Bush Unbeatable?
For one, today's events represent at least a short-term political gain for the President. The capture of an infamous war criminal after months of unrest in Iraq is a healthy political diversion from daily news of multiple soldier deaths. You can't deny feeling happy for the Iraqi people dancing and celebrating in the streets.
But the question of Bush's reelectability has become a bit obscured. A pretty crappy IHT article printed in the New York Times says he's either unbeatable or nothing's really changed politically for the long term.
We may be confusing short-term political gain, which this mostly surely is, with long-term political gain. I don't think it's clear that this is the case. Saddam's capture doesn't change the situation in Iraq. More soldiers will die everyday. Unless Saddam comes up with WOMD, it doesn't change the faulty intelligence or the misleading aspects of the selling of the war. I have a feeling the election will be as bitter and partisan as ever.
Discuss.
But the question of Bush's reelectability has become a bit obscured. A pretty crappy IHT article printed in the New York Times says he's either unbeatable or nothing's really changed politically for the long term.
We may be confusing short-term political gain, which this mostly surely is, with long-term political gain. I don't think it's clear that this is the case. Saddam's capture doesn't change the situation in Iraq. More soldiers will die everyday. Unless Saddam comes up with WOMD, it doesn't change the faulty intelligence or the misleading aspects of the selling of the war. I have a feeling the election will be as bitter and partisan as ever.
Discuss.
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnJ
For one, today's events represent at least a short-term political gain for the President. The capture of an infamous war criminal after months of unrest in Iraq is a healthy political diversion from daily news of multiple soldier deaths. You can't deny feeling happy for the Iraqi people dancing and celebrating in the streets.
But the question of Bush's reelectability has become a bit obscured. A pretty crappy IHT article printed in the New York Times says he's either unbeatable or nothing's really changed politically for the long term.
We may be confusing short-term political gain, which this mostly surely is, with long-term political gain. I don't think it's clear that this is the case. Saddam's capture doesn't change the situation in Iraq. More soldiers will die everyday. Unless Saddam comes up with WOMD, it doesn't change the faulty intelligence or the misleading aspects of the selling of the war. I have a feeling the election will be as bitter and partisan as ever.
Discuss.
Unfortunately, I believe Bush will be unbeatable.
Too bad.
Originally posted by Outsider
Maybe not. What about Osama? Given the choice, I would rather we have caught him than Saddam.
I would have to agree with you there. Osama poses a CURRENT threat to America. I think it is great we caught Saddam, so don't get me wrong. I would just like us to be as successful in finding Bin Laden.
People can think someone has the election in their pocket and something will drastically change. Remember the tank?
Originally posted by Fran441
Remember the tank?
Ummmm..........no?
as for me i was a jesse jackson delegate in my local caucus (iowa) but as there were only two of us we went across the room and joined forces with the paul simon crew. we were soundly defeated by the gephardt gang. iowa caucuses were much like tea parties back then.
anyway in the general election that year i think i either voted for bush or maybe wrote in jesse jackson. i found dukakis to be a dullard.
Are there people out there that actually believed saddam wouldn't be captured or killed? It was just a matter of time.
As far as I am concerned, Kerry and Liebermann can hum a nut for using this to attack Dean. It's the stupidest line yet. I didn't see gephardt or clark do, so they are still on the good list. It's so fvcking immature and stupid for any politician to attack another today. It's disgusting that those two did that.
Everybody is happy over this. We are in Iraq now and need it to be successful. It has nothing to do with pro or anti war. The war is going on and it's necessary for the long term good of the US and Iraq for the situation to end up a good one.
Bush will be able to point to some major victories come election time. He will be able to say we liberated Iraq and captured Saddam. He will say by then that Iraq has a new provisional government and is on its way to becoming self-sufficient. Bush will also point to the ouster of the Taliban and his leadership through 9/11. He will then campaign on making permanment the tax cuts that will be seen as having stimulated the economy, since it is now predicted to be the strongest it has been in 20 years for 2004. He will hammer his oppenent with the medicare victory, and campaign on partial priviitization of Social Security. He'll even tout Education reform. In other words, he's going to say "I did what I said I'd do...I cut taxes, I freed the Iraqi people and liberated Afghanistan, and I signed a prescription drug benefit on top of it" .
