Let’s assume for the moment that Bush’s approval ratings are really around 36%
with about 60% disapproval. If you were a member of the opposition party wouldn’t you go after this guy is a very serious way. After all, the guy is really vulnerable. Yet, if his numbers are really so low, then why is Senator Feingold’s attempt to censure the president--which the MSM has spent as much time on as the supposed exhaustion of the White House staff--being met with silence by other Dems in the Senate, including Chuck Schumer, who is not capable of silence? The answer is this: Feingold is doing this just to get noticed, he is trying to run for president and therefore doesn’t care about anything else (including what may be useful for his party); but the other Dems understand that talking about a censure motion now means that they will have to talk about impeachment before the 2006 elections, and they don’t want to do that. That is not in their interest. If they talk about this before the elections, they have no chance to win back either house. This WSJ editorial explains.
For this not to backfire in their faces, don’t they have to win 15 seats in the Senate? The Dhimmicrats will filibuster this. That’s what they do for a living.
If I were a strategist, and I was confronted with a wobbly, Lame Duck President who showed signs of collapsing, the LAST THING I would do is push him!
Instead, I would trust Bush to collapse on his own, and to make himself look stupid and pathetic without incurring the risk of looking like the bully who pushed the wheelchair out in the road. I would go after the rest of the team, instead. I would go after DeLay, and Frist, and Rumsfeld, and Rice, and the Abramoff friends, Libby, and Rove, the rest of the decaying team that should go down with Bush. I would concentrate on winning back the Senate and/or the House. Bush can fail all by himself.
For once, Fung is right. The Democrats’ unwillingness to back Feingold is a sign that they will probably follow this strategy. Here’s hoping their Bush-hatred overcomes their political sense before this campaign is over.
It will be interesting. I have always hoped that it wasn’t hatred of Bush, himself, but of what terrible things he would do. If he can’t do them, anymore, then we should see the anger directed at his team members. If I am wrong, then we should see the Dems go after him while he is down.
There can always be time later, for a war crimes trial for dragging us into a needless war against Iraq using falsified information.
Falsified information? Any evidence of that?
Dain, Fung doesn’t need any evidence. He just says the words and like magic, and for all intensive purposes, they come true! But I have a prediction of my own, and that is, Bush is going to make a comeback. He has THREE YEARS left, folks. Don’t go writing him off like he’s toast, because ALL presidents have their ups and downs and bumps in the road.
The ones who deserve the wrath and scorn of conservatives, to my view, are the congressmen who are now running scared and acting like the President has a nasty case of bird flu, when, in point of fact, he’s been on the right side of the debate 9 times out of ten. Yes, things in Iraq could be going more smoothly, and yes, Katrina probably could have been handled better. But we HAVEN’T had a terrorrist attack on our soil in nearly FIVE years. Doesn’t that count for something? And as far as this Dubai nonsense, it’s just that. It’s a non-issue made a big deal by a bunch of racists. Bush is absolutely right about it and the Republican congressmen, wimps that they are, are bowing down to their racist constituents when they should be sticking with the boss. But irregardless of their cowardly behavior, I think that America will come to their senses and realize that the President has done a good job and they’ll stop blaming him for things he either has no control over (he couldn’t have flown down to New Orleans and saved every poor person there, now could he?) and things he’s on the right side about (such as let’s not make the Muslims think we’re a bunch of racists).
If I could have MY way (keep dreaming, I know!), Bush would get ANOTHER four years!
LOL. Love the way the Left uses falsified information to accuse Bush of doing the same.
Maybe he’s got a "memo".
And let me also add to what David Frisk said- I think your hopes will be founded, I.E. the Dems will go nuts bonkers with their pouncing on Bush and overplay their hand, so to speak, and the country will not like that, and will punish them for it at the polls.
Fung, there was NO falsified information in regards to the War on Terror. There appears to be have been falty intelligence, but that is a far cry from false information.
Bush’s abymissal poll numbers prove that a Republican cannot be moderate and have good numbers. The only people who still like Bush are those few people who have something to gain from him, or hope to gain something from him.
I read the other day that Bush’s numbers were about the same as Nixon’s (not sure if the article was about Nixon’s numbers before or after Watergate broke). Nixon was another Republican that was moderate-liberal and involved in war. These sorts of Presidents cannot get good numbers because they displease conservatives (Nixon with his price controls and environmental laws) displease moderates with long, drawn out amorphous wars, and liberals will always dislike Republicans, no matter what Republicans do for them (Bush’s drug plan did not buy peace from democrats, and it upset conservatives).
But for his two Supreme Court picks, which hopefully will slant conservative, Bush has been a failure. He wasted all of his war capital on Iraq, when everyone knew Iran was the problem. Nothing has been solved in Iraq, and Iran is about to blow us all up if it can. Bush could have had his port deal, which if the country were moderate would have been great, if he had things under control in Iraq. No one can expect Americans to look favorably at Arab countries when Arabs are beheading, killing, etc. Americans.
"There appears to be have been falty intelligence, but that is a far cry from false information"
A far cry? Tell that to 2309 families (last I looked). That is a far cry from 1000, which was a far cry from zero, but we have bridged THAT gap, haven’t we?
Tell it to Valerie Plame, and to all of us who heard about the "mushroom cloud," and "mission accomplished," and yellowcake and babies being thrown out of hospital windows, and mobile labs and training camps, and Bush’s adherence to FISA, and Rumsfeld’s brave new military, and Bush’s clear exit strategy. Tell me about how we’ve caught Bin Laden, or brought one single terrorist to justice, or how we are not engaging in torture, or how we’ve improved the image of Abu Ghraib. Tell me how my kids are going to pay for this war by forfeiting their educations. Tell me this guy doesn’t deserve to be impeached!
Valerie Plame, oh, you mean the CIA gal that newsfolks themselves admitted they knew all.
FISA? Fung, how many times do people have to demonstrate that FISA was not abridged and not needed in this instance in the first place?
Fung, Iraq was scrubbed spic and span. For example, the mobile labs, for supposed being innocuous, were cleansed. Why?
Our exit strategy is simple, yet you fail to listen to the President.
For you, we would have never fought WWII for we used the same exit strategy then as we are using now!
By the way, in regards to Iran ....
Take a look at a map, please.
We have Iran almost surrounded. Also, if you haven’t noticed, we are fighting Iran in Iraq.
Texas Dude:
It is true that we have Iran surrounded, and that is good if there were the will to go to war. It is probably also true that Iran is sending people into Iraq and that US forces are killing them. It is not true that having Iran surrounded or killing a few thousand of their army/paramilitary groups will stop them from developing atomic weapons. That is the problem that is not being solved, and probably will not be solved.
Hmmm...
Let’s see...They win back the House...impeach Bush...impeach Cheney...ah...President Pelosi...
PRESIDENT PELOSI?????? OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!