habit of discrediting scientific research it doesn’t like, regardless of whether it’s got any validity or not.
See footnote above. How much honor and integrity can a man have when his administration wants to call french fries a vegetable, for purposes of government regulations? How much honor and integrity does one have when one takes the Cigarette Company approach to scientific research that threatens your agenda? (Discredit honest scientists, intimidate/get fired any that you can reach, then create your own scientific study groups that release reams of reports directly supporting YOUR agenda).
E-yeah. Well, I’d rather have a President who screwed one intern as opposed to one who screwed thousands of Iraqis AND Americans (of socioeconomic classes other than his own, of course), as well as the entire American economy…
Or perhaps by “honor and integrity,” you meant “we haven’t actually caught him in a baldfaced lie yet, despite lots of highly questionable circumstances?”
Ah, I can always count on the SDMB for a good laugh. Thanks!
Glad you want to live in a theocracy. I don’t.
You do realize that you can only spend more and tax less for so long, right? Actually, I’m afraid that taxes will go UP in a second Bush term - just not for the rich.
Sorry you like terrorism.
I give up. What exactly do you DO view as a “prob”?
Zagadka, would you care to address my actual points instead of merely the possibilities I was responding to?
TYou waved off everyone’s points as “no prob” - I want to know what you think a “prob” is before we can continue.
Not so. The paragraph that follows each possibility addresses that possibility.
What would be a “prob”?