The point is not whether you and I agree with these things, though I do agree with most of it. The larger point is the above WILL happen. Democrats cannot run on an epitaph platform ("we WERE in a recession, we COULDN'T get Saddam for awhile, the war WAS wrong"). People won't vote on the environment and being anti-war, at least not anyone outside the far left. The medicare issue is politcal history. The economy is now surging.
With a strong economy, and barring any stained dresses, Bush will be unbeatable. There is simply no reason to think otherwise, no matter what your political affiliation. Vote for who you like, but at least admit the political reality.
Originally posted by giant
How does the capture of saddam do anything to justify the war?
...
Because stopping a brutal dictator was one of the justifications.
Originally posted by giant
That's the kind of thing that flies with trailer trash.
...
I wonder if I had used the term "ghetto trash" what you would thing about that? Admit it. You have some kind of liberal elitist bigotry in your private school blood.
Originally posted by giant
How does the capture of saddam do anything to justify the war?
Are there people out there that actually believed saddam wouldn't be captured or killed? It was just a matter of time.
Everybody is happy over this. We are in Iraq now and need it to be successful. It has nothing to do with pro or anti war. The war is going on and it's necessary for the long term good of the US and Iraq for the situation to end up a good one.
Agreed! much so.
Originally posted by giant
Everybody is happy over this. We are in Iraq now and need it to be successful. It has nothing to do with pro or anti war. The war is going on and it's necessary for the long term good of the US and Iraq for the situation to end up a good one.
Glad to see you finally got your gear out of reverse.
Getting Saddam was a very good thing.
We'll have to wait and see what happens with the insurgents.
But all that has little to do with the war on terrah. Pakistan... which has nuclear weapons... almost had Mushareff assasinated this weekend. We're one car bomb or bullet away from having an extreme islamic nation with their finger on the button.
And the economy is in no way out of the woods yet.
11 months is a lifetime in politics.
Originally posted by Fran441
When I last saw Michael Dukakis, he said, "If I only hadn't got on the damn tank, you'd have never even heard of the Bushes."
If a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his ass.
Don't forget his Murdered Kitty (wife) answer.
Aries 1B
Originally posted by chu_bakka
He's very beatable.
Getting Saddam was a very good thing.
We'll have to wait and see what happens with the insurgents.
But all that has little to do with the war on terrah. Pakistan... which has nuclear weapons... almost had Mushareff assasinated this weekend. We're one car bomb or bullet away from having an extreme islamic nation with their finger on the button.
And the economy is in no way out of the woods yet.
11 months is a lifetime in politics.
Kinda can't help but note that, for your side to win, you (seem to) have to hope that bad things happen. Must get on your nerves, that.
Aries 1B
But this will probably end up as another Presidential election where you for for the lesser of two evils. So depending on who the Democratic candidate is, and how they handle the time between now and then, it's as much their election to lose as Bush's.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
He's very beatable.
Getting Saddam was a very good thing.
We'll have to wait and see what happens with the insurgents.
But all that has little to do with the war on terrah. Pakistan... which has nuclear weapons... almost had Mushareff assasinated this weekend. We're one car bomb or bullet away from having an extreme islamic nation with their finger on the button.
And the economy is in no way out of the woods yet.
11 months is a lifetime in politics.
At this point, the Democratic hopes are dim. The economy will almost certainly be perking along next year, and if progress continues in Iraq, the old issues of WMD will look mighty pale.
In fact, the only thing the Democrats can hope for is some new bloody terrorism, or out-of-control inflation and interest rates ? or maybe George being caught with a reborn Christian pre-teen?slim hopes though.
Of course, the democrats could run on ideology and policy: you know, tell the American people that they are for more taxes, the redistribution of income, bigger government, racial and gender quotas, and a smaller military. But I guess if they were honest ? NOW THAT COULD REALLY HURT EM!