Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

I almost said something that may have tagged me for terrorism....

I'd say he's done WORSE than nothing for the economy, environment, affirmative action, education, and general welfare of our citizens and those abroad.

He hit the trifecta!

I hope it isn't innapropriate for me to just chime in here and say that--aside from capitulating far too much with the Democrats on Capital Hill and the left in general--he's doing a fine job and I look forward to casting one of the many votes that will keep him there until 2008.

trespass, Your presumption that Bush is doing a good job is not surprising, because he still enjoys over fifty percent approval rating. However, that same approval rating is dropping fast, and I suspect it'll be under fifty percent before month end. c.i.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/24/national/24POLL.html?todaysheadlines

c.i.<

Your post is one with which I applaud.

Dubya has done more harm to this country in two years than has any other president in my lifetime.

Let's hope the economy issue will negate his chances for a second term, as was the case with his Dad.

CI - My appraisal of Bush has nothing to do with his approval ratings. I don't look to polls and stats to tell me how to think. I agree with the core values I believe he holds, and while he's not pushed a conservative agenda strongly enough for my tastes, at least I feel proud of our President for the first time in many years.

On that, I am sure we will have to disagree.

tres, All I meant was that the majority of Americans still think Bush is doing a good job, and you fit into that category. It says nothing about you looking at polls to determine your personal opinion. c.i.

The democrats better get behind one candidte quickly and make their decision based on someone who can win and then put together an assertive and aggressive game plan that can be pushed hard, or it's four more years of Bush, and the country can't stand that. IMO. Hell the world can't stand that.

BPB, I know what you mean; even the flora and fawna are crying for help. c.i.

CI - I didn't think you were stating that I did look to the polls, I just thought I'd comment that I don't. No worries. :wink:

Here is an article with the following comment in it from Helen Thomas, someone I have admired for many, many years!

"This is the worst president ever," she said. "He is the worst president in all of American history."

http://dailybreeze.com/content/bog/nmbogert19.html

Supporters of the administration are beside themselves over President Clinton's recent remarksblasting the Bush regime on everything from the economy to Iraq.

"He's breaking protocol!" they lament.

Despite that a generalized proposition that presidents have not criticized their predecessors is a myth, to the extent any practice of restraint is observed, naturally it should be limited to elected presidents.

Any and all respect afforded the President of the United States is rooted in the fact that he was elected by the people. Traditions such as former presidents withholding aggressive criticism and not publicly second guessing current presidents, or senators generally confirming a president's judicial nominees, are demonstrations of reverence and respect for the office of the presidency, derived from the idea that a president is the embodiment of American democracy.

George W. Bush is an enemy of democracy. He fought actively to defeat the will of the American voters and install himself into office against their will. This uncomfortable reality persists, despite a failed national media's resentment over the fact that it cannot be shoehorned into their predetermined narrative. It isn't "old news" and it has not been altered by the media's failure to acknowledge it or by the attacks against America by enemies of democracy on 9/11/01.

The circumstances resulting in the appointment of George W. Bush remain suspect still today, and until the will of the people is expressed without suspicion at the ballot box, this man deserves none of the consideration traditionally granted elected presidents like President Clinton. All decent Americans who honor the memories of those who died for this democracy necessarily regard Bush and his illegitimate regime with contempt and disrespect and consider it their duty to criticize his disastrous policies on all fronts.

Here, Here!

An NBC poll shows Hillary C, who has indicated in the past that she won't run, with a big lead over the recognized Dem candidates. See

http://www.msnbc.com/news/862928.asp?0cv=CB20

Personally, I'd vote for anyone with the guts to stand up and tackle the Repubs head-on, really stick it to 'em on their economic record, on their mishandling of foreign affairs, on the floundering war on terror and on their atrocious environmental/energy record. Somebody who'll take off the gloves and get down to business. It remains to be seen if somebody of that stripe will emerge from the current pack, IMO.

Hills is not going to be a candidate in '04. Bet you your anvil.

Now, perhaps in '08, unless John Kerry is running for re-election.... :wink:

BillW, I'm glad to see some people in the know believes as I do. c.i.

PDiddie - I was remarking yesterday that I wished Clinton would speak up. I thought it had been long enough. Wow, good for him. (has your avatar always been having a conversation with itself or is the moving thing new?)

I'm also of the belief the Hillary will not run in 2004, but will run in 2008. c.i.

I don't know if she will or won't, but the poll shows she'd be the one to beat if she did.