Republicans unsure of Bush's chances for 2004 election

Posted on Sun, Oct. 05, 2003

Republicans unsure of Bush's chances for 2004 election
By RON HUTCHESON and STEVEN THOMMA
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - In a sharp reversal, Republicans who just months ago daydreamed about a 2004 election landslide now worry that President Bush is losing control of events at home and abroad and faces a real chance of leading the party to defeat.


At home, anxiety about the economy is escalating and respect for Bush is sinking. His domestic agenda has stalled in Congress.


Abroad, troubles in Iraq and Afghanistan have eroded Bush's traditional Republican advantage on foreign policy. His calls for international help in Iraq have gone unanswered. And in both countries, Americans continue to die in guerrilla attacks.


There is time, of course, for both situations to improve, and with them Bush's prospects. But for now, Bush has work to do avoid his father's fate: defeat after one term.

more................

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/6926616.htm

*

Wouldn't that be great ? Just so Bush has to spend money in the primaries.

http://blackboxvoting.com/bbv/bbv_chapter-2.pdf (PDF file)

I am counting the minutes until he and his whole shitty band of pirates are GONE!!!!!

His cell mate Bubba prefers to have his partners s little more intelligent than him. Bubba likes to have stories read to him at night, he doesn't like to do the reading to his cellmate. Rove better break out the flash cards and see if he can get Georgie up to speed.

:)

there is a lower limit you know

To chat with the legions of DU'ers who feel Bush is invincible.

"the country still has nearly 3 million fewer jobs than when Bush took office."

Bush is going to sink mighty fast by election time. There should be 4 million jobs lost by November, 2004. Any Dem will win against Bush.

that when the monthly EU #s came out Friday and we didn't go up to 6.2% but remained at 6.1%, with claims of a net gain of 50-some thousand jobs the market skyrocketed. Of course the sharks moved in for some profit taking near the end but still left considerable gains.

It's a sad thing to see rejoicing at the fact that things are bad, and not really getting any better, not any worse (today at least) but again, not better. Remember when America seemed much greater than it does now?

*sigh*

Julie

of political favor. Lesson #1: Never count your "chickens before they are hatched". A lot can happen between now and November, 2004.
Rim-publicans know that Bush's most vulnerable spot is the economy and jobs. If enough people feel he has failed them on these two issues, they will flush him.

Lesson #2: If you screw people by mortgaging their future with "Don Quijote" type wars, send their children to die in them, lie about the reasons for doing so, indirectly cause 3 million people to lose their jobs, you DESERVE to lose.

ETERNITY.

It means more dirty tricks. They'll spend lots of money on operatives in every aspect of politics. From rigged machines to "fake mobs" to planted stories....it will get very ugly.

The more desperate the BFEE becomes, as Chimpy's numbers drop, the more likely we are to see manufactured "crises" home and abroad.

I don't think my tinfoil hat has gotten too tight.
Has it? :tinfoilhat:

I'm no tin-foil hatter and as I was reading the article all I could think is that they will stage another terror attack. :scared:

It would pretty much put paid to the one thing that Bush can claim - there have been no further terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 911. He'd like to take credit for that. At least two of the leaders in the Democratic primaries are by definition more qualified than Bush to handle any type of attack on our nation. If either of them get the nomination, or perhaps even if one of them is the VP candidate, that should completely nullify any advantage Bush would gain from increased fears about national security. He'll be left with two main advantages - money and the incumbency. Those are formidable advantages, but we can overcome them, especially if the administration continues to cooperate by being so incompetent and just really bad at their jobs.

Bush's major (only) real selling point is that he's the nation's protector. If terrorists attack again, people's perception of Bush will be that he is an incompitent boob.

Which is what it should be.

I'll put on my tin hat for a moment and "conspirarize" that for Bush Co, LLC to pull-off more crisis home and abroad, it will take the help of the one agency that the White House seems intent on burning... the men and women of "The Company" up the river in Langley.

If I were hatching dark plots in McClean, I'd be sure that they were the kind that embarassed the White House rather than helped keep them in office. The neocons in the Administration have basically wrecked the credibility of the Agency for years to come with their stupid antics and childish finger-pointing.

Now George Will has gotten in the act by trying to shift blame to CIA.

I'd wager that Karl and Dick and Paul will get little help from wet ops folks there.

Sounds like the plot for a LeCarre novel, doesn't it?

Imagine yourself as a CIA employee.

Imagine you've just got wind of a group of assorted terrorists who have a viable plan to turn the White House into a pile of rubble.

The occupants of the White House have attempted to kill one of your coworkers and are doing their level best to destroy the ability of the company to conduct business.

How much effort are you going to put into thwarting the attack plan?

Plain and simple!!!

:bounce: Now thats Hard to believe

Bush is just a figurehead now anyways. PNAC and Cheney have been running the country the whole time.

Who might be another front man they put up once Bush becomes unpalatable?

McCain. Already known to be corrupt and has ties to PNAC.

Tom Delay. Enough said.

"But for now, Bush has work to do avoid his father's fate: defeat after one term. "

Technically, Junior was defeated BEFORE one term. I thought I might point that out, ummm, just in case any journalist still cares about accuracy or the facts...

ON EDIT: The journalists in this story also have a typo in the sentence I snipped, above. Requires an additional "to" in order to make sense...