Could Bush's presidency be a TOTAL failure?

[Deadshot]

Foreign affairs are in the Toilet. He has over 60% of the country that thinks he's doing a poor job. The war in Iraq, to quote a 1994 Dick Cheney, is a "Quagmire." And now domestically there are signs of problems.

Most Republicans are still approving of Bush and his policies. But what about what's happening in the Housing market. The Government had to step in to stop the falling market, something earlier in the month they stated that they DID NOT want to do. Friday the market bounce back...a little. What happens if the economy starts to slide?

Now let me take you forward a few weeks. IF the economy starts to slide and the Dow falls below 12K or, God forHas bid 11K, will be talking about the start of Recession, when Patreus gives his report on Iraq. Now the only thing that Bush has in his favor, for most of the country, is the robust economy. If that evaporates then what's left? And if it does go south, will anyone listen to the General's report when the nightly news, even Fox News, starts using the "R" word (recession)?

So in 2008, if the economy doesn't start stabilizing, we could be looking at a POTUS, who in the last two years, has...

1. Had a failed Iraqi policy that only in 2007 he tried to correct.
2. Has horrible ratings and most of the country dislike him, what will a Recession do to him?
3. Has an A.G. who's on the ropes.
4. Lost the 2006 elections for the R's by being a bad POTUS AND not having Rummy go until AFTER the election.
5. Has almost every front running candidate not wanting to be around him for fear that his unpopularity will run off and taint their campaign.
6. Has not passed a major piece of legislation, not attributed to the war in Iraq, in 2 years.

Where does that leave the party? Some Republicans here just seem fine to lash out at the Democrats here, but Bush's Presidency isn't over and his track record over the last two years is full of failure and people resigning on him.

Some people here talk about the unelectability of Hillary or Obama, but if the economy starts to suffer, as the housing market crumbles. As people can't pay there mortage nor sell their house I truly believe that we could be looking at adds all throughout next year where the Democrats just point out the Myriad of Republican errors and the Republicans just try to defame the characters of the Democrats.

If that happens, not only will it be ugly, the GOP will lose because the Democrats can fight on Character issues against Republican candidates, but the Republicans don't have a leg to stand on when discussing the errors of the Bush administration.

Because if we go into, even a minor, Recession, Bush will be blamed for it. If that happens, then the GOP is in deep shit because even the die hards will abandon Bush when their pocket book and retirements start to shrink.

[CheesyMuslim]

Sorry bout that,

1. If Bill Clinton gets back into the White House, thats going to suck really bad folks.
2. A disgraced President, in every way, now returns to the scene of his crimes.
3. If it happens I might just have to leave this Great Nation.
4. And move to my home in the Philippines.
5. Just the idea of Clinton getting back in the White House, pains me soul.
6. Now I kind of like Bill Clinton and all, he's not all that bad of a person and all, but he isn't deserving to be in the White House.
7. Its kind of like promoting a Child Molester to CEO of Coca Cola.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[red states rule]

If Pres Bush is such a failure, what does that say about the Dem run Congress?

Pres Bush is much higher in approval ratings then the Dems. In favt the only things Dems have acccomplished is RECORD LOW APPROVAL NUMBERS

[Deadshot]

If Pres Bush is such a failure, what does that say about the Dem run Congress?

Pres Bush is much higher in approval ratings then the Dems. In favt the only things Dems have acccomplished is RECORD LOW APPROVAL NUMBERS


The difference, that most people realize, is that the Dem's aren't getting anything done because the Republicans are stopping them. See most people understand that to get something passed in Congress you need more then 52 out of 100 votes.

Bush on the other hand says "screw the polls!" So you tell me which is worse. One person with a lot of power telling all to screw off, or a bunch of people trying to do something and being stopped?

[red states rule]

So now the Dems miserable failure is now the Republicans fault? LOL!!!!

Both White Flag Harry and San Fran Nan's numbers are falling. The last poll I saw, White Flag harry was at 19% (tied with Scooter Libby!!!)

[manyfeathers]

Now the only thing that Bush has in his favor, for most of the country, is the robust economy.

Surely you jest?

[red states rule]

Lets see, unemployment, and inflation is down. Wages, productivity, corporate profits are up. The Fed has cut interest rates. The economy is growing. Tax revenues are at record highs. The annual budget deficit has been cut by more then half

No wonder the left is pissed about the economy. Tax cuts worked once again

[Alonzo]

If Pres Bush is such a failure, what does that say about the Dem run Congress?

Pres Bush is much higher in approval ratings then the Dems. In favt the only things Dems have acccomplished is RECORD LOW APPROVAL NUMBERS


I came across a breakdown of congress the other day. The Democratic congressman had higher approval ratings than republican congressman.

