Is Bush invincible

Not invincible, by any means. I feel I'm pretty much the grass roots registered Republican, and I don't like him. At the moment, I don't like anybody else for the job, either.

The incumbent can't avoid his own record and we have that damn steel tariff. Ineffective as it was, it was not especially endearing to the conservative mentality. There is the tariff on Canadian timber. Neither issue supports the generally conservative support of free trade. There are major civil rights concerns involving the responses to 9/11. Justification for the Iraq invasion is looking weaker by the day. There is Richard Chaney.

Still, the incumbent is the man to beat, and it is always an uphill fight. As always, the biggest strength of the Republican candidate is the devisiveness of the Democratic party. To my mind, anyone making a prediction at this point has about an even chance of being called a prophet.

I agree with you, Rog. I am not happy with Bush, and I am not happy with the Democratic candidates either. I went to:

http://www.selectsmart.com/president/

Wanted to see if there was ANYONE who would satisfy me, based on my political leanings. Nope. The highest scores that any candidate got from me was in the area of 55%, which is not very definitive.

Oh, well, Here we go again. I think that I will need to decide who is the "least worst", like I did in the last election!

Un huh. Sure wish I could vote for a candidate, instead of just against the one I perceived to be the worse.

At this point IMO Mr. Bush is the worst, worst. Although I am not enamored by the overall democratic field IMO the present front runners are head and shoulder above the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

I should add in many ways voting is almost like picking a pig in a poke. We vote for a candidate based upon our perception and hope and lies he tells us of how he will perform in office. Unfortunately once elected there is no way to hold his feet to the fire particularly if his party holds sway in congress.

I am a conservative registered Republican, though I call myself a Federalist. I dislike the Shrub, and believe that his Vice-Presidential choice is a decided handicap. I haven't any bones to pick with this administrations handling of the War on Terrorism, or the Iraqi affair. The economy has been getting better, though the unemployment situation remains troublesome. In the last year I've recovered most of the value of my securities investments, and expect to recover the whole before the end of the summer. On the other hand, health care is pretty important to us seniors who have increasing health care concerns, and no way to keep pace with rising costs.

The President is not invulnerable. A lot of people feel misled in vamping up to Iraq. We, the American Electorate, have a habit of dumping even succesful and popular administrations. The last election was the closest in modern times, and it wouldn't take very many votes to shift the balance from one Party to the other. The fundamental problem with unseating this Administration is the Democratic Party's habit of shooting itself in the foot, arms, and even on occasion in the head.

It is beginning to look as if the Democratic candidate will be one of the leading contenders after February 3rd. That is: Kerry, Dean, Edwards, or Clark. Edwards is a pretty face with an appealing personality, but he sorely lacks experience in either elected office, or in the military. He would make a good Vice-Presidential candidate, but I can't see him able to attract enough swing voters to be elected. Clark is almost the exact opposite, having no popular political experience. His difficulty in transitioning from military to civilian leadership is painfully obvious in his campaign. Clark is also something of a curiosity, his best card is his military experience yet he is running on anti-war issues. The smart Democratic Candidate might want to line Clark up as Secretary of Defense, to help attract the votes of those who want a strong military, but want someone less hawkish than the incumbents.

Far more probable are Kerry and Dean. Dean has experience as a Governor, and Kerry comes with a fine Senatorial record. Dean's shrill (I know that's a loaded term, but..) stance against this administrations responses to 9/11 is unlikely to draw many conservatives, or even liberal, republicans to his banner. Dean seems to me to be always on the verge of losing it, not the sort of thing I like in a President. He's great at organizing the masses and raising money, but those aren't the characteristics I look for in a President. Without military experience, I think he would be over his head in Washington almost immediately. I firmly believe that any significant change of course in the War on Terrorism, or in Southwest Asia, would be disastrous to us as a nation. Dean's populist appeal isn't what the country needs in our present circumstances, but rather a strong, firm hand that will exercise leadership among nations.

Kerry, in my opinion, is the Democratic candidate most likely to draw the swing votes necessary to defeat Bush. He has first hand knowledge of military affairs, and has been involved in national politics long enough to know how to pull the strings. Though I disagree with a number of his stated policies, I like the man's apparent character and steadiness. He is a candidate that might even get my vote, and would certainly have my full support as a new President. Of course, I would support any of the other Democratic candidates should they win office, but it would be reluctant and with much more skepticism than a Kerry Administration.

The election is still far to distant in the future to make predictions yet. If Bush doesn't stumble, and the Democrats are able to select a candidate capable of drawing independents and less than enthusiastic Republicans, the Democrats have a shot ... but it's a very long shot indeed.

