Conservative Columnist: expect Bush to lose handily to Dean, Clark...

[wyldwolf]

I certainly don't agree with most of this writer's points, but he does make a few sure to make a few republicans gnash their teeth...

Further indication the rats are jumping a sinking ship?

Three years into his presidency, George W. Bush is beginning to resemble the antithesis of his predecessor.

We conservatives usually celebrate the contrast. We shouldn't.

If Bill Clinton is a flawed man, he was an effective president.

Bush is a fine man and a flawed president.

Any way we examine the numbers, Bush's fiscal record is simply irresponsible.

Therefore, a crucial contrast between Clinton and Bush should be noted: Clinton won re-election; Bush is likely to be a one-term president.

He can still win if both the economy and Iraq improve dramatically in the next 12 months. Otherwise, expect Bush to lose handily to one of the three most likely Democratic presidential candidates: Howard Dean, Wesley Clark or Hillary Clinton.


http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/opinion/6970396.htm

[Dogmudgeon]

1. Excellent catch!

I have a feeling we'll be seeing a massive defection from the Church of Neoconservatism over the next few years. And as painful as yesterday's electoral circus outcome in California was, Arnie has established himself as a Republican non-NeoCon, a beachhead for non-Fascist Right.

I welcome this trend. I may not believe in either branch of Republicanism, but better Schwartzenegger's version than Tom McClintock's, or George Bush's.

--bkl

[wyldwolf]

3. I'm not going to defend Ah-nold, but he has said ONE thing I like...

...on the Hannity show, he said that during Clinton's impeachment he was ashamed to be a republican.

[Dogmudgeon]

10. It's not just Ahnold

Schwartzenegger is just the first major player in what will become the reform movement in the GOP.

I also think it is possible -- and if the GOP implodes over a major Neo-Con scandal, likely -- that he will become a Democrat.

Keep in mind, this does not absolve him from his behavior towards women, which has ranged from boorish to violent, and he'll have to answer for it every step of the way, as he should. And he's going to have to come clean about his drinking buddy Ken Lay, too. I'm confident that Tío Cruz won't let that issue go unexplored.

But there's been way too much fear and loathing over the victory yesterday. All liberals and progressives should actively encourage this new breed of Republican over the Neo-Cons. The scenario we ought to encourage is: Reformed Republicans vs Progressive Democrats. With the Progressive Democrats winning, of course.

You don't have to be a fan of Arnie ... just a fan of a vibrant, workable political dialectic, not the high-tech Fascism we've had to deal with in our GOP politicians since 1980. Schwartzenegger, warts and all, is a start. Even though we lost the election, we should keep pushing for our over-all political goals. And if we can bend Der Gropinator to do our will, 's'alright!

--bkl

[AP]

15. He's still going to make sure the rich get richer off the backs off...

the poor aand middle class, by the way.

[Kookaburra]

2. Have I missed something?

Did Hillary declare her candidacy? I haven't heard anything about that. I have to say, however, that it would be the sweetest revenge if monkey boy were to lose to Hillary. Just the thought makes my day on this rainy Thursday.

[wyldwolf]

4. No, republicans generally believe it is a given... part of a master plan

[Skwmom]

5. If it's Dean

I'll bet terrorism takes front and center and Dean will go down in flames.

[9119495]

6. Here's where you are wrong

You assume this president will still be perceived as being strong on terrorism when he's not. Dean's message about inspecting what comes into this country (cargo containers, etc.) and building broad coalitions against terror will resonate well. If Iraq is still in shambles, the president will seem even WEAKER.

Did you just pull this out of your butt or do you have something to back up your assertion?

[JNelson6563]

9. you are so right

Bush has proven he doesn't play well with others. His recent speech at the UN deomstrates he sees no need to.

Fighting terrorism requires good international relations and Dean has made it very clear that he understands this and intends to do something about it. Like not be an arrogant fool when dealing with other nations.

Apparently Babs "beautiful mind" Bush forgot to tell Jr. that you catch more bees with honey than with vinegar. Of course we all know how bitter she bleeds so no surprise here.

Julie

[Dogmudgeon]

11. Here's what may be up Bush's butt

Dubya, his dad, and their political gang (Europeans would call it a "tendancy", but the word "club" might be better) are fond of engineering events, of "letting things happen", and it's their long record that leads many people to believe that Bush was complicit in the attacks of 9-11. They have even written about using this strategy, which is found in subpoenaed messages from the Iran-Contra investigations in the 1980s, to the PNAC foundation documents (page 63 of Rebuilding America's Defenses at http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf). The PNAC lists no fewer than ten documents on their website invoking the attack on Pearl Harbor. This stuff has obviously been on someone's mind(s) since at least 1997.

My major fear about terrorism is that the next time Bush & Co. allow a "Pearl Harbor" to happen, it will, once again, be much more devastating than expected. The next audacious attack could as easily be with nerve gas, coordinated strikes on communication/network systems, or the detonation of a nuclear weapon, if this administration really does take a "let it happen" approach.

