Originally posted by fable Given Powell's ability to calmly see things through with determination, I wouldn't expect him to jump ship--not unless and until the snubs get much worse. But in the meantime, remember that Powell has zero influence with Bush these days.
And this is the guy who IMO helped Bush win the Presidential campaign, barring the whole voting fiasco that is
As for sending out the lower level envoys, that probably explains why he has been pretty quiet recently. Strange move that is, Powell is widely respected through out the world. Its a bit like a sports team keeping their star player on the bench.
Originally posted by Tamerlane As for sending out the lower level envoys, that probably explains why he has been pretty quiet recently. Strange move that is, Powell is widely respected through out the world. Its a bit like a sports team keeping their star player on the bench.
It's not a team, it's a one-man show. And no person at the top can stand to have it taken away. Much less a go-it-alone, the-hell-with-your-opinions type like Bush. I distinctly get the feeling that he isn't a "team player."
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
Proud SLURRite Gunner of the Rolling Thunder (TM) - Visitors WELCOME!
([size=0]Feel free to join us for a drink, play some pool or even relax in a hottub - want to learn more?[/size]
Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper Another great move by Dubyah.
When's the next US federal election again?
2004.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
2 more years...not good. I for one am looking forward to seeing how much larger a voter turnout the US gets come the next election. I'll be very surprised if it doesn't increase markedly.
I seriously doubt Bush will get back in again, however not being an American, it's probably worth asking, does anyone find it at all likely he will be re-elected?
Normally I'd just assume not, but as our own current leader Howard has been re-elected not once but twice, in spite of an unusually large number of scandals in the government ranks and also having lied to the Australian public over a key election issue, I've now learned that I underestimated just how gullible/stupid voters can be...
Proud SLURRite Gunner of the Rolling Thunder (TM) - Visitors WELCOME!
([size=0]Feel free to join us for a drink, play some pool or even relax in a hottub - want to learn more?[/size]
Good god, he pulled another one. This is just plain stupid. As for Powell, doesnt he have a popularity rating higher than bush? Also from what i read of the US press, he has a strong backing within the papers, which ususally point out direct or indirectly that powell is being snubbed by Rumsfeild and Cheney group. The newspapers do tend to take his side on things.
For what is it to die but to stand naked in the wind and to melt into the sun? - Khalil Gibran
"We shall fight on the beaches. We shall fight on the landing grounds. We shall fight in the fields, and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender!" - Winston Churchill
Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper I seriously doubt Bush will get back in again, however not being an American, it's probably worth asking, does anyone find it at all likely he will be re-elected?
It will depend on the economy. So far his hairbrain ideas have failed.....and day by day more stuff goes wrong. Enron..WorldCom...next week, who knows. In the 90's the middle class invested a lot in over priced stock and now the market is correcting it's self...and whoever is in office at this time will get the blame. And I don't believe there is a thing Bush can do to stop this correction. All he can do is tell the public that the economy is on the upswing and hope they believe him.
Money in peoples pockets keep Presidents in office..(Clinton was a genuis at this...Bush Sr. was a failure) and the way things are looking..Bush Jr. is following in his dads footsteps.
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper I seriously doubt Bush will get back in again, however not being an American, it's probably worth asking, does anyone find it at all likely he will be re-elected?
Like our friend Weasel says, Dubya will only get re-relected if the economy turns around in a big way. Otherwise, his 90% job approval rating will vanish just like his father's did.
Right after Dubya took office, there was a power struggle between the moderate factions in the cabinet and the old hardliners (with an emphasis on the word "old"). Powell and the rest of the "reform"-minded Republicans were shoved aside in favour of the old guard led by **** Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft and Karl Rove. The single moderating influence in the White House, Karen Hughes, returned to Texas obstensibly for the sake of her family life, but I think it more likely that she was sent back to shore up Republican support for the mid-term elections.
Americans love a war they're winning, and it may be the case the Dubya is using this invasion of Iraq as his trump card in the election. If the economy does not get better before 2004, he can always invade Iraq to drive up his popularity and create an artificial boost to his popularity and chances at re-election. Otherwise, Dubya is digging himelf into a big, big hole and he probably won't be able to get out when voters head back to the polls.