It's all about electability. I am happy that so far voters have seen that Dean is not the first choice given that one elephantine criterion. Many Dean apologists tell us to discount Dean's "I have a Scream" speech and just chalk it up to the passion of the moment. But I fear Dean has demonstrated far too much uncontrolled emotions in far too many moments. Manifest in his behavior is contempt for not only our President as a "neighbor" but his actions that must at least be given the benefit of the doubt and interpreted as an honest indicator of good intentions. I don't like Dean's mean spiritedness; it shows an inner weakness perhaps due to an internal feeling of inferiority. His physical stature dwarfs that of his intellectual smallness.

Not Crazy about W, makes me long for the devil I don't know. I don't think the more conservative wing of the GOP is too happy with his deficit spending but perhaps this can be used later to take pot shots at a Democratic Administration in the usual paint job of "Tax and Spend". Good ammunition to later cut Federal spending on entitlements.

I've always like Lieberman but we can't always have what we like. There is something almost Truman like lurking in this guy, but maybe it's me. So, yes, Kerry = Electability. Seems the Dem's guy but we will see.

I have felt for a long time that Bush has the upper hand but the victory in Iraq is becoming ever more distant while a mixture of bombs and internal strife loom large there. This administrations version of an Iraqi Marshall Plan is rather bizarre. Perhaps the present administration should hype some of the good news out of Afghanistan (Agreed upon constitution).

JM

I think Bush's approval can only weaken or stay relatively the same til election time, more likely I think weaken. The next Budget is already looking ominous, deficit too, the Dems will hammer this more than Iraq and Bush has not been smart to give them this fuel for the fire by his spending frenzy, not that the Dems don't have spending on their minds.

Of the Dem cadidates regarding spending, all propose increases in their plans, the lowest Lieberman at 169billion, the highest of $1.3 trillion a year for Al Sharpton. All want overturn Bush's tax cuts, which would only put about $135 billion back in the budget (and that's not counting any reduction in tax revenue caused by the resulting economic slowdown). So each Dem candidate would increase the budget deficit. John Kerry, would increase the deficit by about $130 billion a year.

The Dems can't prove anything one way or the other about going to Iraq, Bush will make his case and it will be for the voters to decide not the Dem nominee. The Dems are in a quandry because they would really like a committee study on the Intel leading up to the war but that would surely push any advantageous results past election time, too late. So all that's left is to try to convince enough voters that Bush misled us into Iraq, that has a 50/50 chance of working IMO.

Is Bush invincible, no, easy to beat, no. If voters see Bush's programs to be not so different from the Dems then the voters are less likely to be voting for what seems little or no change in governance.

I would like to see some gridlock back in Congress myself.

Until recently I have considered the possibility of a Bush loss this year as remote in the extreme. Now, I'm not so sure. The upsurge of enthusiasm for Kerry, and, much more importantly, the still very ambiguous state in Iraq give me some serious doubts.

Kerry strikes me as a very self-involved and ambitious person who carefully and deliberately leveraged his brief military service and record to national prominence, at a very young age, basically by betraying all he had been doing in his six months in Vietnam, at a moment that offered him some brief national prominence and visibility. I can think of little of significance he has accomplished in well over a decade in the Senate.

I think Dean got an undeserved bad rap for the screaming bit. The TV camera up close painted a distorted picture of his cheerleader antics at a noisy political meeting. That said, I don't think he has much to offer, apart from effectively tapping the anger of left wing Democrats. Much discordant criticism: very little in the way of synthesis or program going forward.

Clark is a failed general but with ambition and hubris intact. I suspect he is a Manchurian candidate whose programmed role is to make a prime time nominating speech for Hillary at the convention, in the event that Bush looks vulnerable. On his own, he is a fish out of water.

Edwards is a slick, affable and very successful tort lawyer. He should stay in the gutter.

Lieberman is a serious politician, who has my respect. It is a pity he cannot do better than he has done so far.

I'm all for gridlock in Congress, Brand X. At any rate, I don't like for one party to hold the White House, and both houses of congress. The less they accomplish, the better I like it.

I like Lieberman a lot, but he is very unlikely to survive much longer in the contest for the Democratic nomination. Even if he were able to stay the course, his views are too far from the Democratic Party's center of gravity. Too bad, he's been shunted aside.

I'm kinda with roger on gridlock ... the less the government does for me, the happier I am with it. I agree too that "It all comes down to electability", and that leads me to think Bush the Younger is fairly secure. Gephardt or Lieberman might have presented a credible challenge, but of the rest, Kerry included, I see no one who is not eminently defeatable, nor do I expect The Democrats will assemble and prosecute a platform of sufficient centrist appeal to engage Middle America. While I don't argue that we could not use a better President,there's only one incumbent, there are no viable alternatives, and, IMO, there's no way we're gonnas get one for at least one more term.

One thing I think is going on now, affecting the poll numbers and apparent slipping of approval, is that Bush the Younger has been being campaigned against for well over a year, by a vigorous and dedicated batch of opponents, while he himself has essentially remained aloof. Once the Democrats settle on a candidate, I expect that will change ... considerably, abruptly, and not at all to the advantage of The Democrats.

