I think that some of the dire consequences of Team Bush’s foreign policy ventures that have yet to become utterly undeniable will become so during the next presidential term. If Kerry’s in office, he will be blamed. Those who’ve haunted the halls of powers for decades who are responsible will be fortified by this misplaced blame. Then, after Kerry, these people and their scions will return to power emboldened and foist further harm on our nation.
Team Bush should be at the helm when these terrible pigeons come home to roost so that the neocon fantasy can be thoroughly discredited in the eyes the electorate.
The numerous, serious, simmering, grand jury investigation etc. lead me to doubt Bush will be able to serve a complete term. And, failing an early expulsion, he’ll be rendered prematurely lame-duck hamstrung. Bush is doomed.
So, unless someone can suddenly convince me that Kerry can somehow undo a significant amount of the harm that’s coming in a timely manner, I say that the best thing for the country in the long run is that Bush be around to foot the bill for his foreign policy ventures. No one should bail him out of this one.
When I originally posted this (and that I agreed with Richard Perle) the SDMB died, so hamsters, beware.
Well, SimonX, of all the reasons for voting for Bush, this is the only one I find at all compelling. Still, in the end, I am not as optimistic as you about how hamstrung he will be and think his ability to inflict additional great damage on our country is just too great. (In terms of the doomed issue, you may want to consider how Reagan and Bush I weathered the whole Iran-Contra Scandal and the savings & loan debacle.)
Part of the issue here, of course, may be that the calculation is somewhat different for you and for me…since you are a conservative and are perhaps more amenable to his policies on the environment, taxes, court appointments, etc. that I find so appalling.
Kerry won’t take the hit from the current administration’s mistakes any more than Ahnold is taking the hit for California’s economic problems left to fester by Gray Davis.
I can’t risk giving Bush four four more years to appoint Guildenstern and Rosencrantz to the SCOTUS. Although there are many more reasons, that’s reason enough for me.
If things turn out as you expect (and I expect you’re right), the GOP will be devastated. The right will split, Bibles will be banned, and America will elect a string of homosexual couples to the white house.
Have you a cunning plan to avoid that debacle, or do you see a temporary eclipse of the GOP as a necessary evil?
The major, major difference being that The ill-effects have not been recognized as belonging to Team Bush. Davis was assigned ownership of the CA debacle in the minds of the CA electorate in a way that teh woes to come have not been assigned to Team Bush, yet.
I’m certainly not trying to argue that another term for Team Bush is a good idea. Rather that, in the long run, it’s merely the lessor of two evils.
These fellows from Team Bush will returned to position of public trust unless they can be held accountable for the things they’ve done. That would mean and even longer period of abuse for the US.
Don’t you think that, if Bush is voted out of office on November 2nd, that will be the public’s assignment of ownership of the Iraq fuck-up to the Bush administration? I just can’t see Kerry being stuck with any kind of blame for a mess he didn’t get us into, even if he fails to get us out of it. Even if troops don’t come home inside of four years, all he has to do is remind us which party got us into this mess.
Only for about half of the electorate. Not enough to prevent the return of The Prince of Darkness et al.
Also, there’s more to it than just Iraq.
Thing are going to get even worse than they are today.
There will be devastating* attacks on US soil.
I’m talking about messes that’re just now breaching the horizon.
While I don’t agree with SimonX because I think that Bush et al. will be better than he expects at avoiding accountability and will be able to inflict considerably more damage on the country, I don’t agree completely with your rosy assessment above either. I say you ought to bookmark the threads and articles about what a mess Iraq is now, because if Kerry gets elected, look to have the Republicans rewriting history so that Iraq was going just honky-dory until Kerry took over. And, given how the American public has reacted in the last few years, I am not so optimistic that they will completely see through this.
South Park Republicans are true Republicans, though they do not look or act like Pat Robertson. They believe in liberty, not conformity. They can enjoy watching The Sopranos even if they are New Jersey Italians. They can appreciate the tight abs of Britney Spears or Brad Pitt without worrying about the nation’s decaying moral fiber. They strongly believe in liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, and free markets. However, they do not live by the edicts of political correctness.
They are the millions of people of every age, race, sex, and religion that generally agree that government spending is usually not the best way to deal with the nation’s problems. Many of these individuals can tell you why Ayn Rand should displace some other authors in high school literature classes. They know firsthand from endless hours at the DMV, at the post office, and preparing income tax forms that government wastes time and money. They know a nation cannot tax its way to greatness.
If he were alive today, John F. Kennedy could very well be a South Park Republican. He rightly proclaimed, “An economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget-just as it will never produce enough jobs or profits.” You read that right. JFK was a supply-side tax cutter. His alleged private exploits would place him squarely within the South Park wing of the Republican Party.
I’ve always admired and emulated the astonishing adaptability of Wally.
Well, one does not have to take them for granted; however, there have been quite a lot of discussion of them already and such discussion (were it to be meaningful) would deserve it’s own thread(s). At the moment, I don’t feel inclined to mount a vigorous defense of much besides my dinner.
Do what you like.
As per par, I’ll just respectfully ignore whatever it pleases me to ignore.
Hmmmmm. I came back into this thread wondering if anyone picked up on my post about destroying the village in order to save it. I guess that one got swallowed by the hampsters…
Anyway, my thoughts exactly. The OP doesn’t make any sense at all.
If I must, I must. I remember many callers on Rush Limbaugh back in 96 (or was it 92, I’m not entirely sure) suggesting that a good strategy for the Republican party to allow Clinton to get into office. There was similar talk about impending doom. How that would allow the Republicans to sweep into office. They would be able to revitalize the party by selecting someone more vibrant than Dole (That’s why I thought it was 96, but they might have said Bush I). Rush kept making the argument that the damage Clinton would do would be far worse. Kinda like jshore’s argument.
I humbly submit: A train of thought less in powerful that your usual high standard SimonX.
In addition to the above posts. I think it unlikely that with the GOP in command of all branches of govt. there could ever be a removal of a sitting GOP president.
Moreover, I believe you are not considering the important ‘circuit breaker’ role a new presidency would bring to many of the problems in which the US is currently mired.
