Did you forget bush#41 was on saddam's back porch back in 1991 and left him in power? Did you forget we loaded him up with arms and chemicals?

blaming clinton for this war is like blaming the "reptiloids" for spraying chem trails. In other words, it's bull.

republicans...take responsibility for you own failures. Bush war support is high, but much lower than his father's. His job approval rating at home is 50%. In phantom polls not commissioned by fox news, he lost when run against john kerry and even john mc cain...he barely beat out pat buchanan.

gulf war 1 , bush sr. was "invincible", but the economy was bad like it is now (now its worse even), the stock market was higher, unemployment was lower, we werent looking at paying a 200 billion dollar war bill, etc. So too will right wingers tell you that this bush will win next year....I'll put my life on it, unless he turns this economy around and gets the market up and makes a few million new jobs in the next year, he's going to suffer the wrath of the disenfranchised from 2000 (they have a long memory), and the anger of millions across this country who will still be furious about htis war in iraq. Never discount the power of hate and how it can rally the troops.

Look for the 2004 election to be HUGE and look for anybody but bush to win. There will be many eyes on florida this time as well just waiting for the first report of disenfranchisement. Remember the million man march (it was actually 800,000 marchers, played down to 400,000 by "official" estimators) and see the protests ongoing now? Those crowds number in the MILLIONS, while the pro war crowds only ever number maximum of 1,000 or so...and the pro war rallies are always funded.

I'm telling you, I already know rally organizers have plans in place to bus people in from outlying communities to vote and they are bringing in their own lawyers to oversee how it's handled. It's very organized, with a very real goal in mind- the ouster of bush.

Six months after this war is over, those bush poll numbers are going to plummet again..he was at 37% once!...before war, that is, so he may try to involve us in one war after the next in an attempt to retain his job. In that case it's already decided that impeachment proceedings will be initiated to tie him up.

You saw it back in 1991 when the 1st bush was kicked out after everybody said he was a lock. You're going to see it again...and you dont have to be ed dames to see that coming...

When the re-election time comes around you are going to see a huge chunk of the worldís media rooting feverently for whoever he is standing against, including the British media.
There will be rallies all over the world against Bush and/or for his opponent.

Will the American people be swayed by any of this?
You tell me.

I think Bushes days are numbered and he knows it.

But whatís he going to try and fit in before the bailiffs arrive...?

Not to mention a total fix. GWB would NEVER be re-elected failry by the majority of the American public. Wish we could get someone in office like..oh, I don't know...MidnightDStroyer...You up for it MD?



[Edited on 4-4-2003 by MK-Ultra]

Well, like it or not, look at the polls. The president still maintains a huge approval rating. He bet the farm on the war though. Economy will be a factor for sure, as it should be. Dems have no leader. And as Estragon noted, the GOP gets out the vote!! (Isnít that right Thomas ) Plus, the GOP has had some success in the past election in breaking up minority block voting in some areas.

If the economy improves, or stays the same (no one really cares about a deficit when they vote), and the war has a decent outcome then I'd say: Yes, I think Bush will get re-elected.

Imagine the mudslinging that will go on from whomever challenges Bush. He'll have lots of ammo.



[Edited on 5-4-2003 by MK-Ultra]

What if we go beyond Dems and Republicans and look at an Independant or a Green Party candidate?

Well, we all say we love 3rd party candidates but that all changes when we go vote. (though, Perot did well). Green party is too radical for the American public. Iíd love to see some Libertarians hold office though!!!

My questions about the election in 2000 is this. if the Republican's were trying to steal the election, then why were only democrate controlled polls recounted? Why were the counties where the polls were controlled by democrats the ones in question? How could the machines that did the first count be so far off than when the same cards were put in again..after the arrival if Bill Daily that is? Why were there so many "hanging chads" when the stylus would perfectly punch "ONE"ballot cleanly..even up to two but after three were stacked together, hanging chads became a problem..in tests by the manufacturer. Why were the absentee ballots of servicemen no loner important and what law all of the sudden change their right to vote? Why, after two machine counts and one hand count, should the Fla. election law be violated to extend the count. Why, after the count was redone and the results didn't change can't we accept it? Why, after the sumpreme court resended the Fla supreme courts decision to not certify the results and ordered the members of that court to make the reasoning of their finding in a report to them was it almost two full years before the Fla. supreme made that report? Why do we see this as a stolen election when the only polls in question were ran by the democrats? Why doesn't anyone else but me see a problem with using public funded buses to haul people to polls. Why anyone but me sees a problem with rounding up people to vote not knowing if they were registered or not and then claiming disinfranchisment when its found they weren't registered or were at the wrong place or were found to have already voted? I'm a democrat but I have these questions.

Those are some great questions, I must say. And even greater, it's nice to see a democrat ask them!! Most others are still in denial I guess.

Was that Gore had more of the popular vote, but Bush was elected due to more electoral votes.... No sense really debating it at this point (and I could be remembering it wrong)....

