Is Bush's coup de grace of the New Deal going to be the hand-over of gov't

to a Democrat in 2004 who will drive America into a second Great Depression with Hoover-like budget policy, which will then lead to the election of Jeb Bush after beating the one-termer Democrat in 2008?

Who thinks that might be one of the exit strategies for Bush which could ultimately result in an even greater concentration of wealth in the hands of super-large corporations and which could stop in its tracks the Democratic Party's trajectory towards demographic dominance?

It would explain why he's overreaching in this administration so much, and I think it would explain why Newsweek is publishing a list of all the war dead. I just don't know why else all the media whores are spending so much time criticizing Bush lately.

Think about it. Bush's grandfather salivated over the possiblity of taking control of the government during the last Depression because they knew it was a tremedous opportunity to firmly implant their brand of fascism. Because they couldn't wrest control of the government from FDR, it has taken them almost 60 years to undo all FDR has done. But would be the final nail in the coffin? A Great Depression II blamed on the Democrats.

(And the way to stop this, incidentally, is to nominate a Democrat with a sensible fiscal policy resembling FDR...or at least a Democrat who seems to understand the urgency of the moment and that a second Great Depression just might be on the horizon.)

supreme confidence that they don't have to worry about re-election. Read into that what you will. I didn't vote in the poll because I didn't see an option that fit (I don't think you're paranoid).

I think you're giving them credit for way to much foresight and pre-planning with this scenario. The Bush criticism is due mainly because he's such a fuck up they just can't cover for him anymore, it's too obvious now to everyone.

A Democratic President in 2005 would move to tax the hell out of the wealthy if they were confronted with that kind of problem. No way the GOPigs want that.

from Republicans? I think that might be the real question.
The DLC has "packaged" the privatization of Social Security as "modernization". Corporations already have both of their hands in MY POCKET. I want no part of them.

would be able to fix it.

Is there an FDR in the crowd? If not, then W will be leaving the door open for Jeb to walk in in 2008. W doesn't even like being President.

I say, if a dem candidate starts running like FDR, and starts talking like FDR might have if he were running in this election, it will become a matter of urgency for Bush to win.

If a candidate runs who talks like Hoover, Bush might just take a walk.

Either way, we'll know what they're doing by observing the media. And the way the media is acting lately, I get the impression that they're setting us up for Great Depression II, out of which Jeb will bail us (so says the script).

Anyone see that article in which Jeb says that he won't be helping W out this election. See, he's already trying to set him self apart a little bit.

Think of it this way, the more there is to gain, financially and politically, the harder people think, and the longer range the plans.

What would give the Republicans the most power?

And c'mon, do you think W or Jeb is the one they want to turn into the Prince of America. W was the sacrificial lamb. He's laying the ground work for Jeb, I'm sure.

If they really wanted to win in 2004, they wouldn't have stood down on the terrorism defense until 9/03. If that happend this fall, W would have won easily next year.

But that was frontloaded, because they needed a justification for all the programs meant to bankrupt the country.

Now, suddenly, for the first time in three years, I can turn on the media and hear how bad things are going in Iraq. There's something very disingenuous.

Maybe I'm paranoid.

I think a far easier explanation is they not really concerned about winning elections anymore...Maybe I'm even more paranoid than you! ;-)

be outside the margin of theft.

I'm not saying this is THE plan. I'm just saying it's one of the exist strategies meant to result in a Jeb Bush victory in 2008.

:shrug:

They'd rather have Coked-Up-Frat-Boy win in 2004, legally or otherwise, then set up Jeb or whoever to take it again in 2008, 2012, 2016.

However, the scenario you've set up -- though not neccesarily a planned sequence of events -- seems to me to be quite likely.

Screw us now or screw us later, for them it's a win/win situation.

These people don't give a flying fuck about America, and will do anything to squeeze another cent from the bones of the working poor (and as far as they're concerned, the more working poor the better).

...before Jeb left office.

I just have to guess they want the economy to tank, and they don't want it to be while Bush is president, and they'll use Diebold to make sure the Republicans control congress so that the democrat doesn't do anything crazy like a ReNew Deal (with progressive taxation), and they'll let a Democrat take the blame, thus reversing what happened in the 30s, rusulting in 50 years of Republican rule.