[red states rule]

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1284.xml?ReleaseID=1093&What=&strArea=;&strTime=0

This is last poll I saw

Here is the trend of the falling numbers for the Dem Congress
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18

[manyfeathers]

Lets see, unemployment, and inflation is down. Wages, productivity, corporate profits are up. The Fed has cut interest rates. The economy is growing. Tax revenues are at record highs. The annual budget deficit has been cut by more then half

No wonder the left is pissed about the economy. Tax cuts worked once again


The old adage, believe half of what you see and none of what you hear, comes to mind.

I live in one of the richest places in the US, and retailers are shutting their doors every day, there are at least 4 empty houses in my line of vision from my driveway - they've been empty for years. It's not a bad neighborhood, houses about 1600+ square feet, value average 160K - I guess you would say it was a middle America kind of hood.

I called my electric company the other day and spoke to Lee in the Philippines. How does that make sense? :fight:

[red states rule]

The US economy is doing very well. I remember how the Dems ran on the "jobless recovery" in 04 and low and behold it turned out to be a lie

Pres Bush has similiar or better economic numbers Bill Clinton had - yet the left tries to paint a doom and gloom picture, while sayng how great the economy was under Bill

Of course, Dems say the only answer is to raise taxes. What a shocker!!

[manyfeathers]

What a load. When Clinton was in office there was money for everyone. Now, it's only the top 1% that are benefiting from this administration.

Bush is an expert in bankrupting everything he touches. And the sycophants that surround him benefit.

[red states rule]

Sorry to bust your bubble but AFTER the tax cuts - the top 1% is paying 36% of all Federal income Taxes

How much more do you want them top pay?

[lily]

Red, is your head so far up in the clouds that you completely miss the fact that the Government had to step in to stop the market from falling any further?

[PatrickHenry]

Bush is a total failure by any measure.

[ECW]

22 million new jobs under Clinton. How many under Bush?

[red states rule]

Red, is your head so far up in the clouds that you completely miss the fact that the Government had to step in to stop the market from falling any further?


They were going to cut the rates anyway - you would rather have the market crash to make you feel better?

The US economy took the $! trillion hit form 9-11, high energy prices, a series of storms that hit the US, and a war on two fronts - and is still strong

Libs hate any good news on the economy since they said the Bush tax cuts would cripple and destroy the economy.

[Deadshot]

Red, is your head so far up in the clouds that you completely miss the fact that the Government had to step in to stop the market from falling any further?


They were going to cut the rates anyway - you would rather have the market crash to make you feel better?

The US economy took the $! trillion hit form 9-11, high energy prices, a series of storms that hit the US, and a war on two fronts - and is still strong

Libs hate any good news on the economy since they said the Bush tax cuts would cripple and destroy the economy.


They were NOT going to cut the rate. The Fed said so. They only cut to stave off a catostrophic day at Wall Street.

It is because of the War spending that our economy is begining to take a hit. We never got that oil from Iraq to pay for anything. :shame:

Bush's tax cuts niether crippled nor revitalized our economy.

Lib's have enough on Bush without the economy. If the economy goes though, then Bush & the GOP is sunk.

[red states rule]

Red, is your head so far up in the clouds that you completely miss the fact that the Government had to step in to stop the market from falling any further?


They were going to cut the rates anyway - you would rather have the market crash to make you feel better?

The US economy took the $! trillion hit form 9-11, high energy prices, a series of storms that hit the US, and a war on two fronts - and is still strong

Libs hate any good news on the economy since they said the Bush tax cuts would cripple and destroy the economy.


They were NOT going to cut the rate. The Fed said so. They only cut to stave off a catostrophic day at Wall Street.

It is because of the War spending that our economy is begining to take a hit. We never got that oil from Iraq to pay for anything. :shame:

Bush's tax cuts niether crippled nor revitalized our economy.

Lib's have enough on Bush without the economy. If the economy goes though, then Bush & the GOP is sunk.



So you would rather have the market crash - would that make you feel better?

The tax cuts have caused good economic growth and are bringing in RECORD revenues to the government and cut the defict by miore then half

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=7120

The Dems shut up along time ago about the jobless recovery and bellowing how terrible the economy is

I wonder why?

[Deadshot]

So you would rather have the market crash - would that make you feel better?

The tax cuts have caused good economic growth and are bringing in RECORD revenues to the government and cut the defict by miore then half

http://www.democracyforums.com/showthread.php?tid=7120

The Dems shut up along time ago about the jobless recovery and bellowing how terrible the economy is

I wonder why?


Don't be unintelligent, of course NOBODY wants to see the market collapse! EVERYONE in the United States has a something in the market somehow, someway.

