I think it is better to lose in 2004 than lose in 2008, 2012 and 2016.

[CoffeePlease1947]

People in here may call me a freeper. But I don't care. I think this needs to be brought up.

So what if we win in 2004 with a candidate that cannot fix the clusterf*ck Bush has made. We have to be careful. Bush will do a lot more damage to the nation before January of 2005. It is entirely possible that we nominate a candidate that wins in 2004 because Bush is such a loser and f*ck up but cannot win in 2008 because the problems were too difficult to fix.

We also have to remember Carter. Carter inherited some major economic and foreign problems from the Nixon and Ford administration he could not fix in time to be reelected. As a result it followed 12 years of Republican rule. Now we are facing problems caused by the Reagan administration.

If we nominate a candidate that can beat Bush in 2004 but cannot fix the problems in time for the 2008 election a Republican will get in and we may be doomed for another 12 years.

I think we have to very picky about who we nominate otherwise we may fall into the same trap that screwed over Carter in 1980.

I am not suggesting that we don't win. I am just suggesting that we be very careful about who we support and that they are capable of not just defeating Bush in 2004 but can show some improvement in Iraq and the economy so that we can win in 2008 and 2012.

What do yout think? Do we have any candidates that can fix the Bush messups by November 2008, this elephant is leaving us a big pile of shit to shovel?

Mike

[Classical_Liberal]

1. Why won't he cluster fuck the country till 2008

then?

[TheYellowDog]

2. I, for one, am not gonna

call you a freeper. You make some very good points.

[CoffeePlease1947]

8. thank you

I have read many of your posts in here and I think me and you think a great deal alike in some ways.

Mike

[comsymp]

3. Seems to me that

we can't afford not to win in '04. As badly as these criminals have f***ed us in less than 3 years so far, I don't want to even imagine what they could accomplish (!?) in 8....

Besides, it only took Clinton what, 5 years to turn around much of the 12 years of damage under Raygun/Poppy.

ON EDIT: I think it may be entirely realistic to believe that * has made it possible for Dems to win in '04, 08, 12 AND 16.

[meti57b]

6. exactly!

[AntiCoup2K4]

4. I think I get the point you are trying to make, but....

....I'm afraid it's not the same as what Nixon/Ford left after their 8 years or what Uncle Ronnie and Poppy did in 12. Junior has outdone his father's damage in less than one term. We can't afford 4 more years of this. I don't expect that the next President will be able to resurrect the country within 6 months, especially with a Repuke Congress, but the alternative is far far worse. Four more years of this Criminal Empire, and there won't be an America left to save.

[meti57b]

5. I see your point, but the bush administration is creating ....

one disaster after another and it would be of considerable benefit to just stop adding to the list of disasters, even if the previous ones are not completely fixed.

[AndyTiedye]

19. If We don't Win the 2004 Elections There WON'T BE ANY 2008 Elections

2004 is our last chance to get our country back, if it isn't too late already.

[FredScuttle]

7. We lose in '04...

and there may not be a 2008, 2012 and 2016.

Seriously, after the Patriot Act, the attempts by Bushco to squash dissent and the utter zeal exhibited by GOP thugs around the country attempting to overturn legal elections, I'm beginning to think that the administration's next move will be to suspend elections due to "national security concerns"

[CoffeePlease1947]

10. It might just be prolonging it though

LOL, I know what you mean. But I think much of the Patriot act will be knocked down in 2006. I know of many Republicans that even oppose that.

I not advocating that we succeed the election. Just that we think about 2008 when we nominate a candidate in 2004 to ensure we keep the repukes locked out for a while.

Mike

[WindRavenX]

25. I think the PATRIOT ACT expires in '04

Which makes it even MORE important to get Democratic control of Congress and/or the White House.
IF we lose the White House, we MUST take Congress; for Bush has been sadistic now, but when he has '04 and doesn't need to prepare for another election, truly, then, the worst will come.

[Sick of Bullshit]

24. Absolutely-- 2004 will be the most important election ever

If the pretzeldunce comes out on top, we are going to be truly fucked

[paulsbc]

9. no offense

but that is just a stupid idea. unless we take the country back now, in 04, who knows what kind of fucked up world we will live in come 08.

it just isn't logical to want to NOT WIN???

[CoffeePlease1947]

14. I am not saying lose in 04', I am saying vote so we can win 08' as well.

Do you understand what I am saying? We need to think when we vote in 04' and ask, can this person win also in 08', can they improve the Bush mess in 4 years? If not, we should nominate someone else. In other words, better to win with 51% of the vote in 04' and 55% in 08' rather than win in 04' with 55% and lose in 08' with 45%.

Mike

[AndyTiedye]

26. Not Good Enough

> better to win with 51% of the vote

If we only get 51% of the vote, we lose. We learned that in Election 2000.
We need more than that. A lot more. Where the new voting machinez are in
place, they can steal as much as 16% of the vote and get away with it, as they
did in Georgia in 2002.