Look at it this way, too. Why the held did only two Democrats run in 2000, but we have 9 or 10 running now? The word must be out that, just as there was no chance the democrats would win 2000, the Republicans aren't interested in winning 2004.

our friends but are friends of the oligarchs and neoconservatives.

Knowing that about the media has made me question why the media has been essentially acting as if Dean were the only Democrat in the race. I never thought I'd quote Joe Leiberman but perhaps it's because "a Bush recession would be followed by a Dean depression." Perhaps they think that a loss to Dean would let the Dems take responsibility for all the economic and diplomatic problems set in motion by Bush* -- and thus be easily followed by a GOP landslide in 2012.

Don't implode, Dean supporters. I'm not saying that Dean is partticipating in their plan but that they may be using him, seeing his candidacy as a good way to succeed even if they fail. I don't like his fiscal conservatism but they may see him as the perfect guy to play the role of the Dem president whose policies "fail." The failure would be due to them pulling strings behind the scenes to make everything come tumbling down, but who would know? The public would see a popular Dem, a guy who is supposed to be a straight shooter who knows how to govern, go down in flames, setting in motion a massive vote for the GOP.

In this scenario, Dubya gets to go back to Crawford (remember how it was leaked that he was threatening to do just that back before he started being allowed to play war?) Remember that it was said that Jeb was the one the family meant to have as president (but his wife's trying to bring thousands of dollars of goods into the country undeclared threw a monkey wrench in that)?
Jeb Bush is better looking and far more articulate than Dim Son and I suppose his record in Florida can't be much worse than Dubya's in Texas.

How do we fight this? Is there a candidate who can beat Bush* and not be run into the ground just to set up a reign for Jeb Bush? We had better figure this out very soon. Getting it wrong is not a luxury we have, an error to be easily corrected. It could end the Democratic Party.

I don't know the answer. I don't think Dean is the answer. I really balk at Lieberman. I love Kucinich's positions on all the issues but can't honestly say that he's the best one to fight such a scenario. Though he has experience in fighting corruption in Cleveland, he was also set up to take the fall for Cleveland's loans going into default when he kept his promise not to sell the city utility. Ultimately, Cleveland benefited but in the sort term, but Dennis lost his campaign to be re-elected mayor. Could he keep history from repeating itself?

Kerry has a history of uncovering corruption directly related to the BFEE while holding on to his Senate seat. Does that make him the best choice? Again, I don't know, and I don't know about the other candidates, either. Edwards decided yesterday not to run for re-election to the Senate, which is a huge decision. Does he think it's such a critical race that his Senate seat is unimportant in the greater scheme? Graham was governor of Florida before he was a senator so he has experience managing a state's budget (and I believe it was in good state before it was Bush-whacked.)

I think our first step should be to determine whose budget proposals make the most sense.

Does anyone really think that after all their disassembling of so many laws and protections, and the massive power grab of the executive branch, that they would EVER turn these controls over to a democrat?? They did this smash & grab robbery "for keeps".. The sheer determination and desperation of Florida proved to me that they meant business.. Add to that, the "in your face" stuff that they did immediately after the "installation", and it proved to me that the * administration meant business and we were all along for a scary ride.. I was not wrong..

If , by chance, a Dem gets elected in 04, he will undoubtedly be "clintonized" from day-one and unless we somehow get control back of Congress, his term will be miserable.. The severe damage caused by this crew is not the kind of damage that can be "fixed" without a lot of pain .. The repubes HAD to have their taxcuts, knowing full well that we could not afford them.. They needed them , not so the people could get money back, but to set the stage for their ranting and raving when a sensible person finally comes along and says.."We need to generate soome money, and there's only ONE way to do it"..

The problem that we have always had with the repubes is this.. THEY think LONG TERM...and the Dems seem to think election-to-election.. The repubes were patient and even though it took 30 years, they did manage to take over the media, and it has paid off magnificently for them.. They now control the spin, and have they eyes and ears of "murka".. They plodded along, and now they control the house and the senate, and the judiciary.. It took years, but they have more "think tanks', than the brainpower necessary to fill the tanks..

They have essentially "run the table" and they have everything in place to combat a democrat in the white house, if necessary.. They did it before to Clinton, and they can do it anytime they want.. They are content to work behind closed doors, to get their agenda through, regardless of who is in charge..

have the executive or not, more or less.

