Could Bush lose in November?

[Bottle or the Gun]

Could Bush actually lose the the next presidential election?

I'm not crazy about Bush as a person and he seems to me like the puppet of a Reagan-Bush Sr era agenda, but he is a known quantity right now. With the threats both abroad and domestic do I want an unknown at the helm? Am I correct in thinking that uncertainty and fear will cause voters to go for the stable and familiar candidate?

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Could Bush actually lose the the next presidential election?

I'm not crazy about Bush as a person and he seems to me like the puppet of a Reagan-Bush Sr era agenda, but he is a known quantity right now. With the threats both abroad and domestic do I want an unknown at the helm? Am I correct in thinking that uncertainty and fear will cause voters to go for the stable and familiar candidate?

I don't think he's anybody's puppet, just a member of the club.

In any case, of course he can be beaten. But first the Democrats will have to stop acting like a suicide cult.

 

[Bottle or the Gun]

'Member of the club' is a fitting definition.

A guy at work here is actually outraged to the point of being speechless that anyone would want any person other than Bush. I personally just don't trust Bush, but will Kerry protect us from planes smashing into buildings?

 

[geni]

A guy at work here is actually outraged to the point of being speechless that anyone would want any person other than Bush. I personally just don't trust Bush, but will Kerry protect us from planes smashing into buildings?

On the basis that Bush has a proven track record of failing to protect US citersens from planes crashing into biulding is this really a relevent point.

 

[Lothian]

will Kerry protect us from planes smashing into buildings?

Did Bush ?

Bush certainly made people want to fly planes into buildings.

Would Kerry make America appear more tolerant and less dictatorial to the rest of the world or not? I don’t know ?

 

[headscratcher4]

Could Bush actually lose the the next presidential election?

Absolutely...he's done it before.

Favorite new bumpersticker: Re-defeat Bush.

 

[Bottle or the Gun]

Bush and his Administration are not to blame for pre-911 failures. It was part of a poorly maintained system that was absolutely glacial in its decision making process and thatw as politically compromised from way back. The entire country operated under the premise that if nothing happened, then everything is all right. If you want to lay blame, go back to the Reagan-era when Ollie North said Bin Laden was the greatest threat America faced. Or when Clinton was handed Bin laden and did nothing. Or the 1930's when the US started financing coups in the mid-east.

The Bush Administration will be repsonsible for any post-911 failures. And I'm not talking about more planes in buildings, that is a generality. If someone really wanted to do something to attack the US then there is really no way to stop it. But Bush should do his best. Stop 100 threats, but maybe 1 one will get through. Willl Kerry do better?

 

[DaChew]

Absolutely.
I don't support JK and will probably vote for Bush but he could be defeated. His dad was easily as popular as he is and was but that didn't keep him from being defeated. The difference is that Bill Clinton defeated GHWB outright. Bush had everything going for him and allowed Clinton (a master politician if ever there was one) to hand him his ass. I don't see that in Kerry though. We'll see.

 

[Tmy]

Geez is Bush to blame FOR ANYTHING!!??

I think he will get beat. What has he done thats so great? Pick an issue.

THe anybody but bush crowd is growing........Ya down with A.B.B...........ya you know me!

 

[subgenius]

Absolutely...he's done it before.

Favorite new bumpersticker: Re-defeat Bush.

That's why I wish Al would have run:
"Re-elect Gore in '04"

 

[headscratcher4]

Bush and his Administration are not to blame for pre-911 failures. It was part of a poorly maintained system that was absolutely glacial in its decision making process and thatw as politically compromised from way back. The entire country operated under the premise that if nothing happened, then everything is all right. If you want to lay blame, go back to the Reagan-era when Ollie North said Bin Laden was the greatest threat America faced. Or when Clinton was handed Bin laden and did nothing. Or the 1930's when the US started financing coups in the mid-east.

The Bush Administration will be repsonsible for any post-911 failures. And I'm not talking about more planes in buildings, that is a generality. If someone really wanted to do something to attack the US then there is really no way to stop it. But Bush should do his best. Stop 100 threats, but maybe 1 one will get through. Willl Kerry do better?

And any one other than Bush elected President wouldn't do his/her best to defend the country? Protect America/Americans?

What you have to be convinced of, and I am not, is that Bush is employing the best methods, intelligence, analysist and tools for protecting the country.

