Would Bush win a third term?

[Burgold]

If term limits were removed and Bush were eligible to run:

Would he be the Republican candidate
Would he win in a general election

[Fergasun]

Hahahahahahaha... he wouldn't even win the nomination... close the thread....

[twa]

I 'd vote for him over the other two.

[USS Redskins]

Sure - if Katrina never happened and ithe Iraq & Afghanistan wars were done in 2005 or 2006..... But, no way now.

[Chants]

No and No.

[Burgold]

poll is up. I think he would do better than some think. I think he would win the Repub nomination and lose in a squeaker in the general.

[jpillian]

I think not, on both accounts.

It is an interesting question, though. The election season and even his un-popularity (the GOP is certainly not trying to do anything to salvage his image) is all predicated on the fact the incumbent not running.

BTW -- the word is incumbent, not incompetent -- though perhaps either may work in this context...

[Burgold]

I think not, on both accounts.

It is an interesting question, though. The election season and even his un-popularity (the GOP is certainly not trying to do anything to salvage his image) is all predicated on the fact the incumbent not running.

BTW -- the word is incumbent, not incompetent -- though perhaps either may work in this context...

That's part of what I'm curious about. Never underestimate the power of incumbancy. People tend to drift towards the familiar even if they are dissatisfied with it.

It's the devil you know is better than the devil you don't mentality. That and Republicans are impossibly brand loyal.

[bschurm]

I doubt he would lose to Obama. But there is no way he would have won the nomination within his own party. And yes, I would vote for him over Obama. I wish his brother was running. At this point I think Jeb is the most qualified to run this nation.

[JohnLockesGhost]

No and No.Not just no. Hell no.

[Larry]

Well, I think a few things would be different. But yeah, I think he'd be the nominee. And he'd have a chance.

A lot of the dissatisfaction with W that you're seeing on the Right is because the Party recognizes that

The People aren't happy about whet they've done.
W can't run again.


Therefore, the strategy: Claim that everything was Bush's fault, and things will be different if you put the GOP in uncontested control of the government again, except for that one person.

IMO, if W were running again, then what you're be hearing instead of "W isn't a true conservative (like us)" would be "well, this wouldn't have happened if we'd been in uncontested power for eight years instead of only six." And, IMO, a lot of people would be perfectly willing to swallow that one.

(As evidence, I'd point to several of Kilmer's latest.) :)

[Redd]

Honestly? Yeah he would wound the Republican nomination for the third straight time. He'd lose the Presidency though imo.

[Larry]

For you folks claiming he wouldn't stand a chance:

What do the people know about W, right now, that they didn't know 4 years ago?

[JohnLockesGhost]

Well, I think a few things would be different. But yeah, I think he'd be the nominee. And he'd have a chance.

A lot of the dissatisfaction with W that you're seeing on the Right is because the Party recognizes that

The People aren't happy about whet they've done.
W can't run again.
I can only speak for myself, as a registered Republican, but that isn't me. Of course, I've never voted for Bush. (I might have in 2000 if I lived in a more competitive state.)

[JohnLockesGhost]

For you folks claiming he wouldn't stand a chance:

What do the people know about W, right now, that they didn't know 4 years ago?

Two words: economic meltdown.

[Burgold]

Two words: economic meltdown.

Come on, you saw that coming. There were signs everywhere for years that we were living in a deck of cards.

[Larry]

[/list]I can only speak for myself, as a registered Republican, but that isn't me. Of course, I've never voted for Bush. (I might have in 2000 if I lived in a more competitive state.)

I'm not referring to the rank and file Party members. I'm talking to the people who decided two years ago what spin they were going to be using for the next two years.

[Fred Jones]

I really don't want to hear anything for two years if Obama is elected. The current president has so messed things up you have to give anyone a chance to make it better regardless of who they are.

So, Bush just needs to go. Not ride off, but just plain shut up and go.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Come on, you saw that coming. There were signs everywhere for years that we were living in a deck of cards.While I knew that continuing to fight a war on enormous sums of borrowed money would lead to economic disaster, I still didn't know how much longer the war would last and how much it would cost. Those costs are now becoming known not just to me, but the general public.