But you can't simply say "Hey the Ecomony's great and it's all because of Bush!" and then not acknowledge that last Friday the Govt. had to bail out our economy because it started to tank. It's either or, not both.

As to Bush and the GOP and the economy, if it tanks they'll get the blame just as they take the credit for doing well now. Again, you can't have it both ways.

[red states rule]

libs loved to blame Bush when the market was down, yet the refuse to give him the credit he deserves when the market up. The Dow is STILL up 10% for the year even with the recent sell off

Tax cuts work everytime - and libs hate when they do

[Deadshot]

libs loved to blame Bush when the market was down, yet the refuse to give him the credit he deserves when the market up. The Dow is STILL up 10% for the year even with the recent sell off

Tax cuts work everytime - and libs hate when they do


When the Dow is "down"? The government had to step in to avoid a market collapse, that's just not being "down". The Fed did NOT want to cut the rates, it HAD too.

As to Bush, fine give him all the credit that you want to. But again, since you don't wish to address issues but simply vomit back up Bushism's, if the market does poorley Bush will be to blame also.

BTW the Stock Market is up 13% for a year ago to today. http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837290?q=.DJIA The problem is that in the last week it started on Monday, 13 AUG, it was at 13238 and Thursday, before the Government bailed it out it was at 12845 a loss of almost 400 points in one week! http://www.cnbc.com/id/15837290?q=.DJIA

That's the problem. We still don't know if it's all going to work out, we'll find out next week. But the bad thing is that any bad downward spiral causes panic, see Thursday's stockmarket for an example. If we drop down 1 or 2% in one day people panic.

Next week will be a good look at our future. But NOBODY wants the market to go south!

[red states rule]

The Dow fell about 3000 points after 9-11 and the left was giddy. The liberal media was gleefully reporting the bad news. Many lost their jobs and the economy was close to recession

Now, the Dow is back, low unemployment, low interest rates, record home ownership, and a falling Federal budget deficit

All this good news is to much for the left to stand

[Deadshot]

The Dow fell about 3000 points after 9-11 and the left was giddy. The liberal media was gleefully reporting the bad news. Many lost their jobs and the economy was close to recession

Now, the Dow is back, low unemployment, low interest rates, record home ownership, and a falling Federal budget deficit

All this good news is to much for the left to stand



First, the Dow was at 9605 when the attack happened and the stock market CLOSED - then on 17 Sept the Dow fell 865 points in a day - then on 21 Sept it closed at 8235 - the Dow lost 1400 points in 10 days, it NEVER lost 3000 points . Second, ALL media reported the bad news IT WAS NEWS!!! Third, The economy was never close to recession nor did people immediately lose there jobs. Where's your proof?

Do you ever read or fact check what you write? You seem to have no grasp for figures or knowledge of history.

[red states rule]

The Dow fell about 3000 points after 9-11 and the left was giddy. The liberal media was gleefully reporting the bad news. Many lost their jobs and the economy was close to recession

Now, the Dow is back, low unemployment, low interest rates, record home ownership, and a falling Federal budget deficit

All this good news is to much for the left to stand



First, the Dow was at 9605 when the attack happened and the stock market CLOSED - then on 17 Sept the Dow fell 865 points in a day - then on 21 Sept it closed at 8235 - the Dow lost 1400 points in 10 days, it NEVER lost 3000 points . Second, ALL media reported the bad news IT WAS NEWS!!! Third, The economy was never close to recession nor did people immediately lose there jobs. Where's your proof?

Do you ever read or fact check what you write? You seem to have no grasp for figures or knowledge of history.


Typo on my part. I ment to type 2000 points

Funny how the liberal media always plays up the bad news - but whispers the good news

[Deadshot]

Typo on my part. I ment to type 2000 points

Funny how the liberal media always plays up the bad news - but whispers the good news


It's 1400 points, not 2000 points - another typo?

Just out of curiousity, are you saying that no media should have reported a drop in the market, of 1400 points? The media shouldn't report the news then?

Give me a break.:madlaugh:

[red states rule]

They make any bad news the lead, and whisper any good news.

[Deadshot]

They make any bad news the lead, and whisper any good news.


Grow up, if it bleeds it leads. Get a life.

[red states rule]

And if it good news - libs will ignore it everytime

Dems are the party of failure

[Deadshot]

And if it good news - libs will ignore it everytime

Dems are the party of failure


Really?!!? Is that why we won in '06? You are just a hater, I don't think anyone, but you, will listen to your hate.

[red states rule]

A hater? Only a liberal who does not want to hear the truth calls it hate

[Deadshot]

A hater? Only a liberal who does not want to hear the truth calls it hate


Since time after time I've shown you to be incorrect in your posts, your not so much a hater as you're just uninformed and uneducated.

