Have Republicans given up on George Bush?

alonzomourning23

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
I think there is a reasonable case to be made that the president is done. He's a lame duck. He's a caretaker until the country elects somebody else.

I saw one of the grandees of the Sunday morning political talk show business Thursday saying Bush has a bunch of bad news this week, and next week he can start his second term fresh.

Wow. And this particular grandee is a liberal.

Maybe he's right. But I think W. has been hurt and hurt bad.

I've said this before, so I'll repeat it without belaboring it.

Bush should never have stopped talking about the war. Even after the election, he should have kept it up. Instead, he started talking Social Security and that rated lower than a White Sox World Series.

When he was talking about retirement, the Dems went on complaining about the war and peeled off a bunch of Bush's war support.

Then there were the hurricanes named Katrina, Rita, Harriet and Karl. All bad stuff.

Maybe it does end this week with Friday's indictments of whoever.

But maybe it doesn't. Maybe the political enemies have the chance to get in close now and really land some blows.

If Karl Rove (search) is gone all the time meeting with his defense team, maybe Bush is left exposed.

And the real question is, which Republican candidates in '06 are going to want a campaign appearance with the president?

Frankly, I can't think of any. I could be wrong but it seems to me the Republicans all want daylight between them and the president on something: the war, gas prices, drug benefits. Something.

I'm also having a hard time imagining someone running for the Republican nomination for president by standing next to George W. Bush and saying, "I'm going to continue the Bush era. I stand with the president on the conduct of the war in Iraq. I am for the things he was for."

If the president is going to be president, he has to reassert control over the political agenda and give Republicans a good reason to be back on his side — really on his side.

That's My Word.
Click to expand...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,173758,00.html

With everyone turning on him, he'll go down as a failure. Unfortunately for him, I doubt he'll ever become a jimmy carter and be praised for his post presidency work.
 
Meh. John Gibson's a fuckwad. Anyone genius enough to write a book arguing that liberals want to "destroy the traditional christian holiday of christmas," yet has the secular and materialist christmas symbol of a decorated tree as the sole item on the cover of said book has very little credibility. Even when he's slamming Bush.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Meh. John Gibson's a fuckwad. Anyone genius enough to write a book arguing that liberals want to "destroy the traditional christian holiday of christmas," yet has the secular and materialist christmas symbol of a decorated tree as the sole item on the cover of said book has very little credibility. Even when he's slamming Bush.[/QUOTE]

I only linked to it because it was a conservative on fox news, I don't actually know much about him. But, putting a christmas tree on the cover isn't absurd. Some areas (particularly schools) are under attack from conservatives due to their refusal to display traditional christmas items, such as christmas trees. So christmas trees do figure into the picture, and he will have an easier time arguing against the removal of non christian elements of christmas than ones that are overtly religious, like a nativity scene.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Meh. John Gibson's a fuckwad. Anyone genius enough to write a book arguing that liberals want to "destroy the traditional christian holiday of christmas," yet has the secular and materialist christmas symbol of a decorated tree as the sole item on the cover of said book has very little credibility. Even when he's slamming Bush.[/QUOTE]

Besides, we all know that Bill O'Reilly is the only man in America who sticks up for Christmas :lol:

... nobody sticks up for Christmas except me. Did Peter Jennings stick up for Christmas last night? I don't believe he did. How about Brian Williams, did he? Did Rather stick up for Christmas? How about Jim Lehrer -- did he? Did Larry King [say] "hello, I love Christmas" -- did he? No.

- Bill O'Reilly
Click to expand...

To be honest, attacking all liberals like this is not fair. I consider myself to be fairly liberal, and just thinking of christmas brings a smile to my face.


