My Photo

« The Long-Awaited Posting Rules | Main | Thirty-One Days Left in 2003. »

December 01, 2003


Why is it that everyone is so disgusted with Bush? (I don't want to take sides, I have on side of the apple, gimme the other.)

"Why is it that everyone is so disgusted with Bush?"

Umm, they're not. At least, we're (that would be the Republicans) aren't, a undetermined number of Democrats aren't, an undetermined number of swing voters aren't... there's a reason why the post is titled the way it is, after all.

Except for the fact that Bruce Gidner is single, a high school graduate, Lutheran, was born in 1962, and filed FEC paperwork to run for President, no other info is known about this hopeful.

That one sentence gives him more credibility than CMB.

Why is it that everyone is so disgusted with Bush?

Three big reasons why I think the Republicans ought to grab their chance to pick someone else if they want a hope of winning in 2004:

1. The Bush administration has stonewalled on investigation of 9/11. I put this first because I think in the long run it's going to count against them worst - depends how badly Iraq turns out, of course.

2. The Bush administration lied about the imminent threat from Iraq in order to justify an invasion. We have a complete and unpleasant record of their dishonesty and doublethink: the Plame Affair is merely the nastiest and the most blatantly criminal of their attempts to silence criticism of their lies.

3. The Bush administration most signally failed to make any plans for the occupation of Iraq that were not based firmly on "Everything will go the way we want it to go!" Some of the damage done by this failure to plan ahead is irreparable. We can't know yet what the long-term effect of this failure to plan will be, but given that the Bush administration apparently now have a plan consisting of "Whatever we do, let's make sure it looks good by October next year!" I don't feel hopeful that any good will come so long as Bush & Co are in charge.

Of course, I don't want the Republicans to have a hope of winning in 2004, but there you go. I can think of plenty of other things that the Bush administration is responsible for that I haven't liked or approved of, but those three are the three where the Bush administration is plainly acting against the national interest. (I could add in voting machines, but that's a whole 'nother topic.)

Eh, Bush is gonna be the GOP nominee in 2004. Any Republican (or Dem, for that matter) who thinks otherwise needs their meds increased.

What's gonna be more interesting (and fun) is 2008. If Bush wins in 2004, who's gonna be his annointed successor? Cheney's too sick (and too evil, but's that's another story), and Rice is too slick (kind of like a fun-house Dali-esque female conservative Clinton. Without the libido.) And as much as the People magazine-reading public seems to be infatuated with royalty, I don't think they'll put up with the inception of a Bush Dynasty. (Sorry, Jeb...)*

My guess? Colin Powell.

Look for a big increase in CVA** amongst neocons in 2008.

* Of course, I could be wrong... :)
** AKA strokes. Newt Gingrich's head might actually explode. Might be fun to watch. :)

So Tom Delay -- yes, of course, Tom Delay -- has decided it would be a good idea to rent a huge cruise ship to house (and hide) all the delegates to the Manhattan convention. It will cost more than a hotel room. But Republican delegates can afford it. They certainly don't want to risk walking the streets of New York. And the smug, glittering isolation is a perfect metaphor for the Republican party (I don't think the last one is part of the plan, but you never know).

Perfect. (I'd link to the NYT's front page, but is that possible here?)

And and memo to all you protesters? Now you've got 'em in one handy location. Commence puppet building!

And and memo to all you protesters? Now you've got 'em in one handy location. Commence puppet building!

Can puppets float?

A serious tactical question. Does anyone think protests (as they are conducted today) persuades anybody of anything? Or are they simply the equivalent of a ballgame, that is, fun to go to?

Well, once upon a time they were a great way to meet chicks*.

*Sorry, girls. I mean women. Co-equal partners. Wait, at the time, they were girls. But.

I guess the question is: how many of those folks would also out-poll Howard Dean? :)

Dream on, JKC. It will be many decades, and likely longer, before a black man--or woman, regarding M. Scott Eiland, Esq.'s recent "Condi in 2008" gushing on a recent thread--will be placed on the presidential ticket by the GOP.