[red states rule]

Incorrect? So far you pointed at a typo, and the US economy is roilling right along despite all the gloom and doom coming from the left and liberal media

[Labrocca]

I am not gonna read 3 pages of this thread but I will respond to basically the first page.

I think the title says it all. It's a BUSH failure and I don't forsee the Republicans taking the full blame over the next 8 years because of that. Iraq was voted on by Democrats too. The economy is almost entirely Bush's and it has been good. If it does tank there is some truth to the fact it will be because he is leaving office.

I don't believe any recent president has faced such an economical crisis and yet done so well. I am reminded once again of Carter who really didn't even have 10% of the crisis Bush had and the economy was one of our worst ever.

[red states rule]

I remember well the four years of Carter. Double digit inflation, double digit imterest rates, and near double digit unemployment. The economy was so bad, the Misery Index was sreated.

[Deadshot]

I disagree. I believe Bush's errors will effect the GOP. It did in '06, I think it will in '08. If the economy does begin to slip, remember that it will begin to do so with a POTUS that still has a solid year left on his Presidency. Ergo, he'll carry the shame of Katrina, Iraq and his other scandals along with him and his party.

While the Democrats voted for the war, most candidates have said they regretted the decision. Hillary said in today's debate that she regretted voting the way she did because of Bush.

If Bush doesn't help, and he isn't so far, he's hurting. The current POTUS is not a neutral party.

[quiet man]

there are two words that seem to fit this president and his confederates more than others DUMB and DUMBER! SELF-CENTERED and EGOTISTICAL run a close second!

[red states rule]

Dems have been hoping for the economy to slip for 4 years now - and it has not happened yet. Dems are trying their best to make it slip by repealing all the Bush tax cuts (even on the lowest wage earners) but that will never happen since they can't over ride a veto

[Deadshot]

Dems have been hoping for the economy to slip for 4 years now - and it has not happened yet. Dems are trying their best to make it slip by repealing all the Bush tax cuts (even on the lowest wage earners) but that will never happen since they can't over ride a veto


There's a problem now because of bad lending practices that is effecting the Home and mortage markets.

You can't blame it on the Dems, for as you said NOTHING can be repealed because Bush will Veto it. So why even bring it up?

[red states rule]

Dems have been hoping for the economy to slip for 4 years now - and it has not happened yet. Dems are trying their best to make it slip by repealing all the Bush tax cuts (even on the lowest wage earners) but that will never happen since they can't over ride a veto


There's a problem now because of bad lending practices that is effecting the Home and mortage markets.

You can't blame it on the Dems, for as you said NOTHING can be repealed because Bush will Veto it. So why even bring it up?


Sub prime loan make up a very small percentage of all loans, and a equal small about are in default

[Labrocca]

06 He was president and he will be just leaving in 08..but the discussion here is bringing up long-term effects. I just don't see Bush being relevent in 2012....it's just like bringing up Bill Clinton when discussing John Edwards....even though Edwards was VP runner along with Clintons VP (Gore for the incredibly stupid). So there is some odd connection but politically it's meaningless. Same goes for Bush in a couple years. There will be new people to headhunt.

The failure of Bush won't be properly seen nor judged till 2012+ and again...that will mostly be looked at as history. Many want the Bush presidency declared a failure immediately but realistically you can't do that. Economy is good. We are in the MIDDLE of war. Albeit one not going well. History may view Bush closer to Harry Truman than a Jimmy Carter.

[Deadshot]

Dems have been hoping for the economy to slip for 4 years now - and it has not happened yet. Dems are trying their best to make it slip by repealing all the Bush tax cuts (even on the lowest wage earners) but that will never happen since they can't over ride a veto


There's a problem now because of bad lending practices that is effecting the Home and mortage markets.

You can't blame it on the Dems, for as you said NOTHING can be repealed because Bush will Veto it. So why even bring it up?


Sub prime loan make up a very small percentage of all loans, and a equal small about are in default


Then why did the market drop so hard so fast? Why did the Government bail it out and stop the slide? Do you even know how finances and the Stock Market work?

[quiet man]

Dems have been hoping for the economy to slip for 4 years now - and it has not happened yet. Dems are trying their best to make it slip by repealing all the Bush tax cuts (even on the lowest wage earners) but that will never happen since they can't over ride a veto

the economy has been slipping since the invention of outsourcing jobs to foreign countries. you can't be a consumer if you can't pay for it in some way, cash or credit if your job is now a clerk at wally world! :unreal: :ponder:

[Deadshot]

Dems have been hoping for the economy to slip for 4 years now - and it has not happened yet. Dems are trying their best to make it slip by repealing all the Bush tax cuts (even on the lowest wage earners) but that will never happen since they can't over ride a veto


There's a problem now because of bad lending practices that is effecting the Home and mortage markets.