Grinch.jpg
 
Bush will be remembered for whether his grand Middle East experiment ended up working out or not, not for Harriet Miers or Karl Rove or high gas prices (well, maybe high gas prices if they go down again like they did after Carter). Foreign policy seems to stick with a president more closely than domestic policy since foreign policy is more of the realm of the president while domestic policy is more of the realm of the Congress.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Bush will be remembered for whether his grand Middle East experiment ended up working out or not, not for Harriet Miers or Karl Rove or high gas prices (well, maybe high gas prices if they go down again like they did after Carter). Foreign policy seems to stick with a president more closely than domestic policy since foreign policy is more of the realm of the president while domestic policy is more of the realm of the Congress.[/QUOTE]

Anything a prez does that's a big splash and affects the lives of people will stick to them. Foreign policy is a sticking factor only when it seems to claim the lives of a lot of Americans, or be some massive vicotry. For instance, it's doubtful that Clinton will be remembered for Somalia or Kosovo, but rather the economic prosperity that he brought. Reagan will be remembered for foreign policy because he scared the shit out of people by making everyone think they were on the verge of nuclear war (as will Kennedy). Nixon will forever be remembered for his watergate scandal and openly prejudiced and paranoid chatter with white house aids. Basically, if a prez does something that affects the everyday man, people will remember them for that.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Anything a prez does that's a big splash and affects the lives of people will stick to them. Foreign policy is a sticking factor only when it seems to claim the lives of a lot of Americans, or be some massive vicotry. For instance, it's doubtful that Clinton will be remembered for Somalia or Kosovo, but rather the economic prosperity that he brought. Reagan will be remembered for foreign policy because he scared the shit out of people by making everyone think they were on the verge of nuclear war (as will Kennedy). Nixon will forever be remembered for his watergate scandal and openly prejudiced and paranoid chatter with white house aids. Basically, if a prez does something that affects the everyday man, people will remember them for that.[/QUOTE]

Well, how many presidents in the 20th century are remembered best for their domestic policy? Perhaps you could say Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter....? Certainly people like Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, JFK, Richard Nixon (other than his impeachment), Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George W. Bush are or will be remembered for foreign policy.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Well, how many presidents in the 20th century are remembered best for their domestic policy? Perhaps you could say Herbert Hoover, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter....? Certainly people like Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, JFK, Richard Nixon (other than his impeachment), Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and George W. Bush are or will be remembered for foreign policy.[/QUOTE]

Nixon Will forever be known for his impeachment more so than his foreign policy. Gerald Ford will probably be known for parodning Nixon. Eisenhower will probably be more known for the fact that he just didn't do anything during the presidency (beyond the top secret) He was a status quo kinda guy. People remember him more for playing golf than really presiding. Not exactly for ending the Korean war.

Ronald Reagan's foreign policy will be known just because he was so headstrong and bent on yelling at the soviet Union. However, he will also be known for his trickle down economics, remilitarization, tremendous defecit spending and massive explosion of federal debt, the iran contra scandal (which really isn't foreign policy, since it was North and Reagan being involved in slime). In which case it's both sides of the coin.

We can also include such presidents as Hoover, who presided over the onset of the depression and decided to do nothing about it and Calvin Coolidge for his being absolutely worthless.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Nixon Will forever be known for his impeachment more so than his foreign policy. Gerald Ford will probably be known for parodning Nixon. Eisenhower will probably be more known for the fact that he just didn't do anything during the presidency (beyond the top secret) He was a status quo kinda guy. People remember him more for playing golf than really presiding. Not exactly for ending the Korean war.

Ronald Reagan's foreign policy will be known just because he was so headstrong and bent on yelling at the soviet Union. However, he will also be known for his trickle down economics, remilitarization, tremendous defecit spending and massive explosion of federal debt, the iran contra scandal (which really isn't foreign policy, since it was North and Reagan being involved in slime). In which case it's both sides of the coin.

We can also include such presidents as Hoover, who presided over the onset of the depression and decided to do nothing about it and Calvin Coolidge for his being absolutely worthless.[/QUOTE]

I think you're agreeing with me more than disagreeing. Nixon's impeachment, which I noted, is obviously what he'll be remembered most for, but after that foreign policy rather than domestic policy.

Same with Reagan for sure. I think you're letting your personal hatred stand in the way of logic in thinking anyone will remember him for Iran-Contra or deficits.