The only way Bush can lose, is if he is the most unpopular pResident in our history by Election Day.
Of course, if the people learned the truth about him, he would be. Then we wouldn't be talking about the election, we'd be talking about impeachment and the Repubs would be clamoring to get on the bandwagon. We'd be debating whether to try him here or send him to the Hague.

[Lindsay]

11. No offense, but no way.

Another 4 years of this gang of thieves and there will be nothing left to salvage.

[Kool Kitty]

30. I couldn't agree more, Lindsay.

Four more years of Bush also means four more years of Ashcroft, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Norton, etc. No way. Besides, if these fools get four more years, the only people that will still have jobs will be them. No fuckin' way. Oh, and welcome, Lindsay. :hi:

[calimary]

12. This "cakewalk cabal" has been an unmitigated disaster for this country

and we can NOT afford it.

Besides, ONE THING IS SURE TO HAPPEN when - NOT if - Bush is defeated. With him out of the way, the world community is going to be FAR more amenable to dealing with us, because we will have someone in command who's far more likely to want to play ball with the UN and not insult our allies and friends. And, knowing some of our allies, I'd bet they'd be all the more willing to cooperate with ANYBODY BUT BUSH, if nothing else, just to show him up - and add their own insult to injury.

So right away, the complexion of the woes we are in, regarding the rest of the world and the need for UN help in Iraq, would change 180 degrees. I predict the international community will be eager to pitch in once Bush is gone. I think that's a message they're eager to send, even now.

So, while the next president won't be able to fix everything, he's bound to make a dent in the damage done. Hopefully, by then, people will be so soured on the rethug rule that they'll vote LOTS of the bastards out along with the Bastard-in-Chief.

[AP]

13. If a Dem doesn't win in 2004, you might as well kiss America goodbye.

We'll be living in a banana republic.

[lcordero]

16. we already live in a banana republic

[CoffeePlease1947]

18. We could win in other areas too you know.

We are close to taking the Senate in 2006. We could get some big gains in 2004 as well in the house and senate. But we need to be thinking about 2008 in 2004, not just 2004 in 2004. We have to think ahead or we will lose.

Mike

[lcordero]

15. The Dems can put a lot behind them if they were to give

shrubbo*, all of his misadministration and enablers over to Hague. This HAS to happen and it needs to happen in 2004 or 2005.

This is why it's important not to elect a Bush* enabler or somebody that is equally slimy. If I find a Bush* enabler on the ballot then I WILL walk away from the ballot box.

[Dr Fate]

17. because democracy will be destroyed by 2008...

...at least as we know it-

Four more years of disasterous neo-conservative policies is not the answer.

[gmoney]

20. It'd be the same problem in 2008

If you're suggesting the Democrats lay down and hand Bush the re-election just so he can let things get worser still, that's kind of like the old joke about sending the guy with a cold to go stand out in the rain, because we can CURE pneumonia.

Yes, whoever has to follow Bush is going to have to clean up his mess, but the mess is going to be exponentially worse if Bush wins and runs roughshod until 2008. Even if democrats produce and elect some combination of Churchill, FDR, Ghandi, and Abe Lincoln in 2008, it will be nearly impossible to clean up the * legacy mess by then.

Provided elections haven't been outlawed by then.

And, if through some bizarre twist, the Iraq mess is cleaned up by then, and we've installed "democracy" in Iran, Syria, and Afghanistan, and managed to rewind the ME to the days of the Shah, the Right will use that to "prove" that the treasonous Democrats were wrong all along. Then it's President Pickles, or President Jeb, etc.

Of course, there's always more to the story than we'll ever know. Someone on here pointed to the Saudi Royals paying a visit to Moscow for the first time in years, and possible ramifications of them shifting allegiance from the US to Russia. If that's not just a "conspiracy theory" but ends up being reality, and BushCo know about it it now, maybe they see gaining control of Iran and Iraq as the only way of ensuring the flow of oil to the US to keep the economy going, once the Saudis have thrown us out.

I'm reading Martin Amis' book on Stalin "Koba The Dread" and he points out that "theocracies are meant to work. Until then I thought that repression, censorship, terror and destitution were the price you had to pay for living by the Book. But no, that wasn't the idea at all: Koranic rule was meant to bring you swimming pools and hydrogen bombs. Collectivization, similarly, was meant to work."

...and I guess Bush's policies might be meant to work as well. But I guess it depends on who the policy is working for.

[CoffeePlease1947]

28. Good points

I see what you are saying about 2008. But people can link it to Bush and would understand it was Bush. Had to link problems to 2008 when 12 of the last 16 years were held by Democrats. Most of the BushCo members blame Clinton for problems now. Lots of people buy it because Clinton was President for 8 years and Bush Sr. was only 4 years and further ago. I agree wholeheartly that things would get really bad by 2008 if Bush were reelected. However, we would not take the blame for it. I also think that Repukes can do huge damage in 2008-2016 then they will between 2004-2008. Also, they will have better technology to control us as well. I agree it is a big gamble.