You can't blame it on the Dems, for as you said NOTHING can be repealed because Bush will Veto it. So why even bring it up?


Sub prime loan make up a very small percentage of all loans, and a equal small about are in default


Then why did the market drop so hard so fast? Why did the Government bail it out and stop the slide? Do you even know how finances and the Stock Market work?

[red states rule]

Is that why the unemployment rate is about 4.5%? The myth of outsourcing is being disproved by a low unemployment rate[hr]



Dems have been hoping for the economy to slip for 4 years now - and it has not happened yet. Dems are trying their best to make it slip by repealing all the Bush tax cuts (even on the lowest wage earners) but that will never happen since they can't over ride a veto


There's a problem now because of bad lending practices that is effecting the Home and mortage markets.

You can't blame it on the Dems, for as you said NOTHING can be repealed because Bush will Veto it. So why even bring it up?


Sub prime loan make up a very small percentage of all loans, and a equal small about are in default


Then why did the market drop so hard so fast? Why did the Government bail it out and stop the slide? Do you even know how finances and the Stock Market work?


and the markert will come back as it always does. I know for a fact about the numbers of sub prime loans and default rates - I work the mortgage industry

[Deadshot]

06 He was president and he will be just leaving in 08..but the discussion here is bringing up long-term effects. I just don't see Bush being relevent in 2012....it's just like bringing up Bill Clinton when discussing John Edwards....even though Edwards was VP runner along with Clintons VP (Gore for the incredibly stupid). So there is some odd connection but politically it's meaningless. Same goes for Bush in a couple years. There will be new people to headhunt.

The failure of Bush won't be properly seen nor judged till 2012+ and again...that will mostly be looked at as history. Many want the Bush presidency declared a failure immediately but realistically you can't do that. Economy is good. We are in the MIDDLE of war. Albeit one not going well. History may view Bush closer to Harry Truman than a Jimmy Carter.


Being from Independence, Trumans home town, I'll disagree. As a Historian, you have a point, but not everyone listens to the Historians out there - hence our current war. Hoover was judged quickly, and it stuck. LBJ was judged quickly, it stuck. Nixon was judged quickly, it stuck.

It could go either way. But IF the economy begins to suffer, then his fate is sealed and he'll be doomed. It took decades for Republicans to reffer to Nixon in a positive light because of his Presidency - even with China on his side. The people were angry and against him. I believe the same is possible with Mr. Bush. History is on my side, really suck and the country reviles you. [hr]
and the markert will come back as it always does. I know for a fact about the numbers of sub prime loans and default rates - I work the mortgage industry


I find that hard to believe considering you have no idea how your industry effects the economy.

[red states rule]

06 He was president and he will be just leaving in 08..but the discussion here is bringing up long-term effects. I just don't see Bush being relevent in 2012....it's just like bringing up Bill Clinton when discussing John Edwards....even though Edwards was VP runner along with Clintons VP (Gore for the incredibly stupid). So there is some odd connection but politically it's meaningless. Same goes for Bush in a couple years. There will be new people to headhunt.

The failure of Bush won't be properly seen nor judged till 2012+ and again...that will mostly be looked at as history. Many want the Bush presidency declared a failure immediately but realistically you can't do that. Economy is good. We are in the MIDDLE of war. Albeit one not going well. History may view Bush closer to Harry Truman than a Jimmy Carter.


Being from Independence, Trumans home town, I'll disagree. As a Historian, you have a point, but not everyone listens to the Historians out there - hence our current war. Hoover was judged quickly, and it stuck. LBJ was judged quickly, it stuck. Nixon was judged quickly, it stuck.

It could go either way. But IF the economy begins to suffer, then his fate is sealed and he'll be doomed. It took decades for Republicans to reffer to Nixon in a positive light because of his Presidency - even with China on his side. The people were angry and against him. I believe the same is possible with Mr. Bush. History is on my side, really suck and the country reviles you. [hr]
and the markert will come back as it always does. I know for a fact about the numbers of sub prime loans and default rates - I work the mortgage industry


I find that hard to believe considering you have no idea how your industry effects the economy.




and the Bush haters are hoping like hell the economy does tank. The more people that are miserable the happier liberals are[hr]

06 He was president and he will be just leaving in 08..but the discussion here is bringing up long-term effects. I just don't see Bush being relevent in 2012....it's just like bringing up Bill Clinton when discussing John Edwards....even though Edwards was VP runner along with Clintons VP (Gore for the incredibly stupid). So there is some odd connection but politically it's meaningless. Same goes for Bush in a couple years. There will be new people to headhunt.