[Hooper]

If the Dems nominated Kucinich...

Maybe.

[Burgold]

While I knew that continuing to fight a war on enormous sums of borrowed money would lead to economic disaster, I still didn't know how much longer the war would last and how much it would cost. Those costs are now becoming known not just to me, but the general public.

Maybe. But I remember forecasters saying that oil above 40 dollars a barrell for a sustained time would damage the country. By '04, we were at twice that. Then there was the housing bubble (check that, that may not have been obvious to '06) that everyone knew was going to cause a mess. Fannie and Freddie were having issues already. If you looked even beyond Iraq and China, there were signs everywhere.

[Teller]

Burgy, I love ya man, but this is just an utterly stupid question. :laugh:

(NOTE: My opinion of the poster's question in NO WAY reflects my opinion of the poster.)

:cheers:

[Larry]

While I knew that continuing to fight a war on enormous sums of borrowed money would lead to economic disaster, I still didn't know how much longer the war would last and how much it would cost. Those costs are now becoming known not just to me, but the general public.

You mean to say that four years ago you thought we were winning the war?

[Burgold]

Burgy, I love ya man, but this is just an utterly stupid question. :laugh:

(NOTE: My opinion of the poster's question in NO WAY reflects my opinion of the poster.)

:cheers:

Really? I'm surprised you feel that way

I'm getting an evil sort of joy from this thread. I know I shouldn't, but the fact that exile is trouncing all the other options tickles me.

[JohnLockesGhost]

You mean to say that four years ago you thought we were winning the war?Well, I thought four years ago the costs might be containable given a prudent strategy.

[Teller]

Really? I'm surprised you feel that way

I'm getting an evil sort of joy from this thread. I know I shouldn't, but the fact that exile is trouncing all the other options tickles me.

And it should.

You guys were right. You win. You should be proud of the fact that you saw this coming.

Unfortunately, even though you were right, you still lose, right along with the rest of us.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Maybe. But I remember forecasters saying that oil above 40 dollars a barrell for a sustained time would damage the country. By '04, we were at twice that. Then there was the housing bubble (check that, that may not have been obvious to '06) that everyone knew was going to cause a mess. Fannie and Freddie were having issues already. If you looked even beyond Iraq and China, there were signs everywhere.Signs, sure. But there needs to be more than mere signs in order for the general public to take notice and vote accordingly.

[GibbsFactor]

You mean to say that four years ago you thought we were winning the war?



We won the war 4 years ago.

[HogNose]

No way would he win the nomination. Hell no....


http://www.newsgroper.com/files/post_images/the-angry-mob.png

[Burgold]

And it should.

You guys were right. You win. You should be proud of the fact that you saw this coming.

Unfortunately, even though you were right, you still lose, right along with the rest of us.

Yeah, that part sucks. Luckily, I still believe in the U.S. and believe she is strong enough and resilient enough to survive and recover from this. Part of me fears it may take ten years though.

[Teller]

Yeah, that part sucks. Luckily, I still believe in the U.S. and believe she is strong enough and resilient enough to survive and recover from this. Part of me fears it may take ten years though.

In one of SHF's threads about a year-and-a-half or so ago, I predicted a second great depression. I remember basically being laughed out of the thread. It's not that bad yet; but we're headed in that direction.

And I'll tell you what. If we go to war with Iran, and oil goes over $200 as projected in that scenario, unfortunately, I'll be right.

[Burgold]

It's not impossible. The next President will be absolutely hated if they do any of the things needed to right the course. I think we all will have to pull together too. We may need to change our very infrastructure and lifestyle and that's bloody hard to do.

[Larry]

Yeah, that part sucks. Luckily, I still believe in the U.S. and believe she is strong enough and resilient enough to survive and recover from this. Part of me fears it may take ten years though.

I don't see this country even starting to recover any time soon.