Further, important as national defence is (assuming you are convinced that Bush is the right "war" President...i.e. fighting the right war against the right parties, at the right time and place...) he has a lot of other responsiblities (domestically), and these are a disaster. What good is saving the village if you have to burn it...to conjure up a Vietnam image...

 

[geni]

Or when Clinton was handed Bin laden and did nothing.

Cruise missiles = nothing
intersting equation there.

 

[Bottle or the Gun]

Cruise missiles = nothing
intersting equation there.

Did he get Bin Laden? Or smash up a training camp?

Other:
The Vietnam allegory is something to work with. Is our war being run by politicians? Seems so, considering how we kiss Saudi's oily butt. I'm not convinced Bush is the best president for the next run, but I am very worried that anyone else will be worse. People are hung up on the parties. I just don't see the need for them. Why are the primaries supported by our taxes? The guy here at work says you have to support a platform. Why? There are positive and negative aspects to each and all. I find every administration after the next isa just as corrupt and compromised.

 

[headscratcher4]

WHat has GWB done to convince you that someone else would be worse...specifically Kerry?

Is it his impressive use of intelligence to determine the threat leavel against the US?

Is it the impressive way that he has rallied global opinion to embrace American ideals and objectives?

Is it the way that they've managed Iraq post invasion?

Is it the way that Afghanastan has fallen off the map and is again becoming a hot-bed for the kinds of folk who hate America?

Is it his management of the deficit and US debt?

Is it his holier than thou Patriotism?

I mean, GWB is very human. Not as dumb as I like to charachterize him, but certainly no genius. So, why would someone, like Kerry, who not only went to the same schools, but actually fought in a War, be intrinsically worse or to be feared when it comes to national security, not to mention domestic policy?

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Bush certainly made people want to fly planes into buildings.

Did he? It's pretty clear the 9-11 "operation" had been in planning for years. The first attack on the WTC was 1993. Same folks, already angry.

 

[Marc]

Bush and his Administration are not to blame for pre-911 failures. It was part of a poorly maintained system that was absolutely glacial in its decision making process and thatw as politically compromised from way back.

But he is responsible for failurs after he took office. The US had recieved many warnings from other countries, plus information on the potential threat of Bin Laden, however this information was not acted on. The budget for anti-terrorist activities was trippled under Clinton, it was about to be cut by Bush before 9/11.

If you want to lay blame, go back to the Reagan-era when Ollie North said Bin Laden was the greatest threat America faced.

nice story, but just a story

Or when Clinton was handed Bin laden and did nothing.

Was he? From what I've read the offer was not credible, but an effort to reduce sanctions against a terrorist supporting nation, and the offer came not from an official of the nation but someone who had investments in that country's oil industry.

 

[Kodiak]

WHat has GWB done to convince you that someone else would be worse...specifically Kerry?

Is it his impressive use of intelligence to determine the threat leavel against the US?

Is it the impressive way that he has rallied global opinion to embrace American ideals and objectives?

Is it the way that they've managed Iraq post invasion?

Is it the way that Afghanastan has fallen off the map and is again becoming a hot-bed for the kinds of folk who hate America?

Is it his management of the deficit and US debt?

Is it his holier than thou Patriotism?

I mean, GWB is very human. Not as dumb as I like to charachterize him, but certainly no genius. So, why would someone, like Kerry, who not only went to the same schools, but actually fought in a War, be intrinsically worse or to be feared when it comes to national security, not to mention domestic policy?

How about the number of terrorist attacks in the United States after 9-11?

 

[BTox]

I mean, GWB is very human. Not as dumb as I like to charachterize him, but certainly no genius. So, why would someone, like Kerry, who not only went to the same schools, but actually fought in a War, be intrinsically worse or to be feared when it comes to national security, not to mention domestic policy?

Perhaps because Kerry has no convictions, no true positions (or apparently so) - just bends with the wind on seemingly every issue. If you want a noodle as President, he's your man!

And seriously, do you really want Herman Munster in the Whitehouse? Imagine all the shenanigans he and Grampa will get into...

 

[Mr Manifesto]

How about the number of terrorist attacks in the United States after 9-11?

Considering it was rougly eight years between the first and the more successful WTC attacks, it's early days yet.

 

[zenith-nadir]

I wonder what the "enemies" of America will think if Bush is replaced?

In certain cultures I feel they may see it as a sign of weakness by the American public on the war on terror.

I do not know.