Eisenhower will be remembered for foreign policy, especially for Korea and US-Soviet relations after the death of Stalin. You could argue that he also will be remembered for sending troops to enforce desegregation in Little Rock, which would probably be tops on domestic policy.

Ford will be known for pardoning Nixon and the end of the Vietnam War.
 
Bush should be on the shit list of Republicains/Conservatives. He has had a overwhelming majority in the house, at worse case 50 - 50 in the senate and he still can't get shit passed thru. The Republicain party on the whole don't know how to lead, they did best when they were the minority in Congress. On the other hand the Democrats don't know how to be the minority, as the still act and control the Senate like they are the shit. The Republicain leadership needs to be bitched slapped to wake up and take the lead, and the democrat leadership needs to be bitch slapped into there place as the minority party.
 
[quote name='ryanbph']Bush should be on the shit list of Republicains/Conservatives. He has had a overwhelming majority in the house, at worse case 50 - 50 in the senate and he still can't get shit passed thru. The Republicain party on the whole don't know how to lead, they did best when they were the minority in Congress. On the other hand the Democrats don't know how to be the minority, as the still act and control the Senate like they are the shit. The Republicain leadership needs to be bitched slapped to wake up and take the lead, and the democrat leadership needs to be bitch slapped into there place as the minority party.[/QUOTE]

Well if recent opinion polls mean anything (10% more want democrats to win mid term elections), neither will have to resolve that issue. Democrats will be in control, and republicans will be the minority again.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Anything a prez does that's a big splash and affects the lives of people will stick to them. Foreign policy is a sticking factor only when it seems to claim the lives of a lot of Americans, or be some massive vicotry. For instance, it's doubtful that Clinton will be remembered for Somalia or Kosovo, but rather the economic prosperity that he brought. Reagan will be remembered for foreign policy because he scared the shit out of people by making everyone think they were on the verge of nuclear war (as will Kennedy). Nixon will forever be remembered for his watergate scandal and openly prejudiced and paranoid chatter with white house aids. Basically, if a prez does something that affects the everyday man, people will remember them for that.[/QUOTE]
I don't even know where to begin with you. If you knew anything about economics, you would know the clinton was there during the good times, not that he started the good economic times. And Greenspan/regan deserve the credit for that. Clinton should be remembered for Kosov, as he went in without Nato, and without the UN support. Oh yeah, most of his intelligens on the mass graves and killing were false, be we dont want to talk about that do we. He should also be rembered for hand North Korea nuclear weapons. Here you go, here is a nuclear facility, but don't make weapon grade, only for power ok. What Clinton will most likely be remebered for is his getting it on with and intern. I have no problem with it, personaly I didn't like him for other reasons, mainly the lying on the stand.

Bush Sr. will be remebered for being a putz, and not finishing the job in iraq in the first place. The economy hit a lull, and yes that will happen from time to time no matter what, and he was slow the react, his VP was to stupid, and Greenspan didn't help him out.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well if recent opinion polls mean anything (10% more want democrats to win mid term elections), neither will have to resolve that issue. Democrats will be in control, and republicans will be the minority again.[/QUOTE]
the only polls that matter are on election day. Hello, remeber the exit polls that past 2 elections. The republicain party as a whole are handing it back to the dems. But that does not mean that the democrats are going to gain that much, as I am sure those polls are broken down by state which have a current incumbent republicain that up for election. They may be popular in that state/district. Also even if I took your 10% poll, They wouldn't win enough seats in the house to gain control, at best they could take the senate, but the 10% poll that you are showing isn't strong enough for them to take control. Even if they do take control, it would be by such a slim margin, and they wouldn't control the house or the White house. In other words it would be a stalemate, and nothing would get accomplished, much like we have now
 
[quote name='ryanbph']the only polls that matter are on election day. Hello, remeber the exit polls that past 2 elections. The republicain party as a whole are handing it back to the dems. But that does not mean that the democrats are going to gain that much, as I am sure those polls are broken down by state which have a current incumbent republicain that up for election. They may be popular in that state/district. Also even if I took your 10% poll, They wouldn't win enough seats in the house to gain control, at best they could take the senate, but the 10% poll that you are showing isn't strong enough for them to take control. Even if they do take control, it would be by such a slim margin, and they wouldn't control the house or the White house. In other words it would be a stalemate, and nothing would get accomplished, much like we have now[/QUOTE]

Opinion polls are different from exit polls, but still. The point is the tide seems to be turning back into the democrats favor, solely on the basic of republicans screwing up. Even if democrats were to only get the majority in the senate, it would still be enough to stop republicans from moving forward with bills that democrats strongly oppose, and it's not like things are going the way democrats want now anyway.
 