Even a minor attack in late summer or early autumn of next year would assure Bush of a second term; a 50-kT nuke (like the ones Pakistan has) detonated in Manhattan or Hollywood would assure Bush of the dictatorship he has joked about dozens of times.

--bkl
:tinfoilhat:

Edited for typo(s)

[TreasonousBastard]

21. On the other hand...

it could show that after two wars, the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, and everything else, he was still not able to protect us.

They blew it allowing the first attack to happen, and then still couldn't get it together.

What else could happen during a second term?

[lovedems]

25. I think another attack would kill Bush's chances of another election

Call me weird or out of touch, but wounds are still healing 3 years after 9/11. He has driven home his need to protect america from threats. If he fails to do so, I think he will fail to get re-elected. I would like to think people wouldn't stand for another catastrophe on Shrubs watch. Especially since has worked so hard to divert the threat from Bin Laden to Hussein. We all know that al Queda is more of a threat than Saddam ever was.

[clar]

7. You're right about

Dean's weakness being his foreign policy credentials. That can be mitigated by his having a running mate who has strong ones. On the other hand, Clark's lack of domestic policy credentials (sorry a degree in economics doesn't cut it) is increasingly a problem for him, particularly if the economy continues to sink. Just as Dean needs someone to balance his ticket, so does Clark. Don't ever underestimate the importance of economic issues. Really, the candidate most qualified to be president is Kerry. I just don't think the guy can win against bush.

[wyldwolf]

8. you speak truth about Kerry...

[Skwmom]

13. I don't hink that a VP can shore up someone viewed as weak

on defense. The media will constantly state that it is the president who is the commander in chief, not the vp - Dean would be the one calling the shots not Clark. This mantra will be constantly repeated to the masses and based on the way things are going with enough marketing the masses will buy into almost anything.

[0007]

12. Please give us some logic as to why

you think that Dean will go down in flames if elected?

I don't understand anyone making a statement like this!

[Skwmom]

14. Why Dean will go down in flames.

c1. The perception of the Democratic party is that it is weak on defense. Like it or not that is the perception.
2. Dean, as a candidate, has nothing to offer that would refute this perception. For example, the guy avoided the draft with a back problem and then hit the ski slopes. He actually would make Bush's awol status a non-issue.
3. The media will make sure to reinforce the perception of the Democratic party (and hence Dean) as being weak on defense.

I can imagine the Repub ad campaign now: "Dean the Weenie," © "We like to eat weenies (weiners), not elect them to serve as commander in chief."© Imagine a picture of a guy dressed up in a wiener costume holding up one of these signs (and that picture splashed on the front page of every newspaper, repeatedly shown on cable, etc.)

© - copyrighted.

on edit. Maybe "Deenie the Weenie" © is a more catchy phrase.

[Gringo]

16. That's a pretty flimsy scenario

That all but ignores the massive appeal Dean has to voters once they've heard him speak. You're gonna have to do a lot better than that. I'd venture that you're either a big-time Dean-hater, or a sad defeatist. I don't have much time for either of those.

[Skwmom]

18. If you're hanging your hat on Dean's speaking ability

I'd adivse you to brace yourself for four more years of Bush.

No I'm not a Dean-hater (though I do think he is another phony politican - hate is to strong a word) or a sad defeatist. I'm actually someone who would like to see Bush lose in 2004.

[9119495]

23. You're still wrong

Just who do you support? That might help us understand why you see a Dean victory as impossible. In any case, you have not argued your point well. A Dean plan to inspect all shipping containers entering America, and a proactive response to terrorism will sell--especially if people are not working! There is more than just security in the minds of voters. Its sad to say, but many people don't even think about 9-11 anymore. It is a distant memory as forgetable as the election of 2000, the Clinton impeachment, Iran-Contra. If there is another attack, there are two outcomes--1. Bush is blamed for not protecting us, or 2. people rally around the pres again (if this is the case NO dem will win).

[Kool Kitty]

17. Do you really believe that?

I don't see where W has made us much safer. Do you feel safer? I don't. I don't feel any safer than I felt on September 10, 2001. What do you think is in place that makes us any safer? Unrestrained Justice Depatment activity? I don't see how Mr. Dean would make us any less safe.

[Skwmom]

19. Yes I strongly believe this.

Which is why Rove is salivating at the thought of having Dean as the Dem nominee. It will make the economy and other screw ups by the Bush admin irrelevant.

[w4rma]

20. I very very strongly believe you are wrong, Skwmom.

And unlike yourself, I can back myself up with reasons as to why I very very strongly believe you are wrong.

[kodi]

22. "Bush is a fine man and a flawed president."..??? that's only half right.

notice the continual insistence that bush is honest and that only his "honest" mistakes will cost him.

that is an amazingly false narrative and is exactly the image that the right wwing want to cultivate about bush.

bush's voodoo economics was not a mistake. his policies were carefully crafted to help achieve specific goals, viz., transfer of wealth to the upper class.

in this, he and his minions used false information, corrupted processes, and outright lies.

he did it with foreign policy too.

[Bandit]

24. "Bush's fiscal record is simply irresponsible"

Ya Think????