• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Does Bush have enough accomplishments to win in 2004?

J

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
I found myself in a discussion today about Bush's accomplishments and afterward it occurred to me he may or may not have enough of them as a basis to help gain re-election next year.

It also was interesting to categorize domestic and foreign accomplishments. Obviously, there have seemingly been more of the later. Will American voters discern between domestic and foreign acheivements or do we really not care?

No doubt U.S. intervention abroad will play a big role in selling Bush for 2004. I'm curious to know if that's enough or if he needs more "plus" marks back here at home. Any thoughts?
 
He wont win, reguardless of how many people where liberated 😛 Its time for him to retire and play golf all day.
 
Originally posted by: Tabb
He wont win, reguardless of how many people where liberated 😛 Its time for him to retire and play golf all day.
Click to expand...

You mean he isn't already?! 😛

/edit: But seriously Jelly, what would you place in the "plus" column?
 
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Tabb
He wont win, reguardless of how many people where liberated 😛 Its time for him to retire and play golf all day.
Click to expand...

You mean he isn't already?! 😛

/edit: But seriously Jelly, what would you place in the "plus" column?
Click to expand...

He pissed off the French, that's gotta be worth something? 😉
 
I don't believe so. Personally, I think we should hold him to the same ethical standards of Clinton. Clinton really screwed the pooch (chuckle 🙂 with the BJ Gate scandal and deserved the flack he got for lying under oath. On the other hand, there's no reason why the assertions Bush has made regarding the Iraqi conflict shouldn't be equally scrutinzed in a court of law. Yes, I think he should be impeached. Not necessarily canned, but his actions do merit investigiation. The only reason I can think that this isn't happening already is because of post-9/11 patriotic wagon circling. This is not a bad thing, but I think it has definetly shielded him from the attention he deserves right now. Now, get past the questionable legalities of his administration and focus and what is unethical and down right stupid and that's reason enough to look forward to a changing of the guard.
 
Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
I don't believe so. Personally, I think we should hold him to the same ethical standards of Clinton. Clinton really screwed the pooch (chuckle 🙂 with the BJ Gate scandal and deserved the flack he got for lying under oath. On the other hand, there's no reason why the assertions Bush has made regarding the Iraqi conflict shouldn't be equally scrutinzed in a court of law. Yes, I think he should be impeached. Not necessarily canned, but his actions do merit investigiation. The only reason I can think that this isn't happening already is because of post-9/11 patriotic wagon circling. This is not a bad thing, but I think it has definetly shielded him from the attention he deserves right now. Now, get past the questionable legalities of his administration and focus and what is unethical and down right stupid and that's reason enough to look forward to a changing of the guard.
Click to expand...

Bush has been a typical president. The only reason why anyone brings up impeachment is because Clinton was impeached, so now the democrats are looking for any reason for payback. Bush made a decision when he decided to go into Iraq. If we start impeaching presidents when they make a wrong decision...god help us.
 
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
I don't believe so. Personally, I think we should hold him to the same ethical standards of Clinton. Clinton really screwed the pooch (chuckle 🙂 with the BJ Gate scandal and deserved the flack he got for lying under oath. On the other hand, there's no reason why the assertions Bush has made regarding the Iraqi conflict shouldn't be equally scrutinzed in a court of law. Yes, I think he should be impeached. Not necessarily canned, but his actions do merit investigiation. The only reason I can think that this isn't happening already is because of post-9/11 patriotic wagon circling. This is not a bad thing, but I think it has definetly shielded him from the attention he deserves right now. Now, get past the questionable legalities of his administration and focus and what is unethical and down right stupid and that's reason enough to look forward to a changing of the guard.
Click to expand...

Bush has been a typical president. The only reason why anyone brings up impeachment is because Clinton was impeached, so now the democrats are looking for any reason for payback. Bush made a decision when he decided to go into Iraq. If we start impeaching presidents when they make a wrong decision...god help us.
Click to expand...

Clinton was acquitted. Don't be conveniently forgetting that 🙂
 
Exactly, and if Bush has done nothing wrong so will he. But the circumstance do merit investigation, and yes ESPECIALLY in light of the Clinton fiasco. Clinton got a BJ, Bush instigated the first ever pre-emptive war in US history based on (as of yet) unsubstantiated conjecture. He's got alot of families who're wondering why they're sons brothers and fathers died because of this, families on both sides of the globe.
 
Yes, there have been some. Even during Clinton's reign when I had a very unbalanced view of his presidency (aided by overconsumption of FOX "news" I might add) I noted he had some valid accomplishments under his belt. All presidents do. Even if by sheer accidents they manage to do some good once in a while.

Bush improved the pay and lives (better housing, etc). for many of our military troops, as promised during his campaign. That's one for you.
 
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Yes, there have been some. Even during Clinton's reign when I had a very unbalanced view of his presidency (aided by overconsumption of FOX "news" I might add) I noted he had some valid accomplishments under his belt. All presidents do. Even if by sheer accidents they manage to do some good once in a while.

Bush improved the pay and lives (better housing, etc). for many of our military troops, as promised during his campaign. That's one for you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, all our troops getting shot at in Afghanistan and Iraq have much better lives now...😀
 
Originally posted by: datalink7
I think he will win.

And then Jeb Bush will win the next 8 years.

But then again I'm a pessimist 😛
Click to expand...

That would be so sad to have a President named Jeb. 🙁
 
Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn
Exactly, and if Bush has done nothing wrong so will he. But the circumstance do merit investigation, and yes ESPECIALLY in light of the Clinton fiasco. Clinton got a BJ, Bush instigated the first ever pre-emptive war in US history based on (as of yet) unsubstantiated conjecture. He's got alot of families who're wondering why they're sons brothers and fathers died because of this, families on both sides of the globe.
Click to expand...

Remember the Maine!
 
Bush's most important accomplishment was bringing about the police state, which paves the way for martial law, which sets up the New World Order.

-my 2 cents
 
Bush isn't nearly religious enough for me. He pays lip service to God often enough, however I fully expect himself to strap his ass to a crucifix. If he's still at it next November, maybe I'll consider voting for him.
 
Expecting you all to be serious over the long weekend was too much I guess. 🙂

The thing is he just may well win in 2004, even though you scoff at his poor list of accomplishments. All it might take is an improving economy, a bit of good news from abroad and a weak opponent.

I was hoping some Rs would pop in to fill out the list but I think they're all awol this weekend.
 
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Expecting you all to be serious over the long weekend was too much I guess. 🙂

The thing is he just may well win in 2004, even though you scoff at his poor list of accomplishments. All it might take is an improving economy, a bit of good news from abroad and a weak opponent.

I was hoping some Rs would pop in to fill out the list but I think they're all awol this weekend.
Click to expand...

I was a hardcore-conservative until earlier this year, does that qualify me? 😉
 
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Expecting you all to be serious over the long weekend was too much I guess. 🙂

The thing is he just may well win in 2004, even though you scoff at his poor list of accomplishments. All it might take is an improving economy, a bit of good news from abroad and a weak opponent.

I was hoping some Rs would pop in to fill out the list but I think they're all awol this weekend.
Click to expand...

Actually I don't think they are AWOL, but this sort of question just reaks of baiting cannon fodder😉 Someone puts out a list - the partisans come and try to shoot it down. There are 2 sides to every thing. I point out that the tax-cuts have helped working people - the otherside screams about the "poor" or try to say it was only for the rich. It's a never ending cycle.

CkG
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top