I also think Republicans are at a make or break moment. They are up against a serious demographic shift which threatens their hegemony, and they can't rely entirely on Diebold to counter the trend (Diebold is only one piece of their puzzle).

They're obviously desperately trying to destroy public education, and keep as many people out or college as possible (low levels of educational attainment translate to voting Republican).

But what they really need is a moment in history which tars Democrats for two or three generations, and a savior of FDR-like proportions. I just bet their lining Jeb up to be their FDR, and they still need a Democratic Hoover, because Clinton wouldn't be that guy.

They "shamed" Clinton into the welfare "issue" amd Nafta & Gat & WTO..
They have pretty much dismantled everything they can get their hands on.. Once the public education system is thrashed beyond repair, and the social security system is robbed beyond repair, they will have all the pieces in place..

Unions are weakened now, lawyers have been demonized (unless one of them needs a lawyer), teachers have been demeaned, doctors have been made out to be the fall guy, instead of the greedy insurance companies, and we all know about the phony energy crisis that has been made a permanent feature of our lives..:(

This stuff does not just "happen".. The richest amongst us are always too ready to destroy what little the middles & lowers have managed to grasp.. They know that no matter what happens, THEIR families and closest buds will be fine.. They are all about taking what everyone else has, and adding it to their loot..

That's what the recall out here is all aboout.. Bush has been "starving" California since he took office.. Once his little puppet is safely ensconced in Sacramento, he will turn on the "magic spigot", and Ahhhnold will "appear" to have saved the day.. It's all about appearances.. They have even said as much.. "The president does not want to "appear" to be........." etc..

If Bustamante manages to pull it off, or if the recall actually fails, California will continue to be at the top of the GWB ShitList.. They will turn their attention to 04, and ballyhoo the fact that they "offered" us a chance in 2003, and we better get it right the next gubernatorial election.. It's extortion.. Vote for OUR guys, or we will screw you every which way to Sunday..

In the The Clinton Wars, Blumenthal describes how the Democrats had to decide how to spend the surplus. They dismissed out of hand the idea that it would go back as tax cuts. They figured, the economy was stoking along, so it was time to take some off the top and use it to fertilize the ground to encourage more growth. They decided that the best thing they could do, the thing which would make Americans happier and wealthier, and the thing that could potentially remove a big weapon from the Republican arsenal, was to shore up social security.

This is the last bit of the New Deal they want to get rid of. They need to find a way to privatize social security, which could be justified by ballooning deficits.

In the future, as the deficits get really big and threaten the economy the argument could be that the govt. just cant afford to be in the social welfare buisiness anymore, forcing the privatization of SS and medcare.

While we've had political dynastys before, having a Bush come in right after another Bush would be maybe too much for folks to stomach.

Just the other day, people here were voting on which Republican they'd vote for out of Reagan, GHWB, and a few others.

Democrats here at DU were making arguments for why GHWB wasn't that bad.

I wanted to slit my wrists.

I would bet 10000 dollars that 4-8 years after W is gone, Jeb will run, and he'll get a lot of people leaning his way because they'll think, hell, he's experienced. He's been president twice before.

have the executive or not, more or less.

I also think Republicans are at a make or break moment. They are up against a serious demographic shift which threatens their hegemony, and they can't rely entirely on Diebold to counter the trend (Diebold is only one piece of their puzzle).

They're obviously desperately trying to destroy public education, and keep as many people out or college as possible (low levels of educational attainment translate to voting Republican).

But what they really need is a moment in history which tars Democrats for two or three generations, and a savior of FDR-like proportions. I just bet their lining Jeb up to be their FDR, and they still need a Democratic Hoover, because Clinton wouldn't be that guy.

i mean, i know this isn't anything near a soundly working democracy, but another bush in office would hopefully be unthinkable after dubya is ousted next year.
then again, you'd have probably thought the same thing back in '92.

....to starve government by running up huge deficits.

I think another time bomb would be if the GOP gets to appoint a conservative judiciary.

We have Republicans on the benches who have a 1950s world view, and who are trying to take the country backwards. It's sick.

The USSC of that time voided alot of early regulatory legislation.

I can see that is where the GOP would like the judiciary to be at, philosophically speaking. That way they can deep-six any future Democratic policy initiatives that involve economic intervention and regulation.