I usually vote Democratic, and though I find the Republicans' Southern Strategy disgusting, I have no doubt that it works very well for them, and have no illusions about the major reason it does.

For a little splash of cold water, go to and scroll down to the link to Earl Holt's letter--the direct link is way too long to insert here. (By the way, Holt is a member of the Council of Conservative Citizens, that upstanding group Trent Lott was addressing when he praised and Strom Thurmond and the segregationists. And why not also do some research on Gordon Lee Baum, the CCC's leader, while you're at it?)

Now I'm not saying that Holt's attitudes are mainstream GOP by any means. But many who hold views like his--and a lot more who agree, but less virulently--make up a cornerstone of the Republican base in the South and elsewhere. Because of this, the insistence by the naively "color-blind" faction of the GOP that Powell, Rice, or any other African-American have a chance in hell of being the party's presidential candidate anytime soon are pure fantasy.

Oops! I meant "...praised Strom Thurmond and the segregationists..."

"him" being Colin Powell. Sorry.

Hey, I don't think so, I'm a Democrat, too, and I'd hate to see us have to run against him in '08 (although Bush may well destroy his remaining credibility by then.)

As an intellectual exercise, though, who else can the GOP run? Lott and DeLay might play well in the South, but they'll chase the center right into the arms of our side. Another Bush? Unlikely?

A moderate like George Pataki? Maybe, but the southern wing of the party wouldn't stand for it.

I am now going to pray for 72 straight hours that Tom Delay runs for and is the Republican nominee in 2008. On my knees. Aloud.

JKC--Yes, Powell could be tough in the general election (if, as you say, his credibility isn't destroyed by then.) He might take enough black votes from the Dems to overcome the lost votes of that substantial core of Repubs who would never, ever, ever vote for someone black. I guess I could never see Powell winning over enough GOP primary voters to overcome the loss of that same bloc.

McCain would be a very strong candidate--has appeal on both sides. But has he burned too many bridges in the GOP to have a chance?

How about Frist? He doesn't have the "red-meat right-winger" image that DeLay does.

Harley, I agree with you, I'd love to see DeLay as the 2008 nominee. But the Republicans have been so disciplined at capturing and consolidating their power, would they do something that self-destructive?

"By the way, Holt is a member of the Council of Conservative Citizens, that upstanding group Trent Lott was addressing when he praised and Strom Thurmond and the segregationists."

OK, now that I'm home from both work and the supermarket, let's address this. First off, Lott's (incredibly stupid and pernicious) comments were made at Thurmond's birthday party, not to the CCC. You are confusing that with speeches to the CCC that Lott apparently made up to four years earlier, not to mention a column written by Lott and republished in the CCC newsletter. This is a minor point, but let's try to be accurate, 'kay?

Second, I fully agree that Lott's connection with the CCC is nonetheless real and not appropriate for an individual holding a position as important as Senate Majority Leader. If the majority of my party hadn't (finally!) agreed with me*, he would be SML. Instead, he got dropped at the first excuse - with the shiv coming from no less exalted a place than the White House. You know, the place where that Texan cowboy lives? The guy who casually commented that he and his NSA were able to get to the airplane unrecognized because they looked like an ordinary couple? If that doesn't get out the message to certain individuals and groups - on both sides of the spectrum - that Times Have Changed, nothing will. The segregationists are dieing of old age, and did not replace themselves.

Mind you, if we were talking about gay people I wouldn't have a leg to stand on. That's the next project.


*This group is condemned by the RNC and GOP, you know - and the guys you've mentioned (Holt and Baum) ain't too fond of us, either. Aside from the Black Hawk picnic (which, as everyone here knows, was one of those venues that politicians from both sides quietly attended - and will hopefully stop attending), the group is marginalized, meaningless above a local or state level and not representative of either the GOP or the South in general.

And there isn't a chance in Hell that Delay's going to be the 2008 nominee. It'll be either the Veep (if Bush gets a new one for '04) or one of the current governors (if Cheney stays the VP). Both parties keep nominating governors for a reason, after all... :)

The comments to this entry are closed.