The failure of Bush won't be properly seen nor judged till 2012+ and again...that will mostly be looked at as history. Many want the Bush presidency declared a failure immediately but realistically you can't do that. Economy is good. We are in the MIDDLE of war. Albeit one not going well. History may view Bush closer to Harry Truman than a Jimmy Carter.


Being from Independence, Trumans home town, I'll disagree. As a Historian, you have a point, but not everyone listens to the Historians out there - hence our current war. Hoover was judged quickly, and it stuck. LBJ was judged quickly, it stuck. Nixon was judged quickly, it stuck.

It could go either way. But IF the economy begins to suffer, then his fate is sealed and he'll be doomed. It took decades for Republicans to reffer to Nixon in a positive light because of his Presidency - even with China on his side. The people were angry and against him. I believe the same is possible with Mr. Bush. History is on my side, really suck and the country reviles you. [hr]
and the markert will come back as it always does. I know for a fact about the numbers of sub prime loans and default rates - I work the mortgage industry


I find that hard to believe considering you have no idea how your industry effects the economy.




it allows people to fullfill the Amercian dream of owning a home. Many years ago, libs were pissed loan requirements to were to strict - now they whine because they are to loose

[Deadshot]

and the Bush haters are hoping like hell the economy does tank. The more people that are miserable the happier liberals are


http://www.route66wingsandwheels.com/uploads/thanks4info.gif

I don't think you know what Conservatives think, yet alone Liberals.

You obviously don't know how the Market works...

[Phyxius]

Is that why the unemployment rate is about 4.5%? The myth of outsourcing is being disproved by a low unemployment rate

Do you understand what that number acutally means? Keep in mind that I am someone who works in that field (UIB), so be careful how you answer - it could be embarrassing for you... :ponder:

[red states rule]

When Bill Clinton has similar numbers, libs were saying how great the economy was. My, how opinions change when a Republican President is in office

[April15]

Foreign affairs are in the Toilet. He has over 60% of the country that thinks he's doing a poor job. The war in Iraq, to quote a 1994 Dick Cheney, is a "Quagmire." And now domestically there are signs of problems.

Most Republicans are still approving of Bush and his policies. But what about what's happening in the Housing market. The Government had to step in to stop the falling market, something earlier in the month they stated that they DID NOT want to do. Friday the market bounce back...a little. What happens if the economy starts to slide?

Now let me take you forward a few weeks. IF the economy starts to slide and the Dow falls below 12K or, God forHas bid 11K, will be talking about the start of Recession, when Patreus gives his report on Iraq. Now the only thing that Bush has in his favor, for most of the country, is the robust economy. If that evaporates then what's left? And if it does go south, will anyone listen to the General's report when the nightly news, even Fox News, starts using the "R" word (recession)?

So in 2008, if the economy doesn't start stabilizing, we could be looking at a POTUS, who in the last two years, has...

1. Had a failed Iraqi policy that only in 2007 he tried to correct.
2. Has horrible ratings and most of the country dislike him, what will a Recession do to him?
3. Has an A.G. who's on the ropes.
4. Lost the 2006 elections for the R's by being a bad POTUS AND not having Rummy go until AFTER the election.
5. Has almost every front running candidate not wanting to be around him for fear that his unpopularity will run off and taint their campaign.
6. Has not passed a major piece of legislation, not attributed to the war in Iraq, in 2 years.

Where does that leave the party? Some Republicans here just seem fine to lash out at the Democrats here, but Bush's Presidency isn't over and his track record over the last two years is full of failure and people resigning on him.

Some people here talk about the unelectability of Hillary or Obama, but if the economy starts to suffer, as the housing market crumbles. As people can't pay there mortage nor sell their house I truly believe that we could be looking at adds all throughout next year where the Democrats just point out the Myriad of Republican errors and the Republicans just try to defame the characters of the Democrats.

If that happens, not only will it be ugly, the GOP will lose because the Democrats can fight on Character issues against Republican candidates, but the Republicans don't have a leg to stand on when discussing the errors of the Bush administration.

Because if we go into, even a minor, Recession, Bush will be blamed for it. If that happens, then the GOP is in deep shit because even the die hards will abandon Bush when their pocket book and retirements start to shrink.


George Wrong Bush is a total failure. He may not even be able to die correctly. You know, heart attack then stroke then alzheimers then reagonitis.

[Jaaaman]

George Wrong Bush is a total failure. He may not even be able to die correctly. You know, heart attack then stroke then alzheimers then reagonitis.

That was totally uncalled for. If I still gave out negative reps, you would be getting one right now. Shame on you. :shame:

[BoogyMan]

Where did THAT come from April15? Talk about bad form.