[quote name='ryanbph']I don't even know where to begin with you. If you knew anything about economics, you would know the clinton was there during the good times, not that he started the good economic times. And Greenspan/regan deserve the credit for that. Clinton should be remembered for Kosov, as he went in without Nato, and without the UN support. Oh yeah, most of his intelligens on the mass graves and killing were false, be we dont want to talk about that do we. He should also be rembered for hand North Korea nuclear weapons. Here you go, here is a nuclear facility, but don't make weapon grade, only for power ok. What Clinton will most likely be remebered for is his getting it on with and intern. I have no problem with it, personaly I didn't like him for other reasons, mainly the lying on the stand.

Bush Sr. will be remebered for being a putz, and not finishing the job in iraq in the first place. The economy hit a lull, and yes that will happen from time to time no matter what, and he was slow the react, his VP was to stupid, and Greenspan didn't help him out.[/QUOTE]

Clinton has Reagan to thank for the economy during his 8 years.

Clinton was there during the good times.

Bush Sr. created a recession (you say "economic lull").

There seem to be many inherent contradictions in each of these statements. Care to clarify?

On another note, one of these days, when I get the gumption, I'm going to examine just whose annual budget deficit we'd begin paying off if we were to have a surplus this year. I don't imagine I'd get any farther than Reagan's first two years, but that's getting ahead of myself. Call it a hypothesis.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Opinion polls are different from exit polls, but still. The point is the tide seems to be turning back into the democrats favor, solely on the basic of republicans screwing up. Even if democrats were to only get the majority in the senate, it would still be enough to stop republicans from moving forward with bills that democrats strongly oppose, and it's not like things are going the way democrats want now anyway.[/QUOTE]

Congress is not going to change hands in 2006. There are so many safe seats now, as both parties have made legislative agreements across the country to do a CYA act and keep themselves safe. There are only a handful of difficult races, and the Democrats would basically have to win all of them with the anti-democratic (small D) redistricting that took place following the last couple of censuses.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Congress is not going to change hands in 2006. There are so many safe seats now, as both parties have made legislative agreements across the country to do a CYA act and keep themselves safe. There are only a handful of difficult races, and the Democrats would basically have to win all of them with the anti-democratic (small D) redistricting that took place following the last couple of censuses.[/QUOTE]

While I did make say "democrats will be in control" in reference to the senate, it was semi sarcastic. It's just that the republicans keep shooting themselves in the foot, that things appear, at this point anyway, seem to be falling into place for a democrat victory. The comment was just playing off that. What you say may be true, I honestly don't know what areas the democrats have a good shot of winning or not. Whether it would be a step toward controlling the senate, or result in actually controlling the senate, I have no idea.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']While I did make say "democrats will be in control" in reference to the senate, it was semi sarcastic. It's just that the republicans keep shooting themselves in the foot, that things appear, at this point anyway, seem to be falling into place for a democrat victory. The comment was just playing off that. What you say may be true, I honestly don't know what areas the democrats have a good shot of winning or not. Whether it would be a step toward controlling the senate, or result in actually controlling the senate, I have no idea.[/QUOTE]

Well, five seats changing hands out of 33 up for reelection is a lot, even if the Republicans continue to slide as they have been lately in opinion polls all the way to the election (doubtful). There usually aren't that many retirements, and as we know from the presidential election there aren't really that many states that are really close.

