Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Unseen Elephant In The Room (POLL)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-25-03 03:15 PM
Original message
Poll question: The Unseen Elephant In The Room (POLL)
Bush will lose in 2004 due to the desire of the corporate elite to replace him, and we should be focused tightly on uncovering who the CE intends to replace Bush with.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-25-03 03:43 PM
Response to Original message
1. This seems more and more likely everyday
Rightwingers are peeling off the Bush* pResidency. He is beginning to lose votes in the Senate.

The man has painted himself into a corner. What is he going to try to get out of it, more war? (probably) more tax cuts? (probably) The problem is that these just don't sell on the polls like they used to.

Over time as it becomes clear that Shrub is a dead end for them, they will seek out another vessel. I am suprized that so far no challenge from the right has materialized. It could still happen.

They may just try to co-opt a corporate leaning dem. Either way it bears keeping an eye on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flaming Meaux Donating Member (65 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-03 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #1
24. It's not critical yet.
Let Shrub's approval rating go below 40% and you might see it happen. Otherwise, the GOoPers are all good team players who will go with Shrub all the way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-25-03 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
2. Well, what Dem does the corporate media push the most?
That could be a clue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-25-03 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. The way I look at it. Any Dem the corporate media pushes
can't be good for the American people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seventhson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-25-03 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
8. The corporate media is pushing Clark and Kerry
But they have to amazedly report on Dean's success.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-25-03 06:03 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. AHAHAHAHAHA....The only time they talk about Kerry is to bring up Dean
and the horserace. Only someone completely skewed against Kerry could accuse him of getting most of the coverage let alone positive coverage from the media.

They try to bury Kerry at every opportunity. They have been for over 30 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
unblock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-25-03 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
4. dow DOWN
when was the last time a president ended his first term with the dow lower than when he started?

that's right, herbert i started the depression hoover.

the dow need to rise another 12% just to break even with where it was when he took office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-25-03 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Presidents and Job Growth (Job Loss in Hoover's and Bush's cases)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrBB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-25-03 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
6. Because what could be more helpful than to crank up the witch-hunt
...atmosphere around here? Ah yes, the quintessential leftist electoral strategy: slaughter our own so the other side doesn't have to trouble themselves.

I have my share of cynicism but I guess I don't reach for the tinfoil as easily as some around here. The question seems to suggest that getting favorable treatment in the media disqualifies any candidate. That's just silly. Can I gently point out that favorable media coverage is kind of essential to getting elected? As successful electoral strategies go, this sounds like a good suicide pact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-26-03 03:32 AM
Response to Reply #6
13. Oh, for the love of God.
Edited on Sun Oct-26-03 03:33 AM by Zhade
Seriously, get a grip. I'm not tinfoiling here. I'm asking a reasonable question.

What corporate high-rollers - the same people, mind you, who bankrolled Bush to set themselves up quite nicely - are going to keep around someone who will destroy the economy, thus destroying their sweet deal?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-26-03 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. not you
I wasn't referring to you. It was a generalization as I don't want to start flame wars.

Think about this though, regarding the back-up plan: Arrogance. Throughout this nightmare in our history the arrogance has been palpable. It has been and continues to be the achilles heel.

They didn't have a back-up plan becasue they didn't think they needed one. Ever. They were in. Got the courts the Congress and the WH. Better than being king even!

They are in a panic now.

In my earlier post where you asked who I was referring to, that would be the folks who so misread the situation. They think the BFEE is sitting around, relaxed and assured and not sweating election '04. I don't see it that way at all. I also think that the candidates whose campaigns are rocking in a big way heighten the fear of those currently in power.

Of course, supporters of candidates whose campaigns have not picked up much steam see it differently. ;-)

In the end, if we all work together for the same goal we'll be unstoppable. Here's to a mature unity! :toast:

Julie

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seventhson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-25-03 04:54 PM
Response to Original message
7. Clark, Kerry. Leiberman are the BFEE alternatives to Bush
There is NOTHING wrong with saying it.

It does NOT hurt these candidates in the general to SAY it (because right leaning dems will vote for them anyway - onlyu left leaning dems may stay home and THAT is unlikely too - we know the stakes)


Kerry WAS the BFEE candidate but hew was getting stomped so thay HAD to get Clark in.

He will get stomped too.

By Dean

Dean and Edwards will win.

Our chief worry should be that the VP candidate is not the BFEE selection which will ensure the assssination of Dean

This is what might have happened if Al Gore had won. Wellstoned.

So my candidate for VP is the winning ticket who is anticorporate from down home and from way back: Edwards.

They are not a perfect ticket but they are they are the perfect ticket to beat the BFEE.

No Clark

No Kerry

No Lieberman

YES YES YES to DEAN!!!!


And there is nothing wrong with saying it loud and clear.

Now flame me you bfee supporters ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TennesseeWalker Donating Member (925 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-25-03 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. VERY nice. Anyone who disagrees with you is BFEE.
We need you in the "New Liberal Media". You would kick some Republican azz.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Julien Sorel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-03 06:37 AM
Response to Reply #7
21. Yes, that's why the Right Wing hate machine
has been going full out against Clark since the moment he announced, while blowing kisses at Dean.

Let's see, the world accoding to 'seventhson':Kerry was going to assassinate Gore and take over the presidency; Clark was going to do the same to Dean; and both Kerry and Clark are members of the 'BFEE,' despite a complete lack of evidence for this, and in fact, a rather copious amount of evidence that the opposite is true.

Too bad they have these foolish rules against 'personal attacks' here; some people deserve nothing but personal attacks. Then again, some people attack themselves by the mere act of posting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ozone_man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-03 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #7
25. Yes, as far as I can tell.
Dean/Edwards may be the winner and the best for Dean's safety.

