Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

I have to wonder how much a decisive victory in Iraq and a success at winning the peace, if that is what happens, will effect the next election. Will that if it occurs make Bush a shoo in? Would anyone like to venture a guess.

That doesn't reduce the fact that in all truth, this Bush is the scourge of mankind, a political criminal, liar and should be replaced today - we will have to wait until 2004.

There's hope for all you left wingers on page A7 of today's San Francisco Chronicle. Good luck - LOL!

Kerry fires back:

Salon.com

And this from the excellent blog Digby's Hullabaloo:

Quote:

This is what we need to see. Give no quarter. Get right back in their faces. If the candidates don't do this now they will be hamstrung through the entire campaign.

Now, the rest of the Senate Democrats need to stand up and support an American citizen's right to run for president against the Cheerleader in Chief during wartime, and even {gasp} suggest that he should be turned out of office because he isn't doing a good job. That's bordering on treason these days, I realize. But making that claim is unprecedented. We have never before said that people could not criticize a sitting president during wartime, especially in the midst of a presidential campaign.

Jesus. Even Abraham Lincoln had to run for re-election during wartime. He faced numerous challengers even for the nomination and was second guessed in every paper by every politician in the country ---from both parties. FDR ran for re-election in the middle of WWII when Thomas Dewey called him a "tired old man."

The Little Dauphin deserves no special treatment.

Trespassers said:

PD - I haven't been following this discussion (or any) too closely of late, but I'm wondering who exactly IS saying that Bush should get special treatment? I know I'm not plugged into the same switchboard as you, but I'm not hearing that statement from any significant sources. (That does not mean it isn't being said. It means I'm unaware of it, if it is.)

I think Pdiddie was referring to the howls of indignation we've all heard about it being "shameful and disrespectful" or some such tripe, when Carter or Clinton say something not fully supportive of the sitting pres.

snood wrote:

Trespassers said:

PD - I haven't been following this discussion (or any) too closely of late, but I'm wondering who exactly IS saying that Bush should get special treatment? I know I'm not plugged into the same switchboard as you, but I'm not hearing that statement from any significant sources. (That does not mean it isn't being said. It means I'm unaware of it, if it is.)

I think Pdiddie was referring to the howls of indignation we've all heard about it being "shameful and disrespectful" or some such tripe, when Carter or Clinton say something not fully supportive of the sitting pres.

I happen to believe in the tradition of former presidents keeping mum on the actions of current presidents, but I do not read PD's comments to be that narrowly directed, and will await his response to my question. (Thank you for yours though, Snood!)

Besides, it isn't asking special treatment to ask that Carter and Clinton simply afford Bush the same treatment they and other presidents have enjoyed.