If the D's win, then they're gonna announce that it's payback time, and that they're entitled to do all the abuses that W did, because well, they're just getting things back even, again.

If the R's win, then it'll be validation that the voter's really don't object to all the Philly they've been pulling, and they've got the green light for another administration or two. (And since the D's will have been in Congress for two years, they'll even be able to go back to the old "everything bad that happens is the Democrats fault, we're not responsible for anything" routine.)

In other words, while I think it's possible that the economy may get better. (But unlikely, IMO. The Fed's been fixing the leaky levee that's protecting our New Orleans economy with chewing gum for years, now, and I don't see the level of the storm surge going down any time soon.) But I don't see the country's ethics getting any better for a long time.

[Larry]

In one of SHF's threads about a year-and-a-half or so ago, I predicted a second great depression. I remember basically being laughed out of the thread. It's not that bad yet; but we're headed in that direction.

And I'll tell you what. If we go to war with Iran, and oil goes over $200 as projected in that scenario, unfortunately, I'll be right.

Yeah, I remember several threads where people kept assuring me that ARMs were really great, and that heck, if their payments doubled a few years down the road, then they'll just refinance. And anybody who said otherwise obviously just didn't understand reality.

[Larry]

It's not impossible. The next President will be absolutely hated if they do any of the things needed to right the course. I think we all will have to pull together too. We may need to change our very infrastructure and lifestyle and that's bloody hard to do.

I have this fantasy where McCain gets elected, and he figures that heck, he's not gonna live long enough to run again, anyway. Therefore, he doesn't care if people hate him, and he decides to grit his teeth and Do What Needs To Be Done.

[Burgold]

I don't see this country even starting to recover any time soon.

If the D's win, then they're gonna announce that it's payback time, and that they're entitled to do all the abuses that W did, because well, they're just getting things back even, again.


Here is my unreasonable hope, Larry. Obama carries the Jackie Robinson banner and therefore, it's not just important that he win, but that he does things the right way and is good. Being black, therefore, will put an added pressure on him to try to get things right and make a good precedent. I am hoping that that will be enough incentive to change things... to do things in the interest of the country versus the interest of the party or in the interest of revenge.

It's a slim hope, but far better than the hope McCain offers, because Congressionally it will be seen as a get out of jail free card or validation of what they've been doing.

[JohnLockesGhost]

I have this fantasy where McCain gets elected, and he figures that heck, he's not gonna live long enough to run again, anyway. Therefore, he doesn't care if people hate him, and he decides to grit his teeth and Do What Needs To Be Done.Like bomb Iran AND Syria?

I think you properly categorized that as a fantasy, Larry.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I have become quite gloomy in the past year (hey, everything a mentor said to me has come to fruition in the last 3 years) but this thread is downright absurd

Cheer up guys, at least you do not live here

http://filebox.vt.edu/users/smadni/20%20guys%20on%20a%20truck.jpg

[Teller]

It's not impossible. The next President will be absolutely hated if they do any of the things needed to right the course. I think we all will have to pull together too. We may need to change our very infrastructure and lifestyle and that's bloody hard to do.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm talking out of my ass here, and can't adequately support my own postition, but....

This is why I think our grandparents' generation had it right. And us? Not so much.

There was a sense of nationalism. A sense of "we're all in this together." They, as a generation, were able to unite in the face of any foe; be it a foreign power or domestic economic woes.

They were a generation of great faith, not just spiritually, but faith in themselves and their fellow man -- their fellow Americans. They believed they could make this country (and the world) better and they rolled up their damn shirtsleeves and did it.

How bout us? What are we doing to fix things? We're bitching and moaning about how much "I" have to pay for gas, what the oil companies are doing to "me," and how frustrated "I" am with my overall economic situation.

There's no "us" anymore. There's no "we." After 9/11, "United We Stand" was a great slogan, but ya know what? That's ALL it was.

A few months later it was back to partisan bickering and selfishness. There was never any unity behind our operations domestically or internationally. We cared more about not offending EPWs than our own people having their heads lopped off.