[April15]

Where did THAT come from April15? Talk about bad form.
That is my assessment of the man called president. His resume of failure follows.
George W. Bush Resume

Past work experience:

*

Ran for congress and lost.
*

Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.
*

Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
*

Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.
*

With fathers help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.

Accomplishments: Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.
*

Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.

Accomplishments as president:

*

Attacked and took over two countries.
*

Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.
*

Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.
*

Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.
*

Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
*

First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
*

First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.
*

First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.
*

After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.
*

Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.
*

In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.
*

Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.
*

Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.
*

Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.
*

Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.
*

Signed more laws and executive orders circumventing the Constitution than any president in US history.
*

Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
*

Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.
*

Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.
*

Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind. (http://www.hyperreal.org/~dana/marches/)
*

Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
*

My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.
*

Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleezza Rice has an Chevron oil tanker named after her).
*

Had more states to simultaneously go bankrupt than any president in the history of the United States.
*

Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.
*

Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
*

Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.
*

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the human rights commission.
*

First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US from the elections monitoring board.
*

Removed more checks and balances, and have the least amount of congressional oversight than any presidential administration in US history.
*

Rendered the entire United Nations irrelevant.
*

Withdrew from the World Court of Law.
*

Refused to allow inspectors access to US prisoners of war and by default no longer abide by the Geneva Conventions.
*

First president in US history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 US elections).
*

All-time US (and world) record holder for most corporate campaign donations.
*

My biggest life-time campaign contributor presided over one of the largest corporate bankruptcy frauds in world history (Kenneth Lay, former CEO of Enron Corporation).
*

Spent more money on polls and focus groups than any president in US history.
*

First president in US history to unilaterally attack a sovereign nation against the will of the United Nations and the world community.
*

First president to run and hide when the US came under attack (and then lied saying the enemy had the code to Air Force 1)
*

First US president to establish a secret shadow government.
*

Took the biggest world sympathy for the US after 911, and in less than a year made the US the most resented country in the world (possibly the biggest diplomatic failure in US and world history).
*

With a policy of 'dis-engagement' created the most hostile Israeli-Palestine relations in at least 30 years.
*

Fist US president in history to have a majority of the people of Europe (71%) view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and stability.
*

First US president in history to have the people of South Korea more threatened by the US than their immediate neighbor, North Korea.
*

Changed US policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.
*

Set all-time record for number of administration appointees who violated US law by not selling huge investments in corporations bidding for government contracts.
*

Failed to fulfill my pledge to get Osama Bin Laden 'dead or alive'.
*

Failed to capture the anthrax killer who tried to murder the leaders of our country at the United States Capitol building. After 18 months I have no leads and zero suspects.
*

In the 18 months following the 911 attacks I have successfully prevented any public investigation into the biggest security failure in the history of the United States.
*

Removed more freedoms and civil liberties for Americans than any other president in US history.
*

In a little over two years created the most divided country in decades, possibly the most divided the US has ever been since the civil war.
*

Entered office with the strongest economy in US history and in less than two years turned every single economic category heading straight down.

Records and References:

*

At least one conviction for drunk driving in Maine (Texas driving record has been erased and is not available).
*

AWOL from National Guard and Deserted the military during a time of war.
*

Refuse to take drug test or even answer any questions about drug use.
*

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas have been spirited away to my fathers library, sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.
*

All records of any SEC investigations into my insider trading or bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.
*

All minutes of meetings for any public corporation I served on the board are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public view.
*

Any records or minutes from meetings I (or my VP) attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and un-available for public review.
*

For personal references please speak to my daddy or uncle James Baker (They can be reached at their offices of the Carlyle Group for war-profiteering.)

[Labrocca]

Great copy and paste job. Wonderful wonderful.

George Wrong Bush is a total failure. He may not even be able to die correctly. You know, heart attack then stroke then alzheimers then reagonitis.

You just earned a new rep from me. Congrats.

[ECW]

I got a similar version of this in an email a few years ago. Author unknown. Accurate, though. Describes the complete failure of this presidency and the people who made it happen.

[Deadshot]

I think that in the face of failures one must always remember the story of Abraham Lincoln...

A common list of the failures of Abraham Lincoln (along with a few successes) is:

1831 - Lost his job
1832 - Defeated in run for Illinois State Legislature
1833 - Failed in business
1834 - Elected to Illinois State Legislature (success)
1835 - Sweetheart died
1836 - Had nervous breakdown
1838 - Defeated in run for Illinois House Speaker
1843 - Defeated in run for nomination for U.S. Congress
1846 - Elected to Congress (success)
1848 - Lost re-nomination
1849 - Rejected for land officer position
1854 - Defeated in run for U.S. Senate
1856 - Defeated in run for nomination for Vice President
1858 - Again defeated in run for U.S. Senate
1860 - Elected President (success)


While I don't like our current POTUS no one can simply ignore him because of his failures, we all fail. Nor do I want him to die in a horrible fashion.