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
This is all getting a bit off-topic, but I can’t help but pick up on a point or two regarding the future elections. First, I seriously doubt that Powell will ever run for President. He declined in 2000 (I think he said he didn’t want to put his family through the process (ordeal), but maybe someone else knows more accurately), and I don’t think he will change his mind anytime soon.
Second, @HighLordDave, you don’t seriously believe that the President of the United States (whoever it may be, at whatever time) would start a war to get re-elected, do you? I had no love for Clinton, but even I couldn’t make myself believe that he launched a missile strike against Afghanistan to deflect attention from his private life – I could certainly never believe that any man would start a war just to go through four more years of what must be in many ways a very unpleasant job. I don’t like to think that I am so very naive, and my estimation of the moral level of politicians in particular is low in the extreme, but … I just can’t allow myself to believe that this is the mind-set of our national figurehead.
I would say that I don't believe any sane, rational president would ever start an aggressive war, especially not after Vietnam. However, in my opinion, Dubya has his own way of doing things and I wouldn't put it past him. I would also say that I wouldn't think that under any circumstances would the United States every invade another country, even on a pre-emptive basis, but Bush the Elder did it (Panama), so his son might, too. With all of the rhetoric coming out of the White House about striking Iraq without a clear threat, I think Dubya may be prepping the country for his invasion, which may come tomorrow or may come on 1 November 2004.
If Dubya does invade Iraq as an election stunt, it will be because he's so far behind in the polls that nothing else can salvage his chances at re-election. If you look back at American electoral patterns, there are three basic factors that go into it at the national level.
First: War and peace. Americans hate to oust a sitting president during war time. Only one president has ever been ousted during a war (Lyndon Johnson) and only one had a close call (Lincoln). All of the other wartime presidents sailed through their re-election campaigns or had their re-election campaigns boosted by a good recent wartime showing. As a side note, both Johnson and Lincoln had trouble because they were waging unpopular wars, which a war with Iraq would not be.
Second: The economy. Money, money, money. As long as people have it (or think they do), a sitting president will probably get re-elected, despite any other factors. That's why Clinton got rel-elected in 1996, despite serious questions about his moral fitness to the be the leader of the free world and the other scandals which surrounded his presidency, and why Carter was ousted by Reagan despite the fact the Jimmy is one of the finest human beings ever to sit in the Oval Office. People vote with their wallets, and unless there is a major turn around in the economy, those wallets are going to be mighty thin for the mid-terms and may still be thin in 2004.
Third: Who's the incumbent? All things being equal, incumbents win the overwhelming number of elections at all levels. If the economy stabilises, but does not return to the late-90s boom and the country is not at war or under attack, the incumbent will probably win. This becomes less of a factor in the presidential race because of constitutional term limits and the fact that the chief executive receives more scrutiny of the local school board.
To tell you the truth, Lazarus, I hope that if Dubya goes to war with Iraq, it won't be to get a boost at the polls for either himself in 2004 or his party in 2002. However, I don't know what the hell goes on inside his head and he has a history of doing some things which defy explanation and common sense, so I am not sure.
I also think it likely that he's buttering us up for war with Iraq so if he loses the 2004 election, he can invade a foreign country shortly before leaving office and create a mess for his Democratic successor (there is a precedent for this: his dad sent troops to Somalia as a way to SNAFU the incoming Clinton administration; in my mind, it's the single selfish act of Bush the Elder that marrs his otherwise fine record of public service).
Jesus saves! And takes half damage!
If brute force doesn't work, you're not using enough.
Originally posted by Lazarus Second, @HighLordDave, you don’t seriously believe that the President of the United States (whoever it may be, at whatever time) would start a war to get re-elected, do you? I had no love for Clinton, but even I couldn’t make myself believe that he launched a missile strike against Afghanistan to deflect attention from his private life – I could certainly never believe that any man would start a war just to go through four more years of what must be in many ways a very unpleasant job.
This is just a bit off-topic, too, but you may want to research the Nixon White House tapes. There *is* a tape in which then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Nixon discuss, and conclude to break off diplomatic negotiations with the Viet-Cong in order to run on the second term platform of having a "secret solution" to the Vietnam War. This tape does exist; its contents are public. The talks were broken off; hundreds died on both sides (not including civilian casualties). Nixon did subsequently run with the "secret solution" platform, and it was said to have been a major factor in his re-election. Directly after his re-election, talks resumed, and within a matter of weeks, a tentative ceasefire had been signed which led to the closing stages of the war.