I think there is sometimes confusion as to some of Dean's pro-business experience, which includes utility and IBM dealings, but this is from a practical basis of getting things done and keeping jobs (IBM) in the state. He is not one of the corporate elitists, bought and paid for by insiders (witness his grass roots contributions and low dollars per contribution).

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowdawgdem Donating Member (972 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-25-03 10:10 PM
Response to Original message
11. the elephant is getting bigger and bigger
so while they want to replace him, it will not be so easy. I don't think Kerry is their pick, and think he would be a safe choice. Dean seems safe also, in spite of Rove's remark ("that's the one we want .")
It seems to me that Clark could be one of theirs- he's been in the loop for a long time, and might've brokered a deal.
If Lieberman were one of their picks, he might be doing better, getting more coverage. I think Leiberman, despite his alleged conservatism, is more of a moderate dem, and would move more to the left given the nomination.
I hate to sound really paranoid, but I agree with the person who worried that if the bfee pick were running as vp, there could be an assassination. I hope that isn't getting way out there, but once that slime attaches itself, it's really hard to scrape it off.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JNelson6563 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-25-03 10:14 PM
Response to Original message
12. Frankly I don't think they have
a second choice lined up. They didn't foresee the disastor Jr's reign would be. They are unprepared. I feel sorry for those among us who are so clueless as to not sense the panic and fear coming from the GOP these days.

Julie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-26-03 03:36 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Not sure who you're referring to.
Obviously not me, as I am well aware of both.

I do think it's asking a lot to think that the corporate elite wouldn't have a back-up plan. At the same time, perhaps they did, and it's already failing.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-26-03 04:26 AM
Response to Original message
15. Why would they want to replace him?
A "bad" economy for the working class isn't necessarily a "bad" economy for the "elite." Bush has done little but give corporations everything they could possibly want. Why would they want to get rid of him?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-26-03 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. he has become to controversial
Bush and the neocon gang obviously can't muster enough support amongst the US people. Also many businesses are not happy about what's happening to the economy.
Bush is expendable anyway and the neocons can keep exerting influence from behind the scenes, some can probably stay in lower positions in the admin.
I think they won't give up, just do a tactical retreat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eauclaireliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-26-03 06:12 AM
Response to Original message
16. What was the question?
That Bush will lose in '04 "...due to the desire of the corporate elite to replace him, and we should be focused tightly on uncovering who the CE intends to replace Bush with."?

Good luck. Most of the cretins he's been giving our money to are on their way out where U.S. laws can't touch them.

That being said, when his ratings get this low, you would be well advised to stay out of tall buildings. Don't put that possibility past them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zeemike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-26-03 06:43 AM
Response to Original message
17. They are happy with Bush
And I don’t think they have any intent to replace him.
But they do have a plan B that includes rigging the election to make it a “close victory” for W.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yellowdawgdem Donating Member (972 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-03 06:21 AM
Response to Original message
20. the fear and panic
that you have mentioned, yes that's clear. It's clear that they are having too many failures- the war in Iraq being the biggest, maybe. But isn't it a bigger worry on our part that they might do something quite extreme to hold onto their power. I mean, they are in a big panic, and I think that is my biggest worry at the moment. That they will do anything rather than relinquish power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Julien Sorel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-03 06:43 AM
Response to Original message
22. This is paranoid nonsense.
Edited on Mon Oct-27-03 06:43 AM by BillyBunter
I interact with people who are at a very high level in the corporate world; one of them is a confidante of Bush, and has helped his administration with several policy issues. Unless these people are incredibly good actors, they are behind Bush 100%, and are donating money to his election campaign at a record pace. That must be a smokescreen, though -- they really want him to lose, and the donations are just a cover.

You do realize that by propagating this kind of foolish trash, you are giving a black eye to the legitimate opposition? Or maybe you don't care?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atlant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-03 09:17 AM
Response to Original message
23. A possibility: Bush will be "assassinated".
I've made the claim elsewhere that I believe there is non-zero probability that Bush will be "assassinated by terrorists" before
the 2004 election. Cheney would then, of course, step up, appoint
a new VP, and immediately resign for health reasons, citing his
defective ticker and his desire to spend his last days "with his
family".

And the new Republican appointee, citing the recent martyrdom of
the Great Fallen Hero of the Republic, would win in a landslide,
just through the sympathy/solidarity/saphead vote.

Atlant

NOTE: This note in no way advocates harm to any current or future
persons. I merely note a possibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-03 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #23
28. My nightmare of the day...
Have been thinking BushCo. set themselves up for a hard fall by scheduling the Coronation in September in New York City.

There will be more than a million people minimum out to wreck the convention, in the city in which Bush is most hated, and with every incentive to attack the shameless exploitation of 9/11 - not to mention the official 9/11 story.

Have often thought this might be a good reason to have a new terrorist spectacular before then.

Today, however, I thought this might instead be a reason to fold on Cheney and bring in - hold yr. hats - Giuliani.

Shite!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-03 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
26. The results of this poll are...suprising...
Edited on Mon Oct-27-03 10:16 AM by Tinoire
Why would so many vote no?

Could it be that the supporters of the candidate most likely to be the Corporate Elite's replacement for Bush just want everyone to blindly endorse that/those candidate(s) when he's thrust as "The Contender"?

How very telling. How chilling that we have people on this board who would vote that there is no need to look for this!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eileen_d Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-27-03 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. That's not what the vote says, necessarily
The question was "do we need to focus on" - perhaps other people are choosing to place their primary focus elsewhere. The question itself was so vague to me that I didn't vote.

As for tryinmg to second-guess the corporate elite, I think it's good to keep an eye on who supports which candidates, but overall that kind of guessing game is not really worth my time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC