Democrat victory good for Bush?

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
Listening to the BBC tonight (a piece on the Baker Report) got me wondering if Bush Inc. is simply waiting for an excuse to bail on Iraq. Now that the Dem's control congress they provide an excellent scapegoat to draw down in Iraq, giving Bush a way to save face in what would otherwise be monumental setback for the long-term Conservative agenda by blammning the push on "cut-and-run liberals." Perhaps this is old news to some but I'd like to hear some thoughts about this.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
11
0
He'll wait for the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study who coincidentally Robert Gates is a part of.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
I don't know, I'm not sure that strategy would work too well...at least among the majority of voters. I'm sure the Republican faithful would buy it, but Bush has spent too much time selling himself as "The Decider" to make a convincing argument that the "cut and run liberals" forced him to draw down our forces in Iraq. Unless the Dems actually DO force him to do that (cutting funding, for example), I don't think it will be a very convincing argument...he IS the commander in chief after all, and he's spent a lot of time building up this image as a strong, stubborn "war president". Even if he managed to convince voters that he caved to the Democrats, I think that would do almost as much damage to the Republican appeal. A big part of why folks seem to like Republicans is because they are "tough"...and caving in to the liberals isn't exactly a "tough" thing to do.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Its very hard to make sense of what I see---in terms of how GWB plans to handle the new democratic majority in congress. GWB is now sending so many mixed messages yet seems too smug to show any worry.

Its somewhat my worry---given that GWB surrounds himself with and listens only to neo-cons---that the lot of them have themselves convinced that now is the time to simply take over and run the country as a dictator.----and only the neo-cons could be so self-delusional that they could believe they would ever get away with, that American public opinion would support such a move, or even more far fetched--that the later judgment of history would vindicate such a move. But GWB could signal such a move by attacking Iran by air without warning or permission to take out nuclear sites.

Failing that worse case scenario, I am prepared to be pleasantly surprised by a more restrained President Bush working with a non-rubber stamp congress. They gasp--may even come up with areas of bi-partisan agreement that can solve the mess in Iraq. With each side keeping the other out of much mischief. But until the battle lines start to really draw---its hard to do much more than engage in total speculation.--while the legislative branch may be semi-predictable---the GWB white house is and remains remains a total
black hole that devours all common sense and reason.

But just in case---keep your barf bags handy.
 

jjzelinski

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2004
3,750
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't know, I'm not sure that strategy would work too well...at least among the majority of voters. I'm sure the Republican faithful would buy it, but Bush has spent too much time selling himself as "The Decider" to make a convincing argument that the "cut and run liberals" forced him to draw down our forces in Iraq. Unless the Dems actually DO force him to do that (cutting funding, for example), I don't think it will be a very convincing argument...he IS the commander in chief after all, and he's spent a lot of time building up this image as a strong, stubborn "war president". Even if he managed to convince voters that he caved to the Democrats, I think that would do almost as much damage to the Republican appeal. A big part of why folks seem to like Republicans is because they are "tough"...and caving in to the liberals isn't exactly a "tough" thing to do.

I agree with your points, but if Bush Inc. feels that Iraq has played itself out politically then this is their only option to save any face they can. Who knows, though; Lemon Law may be right and the Cons might truly go off the deep end but I seriously doubt it. Their agenda is significantly based upon political revenue and attacking Iran without provocation or capability (not to mention congressional and public consent) would doom their agenda permanently.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
"regimes without checks and balances are prone to grave miscalculations.? - Donald Rumfeld, Sept. 2003
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: jjzelinski
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I don't know, I'm not sure that strategy would work too well...at least among the majority of voters. I'm sure the Republican faithful would buy it, but Bush has spent too much time selling himself as "The Decider" to make a convincing argument that the "cut and run liberals" forced him to draw down our forces in Iraq. Unless the Dems actually DO force him to do that (cutting funding, for example), I don't think it will be a very convincing argument...he IS the commander in chief after all, and he's spent a lot of time building up this image as a strong, stubborn "war president". Even if he managed to convince voters that he caved to the Democrats, I think that would do almost as much damage to the Republican appeal. A big part of why folks seem to like Republicans is because they are "tough"...and caving in to the liberals isn't exactly a "tough" thing to do.

I agree with your points, but if Bush Inc. feels that Iraq has played itself out politically then this is their only option to save any face they can. Who knows, though; Lemon Law may be right and the Cons might truly go off the deep end but I seriously doubt it. Their agenda is significantly based upon political revenue and attacking Iran without provocation or capability (not to mention congressional and public consent) would doom their agenda permanently.

I'm not saying Bush wouldn't try it, I'm saying that it probably won't work too well. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if we see something along those lines in the next two years...the political setup looks fairly good on the surface. It's only when you really look at how that kind of strategy would play out that it seems a little questionable.