Bush is irrelevant

I haven't seen this point talked about too much and I just wanted to throw it out there. I would be as happy as anyone if Bush's numbers fell to 5% and the vast majority of the country came around and saw the light. But even still, Bush can't run for president again. If the incompetence, arrogance and corruption of this admin isn't transferred to the Republican party as a whole, no amount of new found lack of confidence in Bush by the American people will help the Democratic party.

It's more important now than ever for democratic leaders to stand loud and tall with an unwavering moral voice. The republican party itself must become toxic, not just its current Boy In Chief.

This post is dedicated to Nancy Pelosi, who I've known about for a while, but only recently have I fallen in love with her. She's imo a shining example for all dem members of the house and senate, not to mention progressives everywhere.

else. He plays a role - just like a "political advance man does". There is nothing there of any value. No information, no governance, no nothing.

I'm not suggesting taking the heat off Bush. I just wanna make sure we're spreading that heat around.

I do look forward to sending them back to their fringe cracks, but agree - the whole cancerous cabal needs to be exorcised from the body politic if we are to survive as a democratic republic.

seeing what we can dig up?

For example, I sure would like it if JEB got a little Bush-licity from this fiasco, and we certainly shouldn't let Condosleezy get away scott free either.


My dream?

1) an FDR clone.
2) Some combination of Bayh/Clarke/Edwards (I think Clarke could pull the evangelical voters who voted Republican in 00 and 04. Bayh would take Indiana. Edwards is so...personable, like JFK. I'm trying to think like the common conservative christian voter here, because I think they are the "swing vote")

The DNC is going to have to think really long and hard about the candidate they put forward. The horse needs to run long and hard and needs to run to win.

My fears?

1) Hillary Clinton will win the primary. Don't get me wrong. I like Hillary. Unfortunately, I'm not 51% of the US. Unless Oprah Winfrey is her running mate, she will not win - there are too many men who hate women and too many women who think women should not act lik Hillary, and too many conservative christians who have a bad taste in their mouth from the Clenis. Heck, the Republicans could run Trent Lott against her. I would like to see Hillary run in 2012 - maybe with Obama.

2) The Republicans will run someone really moderate like McCain or Rudy G. Frankly, in any other environment other than a post-Bush one, I might be tempted to vote for McCain or Rudy if I didn't like the Dem candidate's platform.

-unless

Just because he doesn't snort the party line 100% of the time it doesn't mean he's not ultraconservative.

I agree with you about Hillary. I feel generally good about her, but I don't think the odds are very much against her ever winning the White House. Not only does she inspire a lot of insane ranting from the right, but she's really not that good of a campaigner. From where I sit, she tends to appear pretty stiff when she speaks in public.

Welcome to DU! :toast:

How about brainpower instead of teeth this time?

Haegelin was in the movie "What the bleep do we know?" which I haven't seen yet but for a tidbit (Oh and not as a "movie star" but as a thinker)

All that I know about Kucinich is that he's more liberal than Dean.

And if I can channel my inner freep for just a second:
1) More liberal than Dean isn't going to get more swing votes
2) Two unrecognized names (that are hard to pronounce) aren't going to get any "Hey, I know that guy" votes
3) fiscally more liberal than Dean is great. Socially more liberal than Dean is going to make people twitch.

To elaborate on #3 - That's killer bad. There were hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people who did not vote for Kerry because he supported abortion. I can't tell you how many emails I got about it. Instead of saying "I'm pro-choice" the candidate should refuse to define and should say something softer like what Hillary Clinton is saying - but even further (Abortion isn't the problem, unsafe sex is - fix that & you fix the STDs too). Any of the twitchy liberal social stuff (including ballot measures - people were going to the polls just to vote on the anti-gay stuff) needs to be left for 2012.

Wow. Channelling my inner freep is getting hard. It must be going away. Yaay!

I think the reason why many may want so much attention brought to the complete negligence and gross incompetence by Bush is because he seems to walk away unscathed from thoughts, decisions, and actions that he has made that have been so detrimental to many people not only in the US, but across the world. The Repubs hounded Clinton as if he was the devil himself because he had sexual relations with a woman other than his wife and then lied about it; as you remember, they wanted him impeached for this. Whereas, Bush can cause the death of THOUSANDS and still not get cries for his impeachment.

But that is just my $0.02.

-VI

and welcome to DU! :toast:

I'm glad that I'm not too far off base and can obtain some agreement amongst others. :)

-VI

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

:)

-VI

that means fighting everything they try to do, even if you lose. It means exposing Roberts and fighting him; the estate tax, etc. It means getting to core issues--that Bush doesn't give a shit for the average person in this country. It means linking Bush to the GOP as a whole and painting them ALL as against the needs of this country...

well said.