Our grandparents had it right. There was no sympathy for the nazis during World War II. And "collateral" damage was a sad fact of war. We were strong. We were proud. We stood with our Allies and defeated the foe.

We had the fortitude to stomach the necessary evils of winning back then. We don't have the fortitude to worry about anyone but our damn-selves anymore. And that's a shame.

It's funny. As a nationalist and a Christian, I would've fit right in with my granddad's generation. Today, I'm a xenophobic whacko.

But look at history, and tell me which generation had it right.

[PokerPacker]

how did this thread make it to 3 pages?

[Burgold]

There's no "us" anymore. There's no "we." After 9/11, "United We Stand" was a great slogan, but ya know what? That's ALL it was.

A few months later it was back to partisan bickering and selfishness. There was never any unity behind our operations domestically or internationally. We cared more about not offending EPWs than our own people having their heads lopped off.


I think you're right. And I think that is one of the blunders of Bush that people don't talk about. When he said, "go about your business," He blew it. He had the nation unified and ready to listen. He should have said,

We are embarking on a war on terror and it will take all of us. We will have to pull together. You may not enjoy some of the sacrifices, but it is necessary and it will bring us to a better future.

And you know what? In 2002, everyone would have bought that. If he would have said that we needed to raise taxes to pay for a war against Afghanistan and Iraq, we would have with minimum grumbling. If he said, we need to ration oil, because we need to stop paying blood money to the terrorists. SUV's would have become a thing of the past, and the nation would have dove head first into becoming green.

This nation is an odd mix of individuality and brotherhood. We are a selfish, arrogant bunch of egoists, but when asked we almost always come through. Bush had the ultimate opportunity to ask for a huge change and he squandered it.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I think you're right. And I think that is one of the blunders of Bush that people don't talk about. When he said, "go about your business," He blew it. He had the nation unified and ready to listen. He should have said,

We are embarking on a war on terror and it will take all of us. We will have to pull together. You may not enjoy some of the sacrifices, but it is necessary and it will bring us to a better future.

And you know what? In 2002, everyone would have bought that. If he would have said that we needed to raise taxes to pay for a war against Afghanistan and Iraq, we would have with minimum grumbling. If he said, we need to ration oil, because we need to stop paying blood money to the terrorists. SUV's would have become a thing of the past, and the nation would have dove head first into becoming green.

.

So conversely, if he had said we need to reduce all non-military discretionary spending as well as entitlements, would the nation have done that?

If he said, we need to drill for more oil here at home so we don't need to get it over there, would the nation have done that?

Sacrfice can be a 2 way street

[Larry]

how did this thread make it to 3 pages?

The usual.

Multiple hijackings. :)

[Burgold]

So conversely, if he had said we need to reduce all non-military discretionary spending as well as entitlements, would the nation have done that?

If he said, we need to drill for more oil here at home so we don't need to get it over there, would the nation have done that?

Sacrfice can be a 2 way street

Yeah, I think he could have got that too. I really do. There'd be some mild grousing about it, but I think we were together enough and ready and eager to be unified against the enemy that he could have even gone after the third rail and gotten away with it.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Yeah, I think he could have got that too. I really do. There'd be some mild grousing about it, but I think we were together enough and ready and eager to be unified against the enemy that he could have even gone after the third rail and gotten away with it.

I disagree. There were already grumblings when we into Afghanistan

By the new year, the "unity" was poof, gone, and the D's were trying to pin Enron's collapse on Bush as well as the falling economy

I'd even say, once Bush finished his 9/20 speech, the partisanship quickly returned

Here, September 27th

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/rec.congress.aviation/index.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TRAVEL/NEWS/10/04/rec.airline.security/index.html

[Burgold]

Well, we'll never know, but we do know that there was very little Congressional challenge to Iraq. There was almost no Iraq investigation in the media. Bush had power and he had the majority and a historically high approval rating. I think he had the chance to do something enormous.

And he did... but he did it in the most timid way possible.

[Hubbs]

Let me preface this by saying that I'm talking out of my ass here, and can't adequately support my own postition, but....

This is why I think our grandparents' generation had it right. And us? Not so much.

There was a sense of nationalism. A sense of "we're all in this together." They, as a generation, were able to unite in the face of any foe; be it a foreign power or domestic economic woes.

They were a generation of great faith, not just spiritually, but faith in themselves and their fellow man -- their fellow Americans. They believed they could make this country (and the world) better and they rolled up their damn shirtsleeves and did it.

How bout us? What are we doing to fix things? We're bitching and moaning about how much "I" have to pay for gas, what the oil companies are doing to "me," and how frustrated "I" am with my overall economic situation.

There's no "us" anymore. There's no "we." After 9/11, "United We Stand" was a great slogan, but ya know what? That's ALL it was.

A few months later it was back to partisan bickering and selfishness. There was never any unity behind our operations domestically or internationally. We cared more about not offending EPWs than our own people having their heads lopped off.

Our grandparents had it right. There was no sympathy for the nazis during World War II. And "collateral" damage was a sad fact of war. We were strong. We were proud. We stood with our Allies and defeated the foe.

We had the fortitude to stomach the necessary evils of winning back then. We don't have the fortitude to worry about anyone but our damn-selves anymore. And that's a shame.

It's funny. As a nationalist and a Christian, I would've fit right in with my granddad's generation. Today, I'm a xenophobic whacko.

But look at history, and tell me which generation had it right.

Your granddad's generation...


Believed separate was equal, Jim Crow laws were perfectly fine, and professional sports were the domain of white men only.
Somehow managed to get back to good ol' partisan bickering in a jiffy, when Republicans ran a 1952 campaign that focused largely on the Democrats involving us in an unnecessary war that was going nowhere... in Korea. Oddly familiar, eh? Ten years later, that same generation would get us involved in a much bigger mess.
Thought that whole "sense of nationalism" thing was cool, as long as you weren't Asian-looking, because those people clearly can't be Americans and should be locked up as long as we're fighting other Asian-looking folks.
Spent several years accusing anyone who thought red was a nifty color of being a Communist, and acting accordingly.
Generally regarded wife-beating as a necessary part of domestic life.
Didn't give a rat's ass about "standing with our Allies" or "making the world better" until we were attacked, too.
Is constantly glorified for fighting a war that was different than the one we're currently fighting in virtually every way, and it makes me chuckle.
Which generation had it right again?

[Larry]

I disagree. There were already grumblings when we into Afghanistan

By the new year, the "unity" was poof, gone, and the D's were trying to pin Enron's collapse on Bush as well as the falling economy

I'd even say, once Bush finished his 9/20 speech, the partisanship quickly returned

Here, September 27th

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/rec.congress.aviation/index.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TRAVEL/NEWS/10/04/rec.airline.security/index.html

'Course, when you're pointing fingers at how partisan things were, you point to those pesky Democrats saying that we needed to form the TSA. Looking back on things, were they wrong?

I also recall how those pesky Democrats were able to shove the Department of Homeland Security down the GOP's constantly-objecting throats. (Who, when it became obvious that they couldn't kill it, decided tha the next best approach would be to slip some union-busing into the bell so that the Democrats would have to vote against it, then claim that it was their idea, all along.)

Other things I recall from those days just after 9/11:

I remember a Republican Senator stating, on the floor, that in his opinion the highest priority the Senate had, the #1, first response to 9/11 should be: The repeal of the Capital Gains tax.

I remember the airlines, who had been losing money before 9/11, deciding that their response to 9/11 would be to cut the number of flights, raise fares, and ask Congress to reimburse them for the fact that their business was off. (And the GOP thought this was a good idea.)

-----

OTOH, Congress was unified on one thing. The PATRIOT act just flew through Congress.

-----

Still. IMO, the People were pretty unified. OK, Congress acted like a bunch of headless chickens. Anybody expected better?

[Rdskns2000]

No. If there no term limits in 2000; Bill Clinton would still be president and maybe running for a 5th term.