To answer the question posed in the thread though....

Bush will likely not be re-elected. Sure, we won the war, but we're losing in the political game, and we cannot afford to have this same crew directing foreign policy after the dust settles....

Bob88, how good of a position do we have that we can't question ourselves or withstand a different point of view?

Originally posted by astrocreep
Bob88, how good of a position do we have that we can't question ourselves or withstand a different point of view?

Couldn't have said it better, astocreep!

You people really bug me....Gore as a president would have been a million times worse, we would have no military, no free speech, etc, etc......and as for what bush has or has not done, you need to realize that it doesnt matter who is pres, they are still primarily funded and backed by the same people....they have the same twisted objectives, just different theories on how to get there, and none of them are for the people. If you want a president for the people, its going to take a lot more that just another election. It will take people deciding its time the government was for the people again, and taking action to make it so. But sadly, I dont think this will ever happen. People dont want to act, they want to cry and complain and be safe, rather than do what has to be done and take the risks that it involves.

"it doesnt matter who is pres, they are still primarily funded and backed by the same people"

Wrong...once elected, they can then pursue their own agenda, only worrying about re-election, and even that won't matter, if they do the right things in office, regardless of what their funders want them to do...

Not to mention, the President has the authority to conduct military options, even war, without approval of the Congress or his backers. That DOES make the choice of President extremely relevant here....

How would freedom of speech and destruction of the military happened under Gore? Just curious on that one... Don't get me wrong, I'm glad Bush finally decided to do something about Iraq...it was 12 years coming...but it doesn't change the fact that he couldn't have gone about it in a worse way....

Bottom line, the democrats would have to field a real chump to lose to Bush in the next election...it's possible, the democrats are well known as choosing poor candidates (and usually for failing to back one unanimously enough to have a shot), so it's conceivable, but if so, I wouldn't plan on any global travel for the next 4 years....

Originally posted by Gazrok
"it doesnt matter who is pres, they are still primarily funded and backed by the same people"

Wrong...once elected, they can then pursue their own agenda, only worrying about re-election, and even that won't matter, if they do the right things in office, regardless of what their funders want them to do...

If that was true Kennedy would still be alive, and Ole Abe wouldn't have caught a bullet. Come on do you really think the President is anything less than a public figurehead, a tool. Please pay more attention to whats been changeing the past couple of decades. If you still don't see my perspective then I'm truly sorry for you, because it too late.

A president can pursue his agenda as long as the "staying powers" (those in place as presidents come and go) are not affected adversely. Lincoln was killed in simpler times...Kennedy, because he sought to dismantle the CIA.

shrub will lose in 2004. Daddybush had hi approval ratings too until during the campaign; everyone realized how out of touch the old fart was!! After 12 years of raygunomics the country needed some control.

In only 6 years the Clinton WH dropped the debt to pre-raygunomic levels. By the end of his 2nd term the deficit was below the Carter levels.

You all can say how immoral those 8 years were but I'll take an oval office BJ over shrubs mega-trillion $$$$ budget deficits.

I'm not sure if you guys were just unhappy with the thought of a successful democrat (since, the last one, ya all put out the mafia hit on JFK in 63), or if you're all jealous that he was getting his wanker pampered!!!

Yeah, he dropped the deficit but at who's cost. Look at how high he had to tax us to do it and look at how the long term economy responded. I think its far better for the government to hold its spending down and tighten it's belt in bad economic times than to force the people to choose either food or shelter. People can say the little 40 billion dollar tax cut ran up the deficit all they want but the gov also increased spending 60 billion over the already lushly funded budget they had at the same time. Make no mistake about it, the feds have plenty money and the entitlement programs are fat. Everytime a politician wants attention, they start threatening either old people or education neither of which they ever cut. Why, because the US gov budget for the next 10 years is 128 trillion dollars. If they want to keep spending that way, they should run in the red instead of taxing to death and already ill economy. They get us to think of business owners as big fat cats sitting back lighting cigars with fifty dollar bills. My friends, it isn't true. Business owners struggle. We saw when Enron went who the so called fat cat owners were; the employees who lost everything. the only people that came out were the criminals who ran it and were in "the deal" with Robert Rubrict. The big fat cats lighting cigars with fifties are sitting in Washington screaming "we're broke" cause its all they know to do when we have a Pres. who wants to give some of the money (power) back to the people who made it. So I say, let em balance their spending just like each and every one of us has too. Put a lid on the endless pot of money for votes. If they want to cut the tax cut in half to pay for the war, show me where it will all go to the guys and girls out there putting it on the line for the US and I'll more than agree to it because every person on an entitlement program in this country makes more than for doing nothing than the guy toting a rifle in Iraq and thats just a damn shame.

Like it or not, Shrub will win. His old man would have won also if it were not for Perot. There was only about 5 million votes between Bush and Clinton with Perot taking 20 million votes, and don't tell me many dems voted for Perot. (The conspiracy theorist in me says Perot was a DNC operative).