Re: Is Bush invincible

I think the positions traditionally held by the Republican party do have the high ground, especially in economic policy. (I am very unimpressed by their religious right wing though, and wish it would go away.) I'd like to see Social Security privatized, I'd like the school system to be voucherized, and I oppose price controls such as the minimum wage and the caps on college tuitions some Democratic candidates are proposing.

Trouble is, I don't see George Bush as an honest advocate of small government, free market conservatism. He is a plutocrat who talks the talk of conservatism to get the support of his party. But he doesn't walk the walk, and he cynically abuses the Republican's support for handing out payoffs to his cronies. Yes, other presidents did that too; but Bush is so vastly different in degree that it's really a difference in kind. Unlike principled Republicans, Bush does not have the high ground, and I want to see him lose. Badly. My favorite scenario for that would be to see the Republicans get fed up with Bush and have their grown-ups take charge of their party again. Alas, I find this scenario very unrealistic. That means I'm going to support whatever candidate the Democrats come up with.


Fortunately, he is not. He remains vulnerable if the recovery remains jobless, in which case the Democratic candidate can go the populist route and play workers against capitalists. He remains vulnerable to the steady trickle of bad news from Iraq. He is vulnerable when somebody can come up with compelling evidence that he faked his budget projections, the case for invading Iraq, or something else of comparable importance.

Finally, I believe that the Republican party is currently experiencing the political equivalent of a stock market bubble. Unlike the Democrats, Republicans lay their internal differences aside and stand behind their leaders because they're winning. And their leaders are winning because people at the base stand behind them and lay their internal differences aside. This is nice for Bush while the bubble keeps inflating, but it also means that any random glitch can pop the bubble, at which time he will face a most unpleasant awakening.

I don't know when this awakening will come, but I hope it will come before November 2004. It would be good both for America and the Republican party.

At the World Economic Forum last week that a Yale University assistant clinical professor of psychiatry, Dr. Bandy Xenobia Lee, quoted the standard medical description of narcissistic personality disorder from the Diagnostic Statistical Manual. A sufferer of this disorder is defined as someone who:.
Has a "grandiose sense of self importance, e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements.".
"Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance.".
"Requires excessive admiration.".
"Has a sense of entitlement, i.e. unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations.".
"Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.".
In light of current events, Lee thought the diagnosis might at times be applicable to nations as well as individuals..

This was directed at the US as a nation. IMO it could have been a description of our Mr. Bush.

One can style the clinical attributes of many psychological conditions in numerous anectotal ways, some lending themselves to useful rhetorical analogies. However, that does not constitute truth or meaningful insight.

The narcissim bit above could as well have been applied to the former Soviet Union, the British Empire, or even contemporary France or the EU.

It also applies to pretty much every politician out there including all of the Democratic party candidates currently running.

So do I. I just see the specific people in power as hazardous enough to let my opposition to them override my fundamental, but not unconditional sympathy for the party in power.


I am betting that a) a Democratic president, once elected, will be considerably less populist than in the campaigning phase. b) That he will be checked and balanced by the conservative press and at least one house in Congress that remains Republican, and c) that the Republicans will get themselves an electable leader as soon as they lose the presidency. I may lose that bet, but I make it anyway.


Neither do I, but bubbles, whether political or financial, collapse quickly once they start collapsing. Margret Thatcher looked much more invincible (can you say "less vincible" by the way?) a year before her fall, if I remember correctly.


The "internal differences" I had in mind are the ones between the Religious Right and the libertarians, which I see as at least as big as those between the various factions of the Democratic party. Nothing unites these people, except for the common goal of winning elections. Once the winning stops, they will start feuding each other.


... and the closeness to Enron, and the fact that he hired several lobbyists to regulate their own industries as heads of government agencies. Some even continued to get their lobbyist salaries. I could go on....... As I see it, one incident like the Haliburton/Iraq deal is much like an employee calling in sick. He might really be sick, he might just take a day off. Hard to tell in any individual case. It is the whole pattern of corruption that puts me off here. I realize that Bill Clinton, too, took America on the edge of a trade war on behalf of Chiquita Bananas. But the breadth of the phenomenon was just not in the same leage in my opinion. If you know a good way to quantify it, we can compare them objectively and see what comes out.

I understand your reasoning on the political choices, but don't make the same bets as you.

I think the "closeness to ENRON" bit is a fiction. ENRON was a major contributor to Clinton initiatives as well. Fastow, the former ENRON financial manager, just copped a plea for 10 years in Federal prision - the next target is the CFO, and after that they'll get Skilling.

The flow of people from business, universities, NGO's, labor unions, and professional associations to and from government positions in areas of their experience is more or less constant. If it is wrong to post a former energy executive to a Department of Energy position, then it is also wrong to appoint an educator to the department of Education, or a former union official to the Department of Labor, or a partner at Goldman Sachs as Secretary of the Treasury.

I agree, this is difficult to quantify. However in this matter I believe you are wrong in principle.