[Larry]

No. If there no term limits in 2000; Bill Clinton would still be president and maybe running for a 5th term.

The Dow would have passed 24,000. And the Republicans would still be claiming it was all because of Reagan.

[dcnativenerd]

I'm going to say this once and only once.




Are you ready?



HELL NAW!!

[Destino]

Obama would crush him. He beat Gore and Kerry... those two don't come close to Obama. Watch how badly McCain loses, those expecting a close race are going to be surprised.

I wouldn't be surprised Bush winning the nomination, Bush was a known quantity and he still had very good GOP turnout. Do republicans want to pretend he's some rarity in their party? He's a symbol of what republicans stand for these days.

[youngestson]

I 'd vote for him over the other two.

Have you been paying attention?

[DoGood28]

I would vote for him if for no other reason than to send all of the whiney democrats running for Canada.

[Hooper]

I would vote for him if for no other reason than to send all of the whiney democrats running for Canada.

Good reasoning. Re-elect one of the worst presidents in history out of spite.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

Clicked the wrong one :doh:

I honestly think he would be chased into exile.

And then every GOP politician would be beaten in the streets for allowing it to happen.

[Thiebear]

Sitting President easily wins the primary.... as he run un-opposed.
(See why Hillary does not want Obama to win for 2012).

Current President with experience with 8 years and Pink/Peach skin wins in 2008.

[Chief skin]

if mccaiin wins, the answer to the question is yes, if mccain loses the answer is no. Obviously I think most of the nation views mccain as mcbush more of the mcsame.

[PeterMP]

He's win the party nomination simply based on organization. I can't believe he'd win the general election. I'd be giving money to the other guy to help ensure that he'd lose.

[Winslowalrob]

And it should.

You guys were right. You win. You should be proud of the fact that you saw this coming.

Unfortunately, even though you were right, you still lose, right along with the rest of us.

I would rather watch the US go out in a blaze of retardedness knowing that I was right all along :).

[scuppajones]

Worst President Ever!!

[DoGood28]

I would rather watch the US go out in a blaze of retardedness knowing that I was right all along :).

Congratulations! You just summed up all Democrats in one sentence!]

:applause:

[Burgold]

Congratulations! You just summed up all Democrats in one sentence!]

:applause:

witty, humorous, sarcastic, clever who even when speaking simply operate at a level that's beyond the intellectual capacity of 90% of the people who vote Republican?

Man, DoGood. That's not a nice thing to say about your party. I'm not even sure I would go that far.

[DoGood28]

witty, humorous, sarcastic, clever who even when speaking simply operate at a level that's beyond the intellectual capacity of 90% of the people who vote Republican?

Man, DoGood. That's not a nice thing to say about your party. I'm not even sure I would go that far.

He said it, not me. He was just brave enough to say out loud what the D's are thinking.

[cannonshogs44]

I voted for him twice.....no way in hell that im even that dumb to vote for him again

[artmonkforHOF]

you forgot the "lose election, then have Daddy, Jeb & the GOP fix that problem" option in your poll. I would have voted for that one.

[JimmyConway]

For you folks claiming he wouldn't stand a chance:

What do the people know about W, right now, that they didn't know 4 years ago?

It's true.

Sadly he would probably win a third term because his politcal advisers are amazing at what they do. Rove would scare the country into thinking that voting any other way would cause among others: the terrorists to win, the death of innocent unborn babies, and homosexuals to marry all across the country.

[eagleskins]

Tyrone Bigums would beat Chimpy in an election, and I would have no problem with it.

[Kosher Ham]

No way. He has blown this thing.

[SpringfieldSkins]

He'd easily win the republican nomination. He'd lose the general election by a landslide. I didn't see that option up there, so I just voted tarred and feathered by an angry mob. I don't see how republicans could vote against a current president in a nomination bid. He would get pummled by whoever ran against him even Hillary. It pains me to say that, but Hillary would defeat Bush in a presidential election right now.

[Burgold]

Yeah, I realized that about ten posts in, but you can't edit polls. I think that may be one of the reasons the exile option is so popular.