Right now I can't see Bush losing the election.There is nobody else to choose from.The Dems have nobody.Plus I think America likes having a President with a backbone.Just look at his approval ratings.

Nothing short of a total police state will keep Bush in office.
He's lost middle tier business with his application of economic theory in a vacuum - void of any type of respect for the variables that effect and alter those theorie's application. Staying with what are univerally considered long term measures as immediate economic solutions is 'faith based' economics. Faith has no place in fiscal management.
In addition, people will be looking to be respected & admired as a nation again; something he & his cohorts are way too tainted to accomplish. And it's something that has to be done; the world is our customer. If you don't have cutomers buying your goods........well, you know.

[Edited on 15-4-2003 by Bout Time]

Bout Time, I agree with you on what the nation needs but I feel that pres. Bush has been at the forefront of bringing it about. Look at how many times in the last decade that we were hit by terrorist. We did nothing and the only military operation we had was Mogadishu and that was dirty work for the UN. From that we got a bloody nose and withdrew giving the green light to terrorists because it portayed us as pacifists. If you look at American acheivement during the Clinton admin, I'd say as far as the world's concerned, we did nothing. Now, because we had a huge (albeit fake) economy, he saw fit to grow the government by leaps and bounds all except our military which was downsized, the only facit he was willing to cut. And what were we supposed to get for all the high taxes? Nationalized healthcare which would have put beurocrats in charge of healthcare which is a little worse than insurance companies. Remember the little Blue card Hilary ran around with and we all, me included, heralded them to the highest levels. Well, I have to say looking back that I don't know anyone who was doing well under his regime but maybe him. And you talk so much about a controlled state. At least Bush is looking for terrorists and not using the ATF, FBI, and CIA to track down political enemies and trying to disarm law abiding people. As long as he was hitting everyday Americans who armed themselves to protect their home, that was fine but when Bush begins hitting rights of people using the cover of our constitution illegally to commit terror acts, well then thats a controlled state. And as far as global relations are concerned, it doesn't really count as trade when you sell secrets to China for campaign contributions. remember Los Alamos and the smuggled tapes, the ill set forest fire to evacuate the facility? And what of foreign relations. The rest of the world saw us a jokes until we decided to take a stand and now, except for a few losers, we are getting the respect back. They may not like us but at least they take us seriously.

He won't be re-elected. I don't know if he's even going to run. I think the Republicans should tag out. Throw a new fighter into the ring. One that can weasle like Clinton and has the Ideals of a middle party. (not left or right wing)

Bush will not be re-elected. The slated replacment for the bonesman is Cheney.

GOD HELP US ALL

I hope he won't be elected again. Geez.

Originally posted by abstract_alao
Do you think Bush will get Elected again...

I hope so.

Originally posted by Michael Thorn

Originally posted by abstract_alao
Do you think Bush will get Elected again...

I hope so.

hey waht's wong with some one who preforms rituals with the reamin of DEAD PEOPLE right!?!?!?

Setting aside the issue of whether Clinton's "success" with the deficit was the result of shrewd fiscal policy or mass-hypnotism, I'd still say that -if Bush is there - he will be the next President.
I cannot, incidentally, imagine whence sprang the drivel above, about war and non-election. Roosevelt beat Wilkie in 1940 before the war and Dewey in 1944 during the war. Such executive powers as FDR was granted lapsed after the war.
If we look at GB1 there is no doubt that economic issues obscured his Gulf War successes; but it would be naive to assume an electorate guided entirely by clear thinking about issues ( most who are stay home of vote for third parties): there is a fatigue factor. After 12 years of Reagan then Bush, or even longer of Thatcher then Major, people do tend to wonder what the other side are like. There was some of this in the fall of Conservatism in the UK, and both Blair and Clinton had a certain dubious but impressive charisma.
There is no new thinking with regard to the economy on the part of the Dems, as far as I can see. It is somewhat difficult to imagine any "sudden stroke" that could remedy the US's present economic woes. They have no very obvious grasp on any of the moral high ground, and their struggles to find a leader have left large amounts of egg on many faces.
It must be tempting for GB2 to continue to pursue the War-against-whatever-it-was-that-we-have-all-forgotten, everyone likes a winner. One can but hope for America's sake that the electorate persuades the leaders of both parties that their concern is with domestic issues of real, definable impact, rather than glory in far away places.