I simply stated, and firmly believe, that history will not be kind to him and that he will not be remembered fondly.

[Labrocca]

Interesting stuff Deadshot about Abe. I don't see your mention of the Civil War...surely at the time Lincoln was considered a complete loon for starting a civil war against the south. A brother kills brother war could not have been popular at the time. There was 600,000 American casualties in that war...Iraq doesn't even have 10% of that.

Lincoln used the cause of freeing the slaves to create a noble reason to war with the South. Who wants to bet that many Americans felt that slaves weren't worth going to war over.

Hey look what I found...the first Liberal Activist group in America possibly?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copperheads_(politics)

[Drocket]

surely at the time Lincoln was considered a complete loon for starting a civil war against the south.

...

Lincoln used the cause of freeing the slaves to create a noble reason to war with the South.

There's so much wrong in this post, I don't believe I can even try to correct it without suffering an aneurysm...

[Deadshot]

surely at the time Lincoln was considered a complete loon for starting a civil war against the south.

...

Lincoln used the cause of freeing the slaves to create a noble reason to war with the South.

There's so much wrong in this post, I don't believe I can even try to correct it without suffering an aneurysm...


Labrocca, Drocket's right here, better re-read the History books. Lincoln did not start the Civil War. Didn't come close to starting it.

He may have been considered a loon for keeping us in the war after so many died, but I don't think you'll find many historians that blame Lincoln for STARTING the Civil War.

[PatrickHenry]

I don't think you'll find many historians that blame Lincoln for STARTING the Civil War.
That's true. Winners write the history books.

[Drocket]

That's true. Winners write the history books.

Let me guess: the South shall rise again?

[Deadshot]

That's true. Winners write the history books.

Let me guess: the South shall rise again?


Let's hope not...:nana:

[Labrocca]

And if Iraq becomes a success history won't say Bush started the war either. They will mention his non-compliance with the UN, his attack on Kuwait, his atrocities with his people, and yes "gulp" 9/11.

Did Lincoln start the war? Maybe not...but guess what...he certainly instigated it. The war was about Slavery plain and simple. Lincoln was against slavery and the fear for the south became real as soon as he was elected....before Lincoln was even inaugerated the Confederate States began. Lincoln COULD have used diplomacy or allowed the succession...instead he chose to insist the succession was unlawful which at the time I am sure would have been argued by liberals. I can imagine the "they can do what they want as long as nobody else is hurt" kind of attitude we get today from liberals.

[AnnEsthesia]

9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq. If we were going to have attacked a country for 9/11, we would have attacked Saudi Arabia, you know.. the country from where most of the hijackers originated?

[ViolaLee]

And if Iraq becomes a success history won't say Bush started the war either. They will mention his non-compliance with the UN, his attack on Kuwait, his atrocities with his people, and yes "gulp" 9/11.
....

Why would the history books mention 9/11 in regards to Iraq? The only connection 9/11 has to Iraq is that Bush could never have sold the war to the American people if 9/11 hadn't happened.

Maybe the history books will mention how Bush and his admin lied about Iraq being connected to 9/11, but if it's an honest history book, that's all it will say about Iraq in connection with 9/11.

[Labrocca]

phew..typical responses...that's why I gulped saying 9/11 but truth be told the Iraq War is PART of the War On Terror....that's the connection history MIGHT use.

[Deadshot]

phew..typical responses...that's why I gulped saying 9/11 but truth be told the Iraq War is PART of the War On Terror....that's the connection history MIGHT use.


Well I'm simply basing my judgement on the track record of the Bush White House. They've been wrong more then right. Also they refuse to listen to the Historians and those with Middle East knowledge on the way in '03. They ignored the Iraq Study Group, and even McCain and the most ardent war supporters have admitted the war was mismanaged up until this new "Surge."

Given all of those facts and the present attitude of the White House towards all opposition, I'm going to assume that the best and brightest will both write, read and teach the History.

Who's side do you think they'll be on? I think if the surge does begin working you won't see it succeed to it's fullest extent until '08 or '09, and just like Reagan with the hostages in Iran, another POTUS will get the credit for any Bush accomplishment. :fight:

[Buck Laser]

As a note of interest, the cover story for this month's Atlantic speaks of a failed presidency. Haven't read it yet, but will do so in a couple of days. I have to confess that my instinct is that Bush's presidency is a total failure. I'll be interested to see how the article strikes me.[/u]

[AnnEsthesia]

If we were honestly interested in fighting a war on terror, bin Laden would be dead and we would actively be going after the countries ACTIVE in terror, like oh, gee... Saudi Arabia.