I think the solution is to vote for someone in 2004 that can win in 2008 as well.

Mike

[gristy]

21. I have certainly given some thought to this before, Mike

but I've decided that if shrub wins in 2004, there just may not BE any United States (as we know it, anyways) in which to hold a friggin' election in 2008.

[pansypoo53219]

22. if we lose in 04'

there ain't gonna be a america left to save. we will be 3rd class lookin for a revolution. I think Bushit will have this country so low by Nov. 04', the USians will GLADLY submit to the relief of SANITY.

[Terwilliger]

23. *GAAAAAAAAAAAASP*

:hi:

[w4rma]

27. No. That's what Nader said in 2000. And now you say it in 2004 and

someone else will say it in 2008, then 2012, etc. etc. Then folks will be saying it's not so bad to have a rubber stamp Congress, a Royalist judiciary and a King with Corporate feudalism ruling the nation... at least they take care of (most of) us.

Quit procrastinating doing what you know needs to be done now.

[janekat]

29. Unfortunately, you are probably right....

however - there will most likely be a BIG turnover on the Supreme Court in the next few years. There's about 3 or 4 who are about ready to retire. We can't afford to get any more Clarence Thomas' on the court.

No Republican that we could get in the future could be anywhere as bad as Bush....

If the race was Reagan vs. Dubya in 2004, I'd be campaigning for Ronnie.

[Lindsay]

32. Janekat,

I hate to tell ya this, but we thought the same thing about Nixon.

Won't get fooled again.

[tinnypriv]

31. DEAN is your man

http://www.upi.com/print.cfm?StoryID=20030814-021549-5681r

WASHINGTON, Aug. 14 (UPI) -- Clinton Democrats who fear the rise of Howard Dean will McGovernize their party anew have the picture exactly back to front. For 35 years, Democrats have been increasingly marginalized in national U.S. politics. Dean is the best long-term hope they have of changing that, even if he loses.

...

A Dean candidacy, even if he loses, could carry the same hope for the Democrats that Al Smith did for them in 1928 and Barry Goldwater did for the Republicans in 1964. He can launch the process of a long-term dramatic shift in national political alignments away from the old, long-dominant party and to the advantage of the long-minority one. Even if Dean cannot win in 2004 -- and it is far too soon to proclaim that he cannot -- he may therefore be the essential ingredient to prepare the way for decisive Democratic victory in 2008.

...

[DemBones DemBones]

33. Dean could be another failed president. We need to win but we

need a Dem who'll succeed as president, not one who's looking down the road to what he wants to do next.

Dean is very focused on, perhaps obsessed with, balanced budgets. That could be dangerous. I'm all for getting the budget back in shape but there's a lot more to fixing this mess than just balancing the budget -- things to do *first. Like get out of Iraq, restore foreign relations with all the countries W's pissed off, save Social Security and Medicare, get universal healthcare, beef up environmental regs and EPA's power, beef up OSHA, restore jobs, repeal NAFTA, et., etc.

[tinnypriv]

35. I agree

I'm actually closer to the views of Kucinich, myself. :)

Personally, I happen to believe Dean will be the next President of the United States. I've always thought that since at least May.

[CoffeePlease1947]

36. I agree!

But I put more focus on the foreign policy stuff. Clinton tried to fix the domestic stuff. That didn't work because you need to work with greedy republicans that block domestic policy. A President has a great deal of power with little input from the US Legislature on foreign policy. That is where we need to start.

Mike

[CoffeePlease1947]

34. Interesting concept.

To be honest. I think Dean can win the nomination in 2004 and the election. But I don't think he would be able to fix the problem Bush caused in 2001-2003. This is a diffcult thing to do.

I think Dean is very very good at domestic policy. I also think he does a good job with tapping into the anger of the Democratic base. These are both good things. But Dean's time is not now. I think he needs some more experience with foreign policy and some fine tuning of his ego and public speaking skills and after things are fixed on the foreign relations, then Dean will be ripe for picking.

Mike

[sandnsea]

37. Aaaaagh!! Nooo!!!

I can't even imagine the possibility. I can't take 4 more years of this. If he's done this much in 3 years, think what he'd do in 4 more!!!

[CoffeePlease1947]

38. There are more Bushes in the fields my friend

Would you prefer 12 years of Jebby and Prescott Bush or 4 year of this Bush and no more ever!?!

If we can't fix Bush's f*ck up in four years we got 12 more years of the Bush family.

Just make sure you vote for a candidate you are 99% sure of that can win again in 2008 or we got Bushes until 2020. I would rather f*ck myself for 4 years than the whole world for 12.

Mike