That White House tape has been used as evidence to try and get the Nobel Prize Committee to remove Kissinger's prize (he's a laureate in, ironically, the Peace category). Unfortunately, the Nobel Committee says its hands are tied. More reccently, there have been concerted international efforts at a grassroots level to try Kissinger for war crimes, on the basis of that tape. Likely to happen? Not a chance; but the efforts have proven embarassing enough for Kissinger to cut short several international speaking engagements and fly home. He has always been extremely sensitive to criticism, and if nothing else, getting hurt this way provides some miniscule measure of revenge.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
I seriously doubt Bush will get back in again, however not being an American, it's probably worth asking, does anyone find it at all likely he will be re-elected?
As much as I hate to admit it, I think there is a potentially good chance that he will get re-elected. When I go out and vote, I know I wont support him. But there are a lot of people who look at him as a brave leader and that he did all the right things regarding the 9/11 tragedy. For that, people overlook the faulty things he has done in office. Remember earlier in the thread I talked about a car covered in bumper stickers? Well I bet thats not the only person who feels that way. However there is the other side of the spectrum. There are the people who are well aware of the blunders that Dubya is doing. Those people, will probably vote against him.
“Caw, Caw!” The call of the wild calls you. Are you listening? Do you dare challenge their power? Do you dare invade? Nature will always triumph in the end.
[color=sky blue]I know that I die gracefully in vain. I know inside detiorates in pain.[/color]-Razed in Black
As much as I hate to admit it, I think there is a potentially good chance that he will get re-elected. When I go out and vote, I know I wont support him. But there are a lot of people who look at him as a brave leader and that he did all the right things regarding the 9/11 tragedy. For that, people overlook the faulty things he has done in office. Remember earlier in the thread I talked about a car covered in bumper stickers? Well I bet thats not the only person who feels that way. However there is the other side of the spectrum. There are the people who are well aware of the blunders that Dubya is doing. Those people, will probably vote against him.
You forget "most" Americans have short memories.. (Attack American today and tomorrow the US will bomb...in most cases in a year or two...it will be trading with this country again. There are cases where this isn't true..Iraq being one, but most of the time the American people just forget and move on.
I for one still remember Iran....)
And Bush won last time by a slim margin. 9/11 will most likely be dragged to the front when election time comes around again...but this could cause a major backfire for Bush. The democrats start screaming in the press that Bush is using the dead Americans to gain votes will hurt more than anything. "IF" 9/11 had happened in 2003...I would say Bush was a shoe in to win....but time is now against him. I would go along with HighLordDave and expect a war in late 2003 or early 2004 with Iraq. It will take peoples mind off of money for long enough to get Bush reelected....but who will be his running mate? V.P. Chenkof will never take the seat of President and the Republican party must look forward to 2008.
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
I would go along with HighLordDave and expect a war in late 2003 or early 2004 with Iraq. It will take peoples mind off of money for long enough to get Bush reelected....but who will be his running mate? V.P. Chenkof will never take the seat of President and the Republican party must look forward to 2008.
I would like to say you are completely wrong, but the fact is you are probably right. The world has become corrupted in many ways and there isnt a whole lot the sensible people can do about it. And corruption has been in politics for as long as I can remember. I wish times would change in that aspect.
“Caw, Caw!” The call of the wild calls you. Are you listening? Do you dare challenge their power? Do you dare invade? Nature will always triumph in the end.
[color=sky blue]I know that I die gracefully in vain. I know inside detiorates in pain.[/color]-Razed in Black
I would like to say you are completely wrong, but the fact is you are probably right. The world has become corrupted in many ways and there isnt a whole lot the sensible people can do about it. And corruption has been in politics for as long as I can remember. I wish times would change in that aspect.
Everytime a little corruption is brought to light, it's a victory. As for change...this can only happen when people have had enough. It is a hard road to the Whitehouse and "most" will be corrupted in one way or the other before they reach that goal...(Jimmy Carter being one I have never heard dirt on) Most of America is willing to look the other way... and elect someone with dirt on them.
In the same light, Iraq might take away Bush's excuse to attack, and this will spell doom for him all around. In the end a war will only help so much...the questions.."Are you better off today, than you was 4 years ago? Will you be better off with this same president in 4 years?" will decide the election.
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