A quick look at www.senate.gov reveals the following might have difficulty in their reelection bids:

Byrd, Robert- (D - WV)
Chafee, Lincoln- (R - RI)
DeWine, Mike- (R - OH)
Nelson, Bill- (D - FL)
Santorum, Rick- (R - PA)
Talent, James- (R - MO)

I think the following are retiring:

Dayton, Mark- (D - MN)
Frist, Bill- (R - TN)
Jeffords, James- (I - VT)
Sarbanes, Paul- (D - MD)

So even if Democrats sweep the out all the Republicans that could probably be in trouble + Frist and keep all theirs + their retirements, they still would only have 50. That is pretty unlikely, for obvious reasons. They may make it tighter if they can knock off people like Santorum and Chafee (votes w/Dems a lot anyway) though.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think the following are retiring:
Frist, Bill- (R - TN)[/QUOTE]

Huh? Why do you think that? Isn't this his second term (at the most)?
 
Wow, I just looked at these "versus mode" forums for the first time. I think I better stay away--I have very strong views about things, and I'm stubborn! =P
 
[quote name='alive741']Wow, I just looked at these "versus mode" forums for the first time. I think I better stay away--I have very strong views about things, and I'm stubborn! =P[/QUOTE]

Well, the idea is to open your mind and take what people say and think about it. Discussion helps one form a better opinion and a better argument.
 
[quote name='alive741']Wow, I just looked at these "versus mode" forums for the first time. I think I better stay away--I have very strong views about things, and I'm stubborn! =P[/QUOTE]

Sounds like you'd fit right in! :D
 
[quote name='elprincipe']He's already announced it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-01-frist-interview_x.htm?csp=34

He's preparing for a presidential run in 2008.[/QUOTE]

Well, at least he, unlike Hillary Clinton, is taking an "all or nothing" approach to the Presidency.

Let him win the primaries; I don't see how he could appeal to the moderates in the slightest (though, truth be told, Hillary would have a difficult time herself, IMO).
 
Mike DeWine is almost certainly gone. Paul Hackett is gunning for that seat.

Lincoln Chafee might as well be a Democrat, so a pick up there only really affects things if they get 50 other seats.

Byrd has been around too long to lose.

Santorum is surprisingly vulnerable. The Democratic frontrunner is pro-life and is considered a moderate on most issues. Santorum is behind by double-digits, I believe, but that doesn't really matter this far out.

Bill Nelson is likely going to face Katherine Harris. In trouble my ass.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Well, at least he, unlike Hillary Clinton, is taking an "all or nothing" approach to the Presidency.

Let him win the primaries; I don't see how he could appeal to the moderates in the slightest (though, truth be told, Hillary would have a difficult time herself, IMO).[/QUOTE]

Frist's ethical difficulties may doom his candidacy in any case. I don't think he's charismatic enough to win the nomination...but I have to say I was surprised he became majority leader, so maybe he can win the nomination after all. What's really screwy about the nominating process is that the most extreme 10 percent on either side tend to have a very large if not commanding say in who gets nominated, while the moderate majority gets shut out. It isn't the middle 50 percent who vote in the primaries, as John McCain found out in 2000.

[quote name='evanft']Mike DeWine is almost certainly gone. Paul Hackett is gunning for that seat.

Lincoln Chafee might as well be a Democrat, so a pick up there only really affects things if they get 50 other seats.

Byrd has been around too long to lose.

Santorum is surprisingly vulnerable. The Democratic frontrunner is pro-life and is considered a moderate on most issues. Santorum is behind by double-digits, I believe, but that doesn't really matter this far out.

Bill Nelson is likely going to face Katherine Harris. In trouble my ass.[/QUOTE]

I don't think DeWine will lose personally. He fits Ohio pretty well, moderately conservative, member of the Gang of 14. But who knows?

Byrd was behind in polls against Rep. Capito (R-WV), but I think she decided not to run, so he may be safe.

Chafee is the most liberal Republican, but his vote does mean something when it comes to determining the leadership and all.

Santorum looks at this point to be in big, big trouble, but they thought he was in trouble last time. Should be an interesting race.

And although you may personally detest Harris, I don't doubt that race will be close as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top