[Edited on 20-4-2003 by Estragon]

who knows that's going to happen in 04, the world wants Bush to lose, but he has a hardcore neo-con backing here in the states that may carry him to victory.

a lot has to do with the economy, and how things are going in Iraq, if there's still civil unrest and firefights springing up a year from now then Bush is in trouble.

It depends on who the Dems run, I can't see them winning with Lieberman. Dean has a chance, Kerry has a chance, so does Edwards but he's VP material right now, as is Gephardt. Bob Graham as VP could be key for the Dems to win Florida.

I don't plan on voting for Bush, but I wouldn't rule it out. I voted for his father in 92, Clinton in 96, and Gore in 2000, though I was undecided until I stepped in the booth.

then there's also the subject of an "emerging democratic majority" which may or may not be true but the guys who wrote the book are very convincing. I'm starting to believe it

[Edited on 21-4-2003 by calvinhobbes]

In response to Bush's re-election
The public reaction generated by this 'leader' has to be slowed and quelled in the short term. Revolution is not in the financial interests for either ruling party right now. My feeling is that a leftist-moderate democrat will be used in 2004 to channel and divert the growing anti-bush energy in this country. This 'new leader' will need to campaign on issues such the Patriot Act (especially the privacy conflicts), corporate responsibility, foreign policy and the environment in such a way as to trick the 'mob at the gates' that he intends to move away from the authoritarianism of bush inc.
I suspect that he will create or support 'progressive' legislation for the first 20 months. This should win him support of moderate Republicans, leftist Democrats, the editorial section of most major newspapers, and some of the 150 million citizens who do not vote...much the way Clinton did in 92. This should give rise to the stock market, bring back consumer confidence and keep the masses going back to work and paying their taxes.
This good time will last only until the voters come to claim action on the tough campaign promises. That resistance becomes threatening if someone is able to mobilize it into a left/right, black/white movement similar to what JFK or MLK would have been able to do.
If that happens you can expect the next terrorist incident to take place. It will need to be a media-covered event, like the 2nd plane crash was. To have the needed effect on the American public, it will have to include some sort of radiological or chemical damage images. Sick and dying babies, skin peeling away...etc. These images will need to be displayed by the corporate owned media 24/7.
The public outcry (real or manufactured) will leave our 'progressive' leader no choice but to enact and push through the most authoritarian parts of Patriot and Patriot 2 that he campaigned against. This will be portrayed as common sense by the media whores. We will all be told that he had no choice and we must again give up liberties for safety. Loyalty and dissention will again become a common theme for distracting and dividing the masses.
Behind the scenes business as usual will continue.



Did you know that Bush Jr's nickname in the skull and bones society is "Temporary"??? What a strange nickname...
I have never heard what his daddy's is.


[Edited on 22-4-2003 by Voice_of Doom]

If the next president 'elected' were to die in office, the american people would bring up some of that 9/11 sympathy and go right with Bush again.

Regardless of whether Bush gets in, whoever is in the White House is still going to be part of the same bloodline.

I am thoroughly convinced that the public voting process is a complete sham. We have no way of verifying, for ourselves, that their "counts" are correct. It all comes down to do you trust your government?

Although...

We could be at war durring the next election...

That solves Bush's problem...

nice avatar joehayner

I have a feeling that we will end up at war either with Iran or Syria, possibly with Saudi Arabia before it is up, so Bush will likely stay in office.

Bush is fu*king this whole country with no vasline

Bush wont be elected again .. he likes "emphasis" too much. He will also loose the christians support who believed him on the "WMD", "threat for america", and "war on terrorism" morale crusade BS. The press is likely devour him at the first occasion, and he has no international support to relieve him a bit.

Will Bush get re-elected? LOL If things go right, he should be charged with treason! Dead men cant be president.