If this was a year ago...

[Dr. Drum]

If we’re talking specifically about the 2000+ American deaths in Iraq, I’d say bottom line, it’s because your political system is decrepit (as is the case to varying degrees throughout the Western world, btw). And not just the governing party, though they bear primary responsibility – the failure of the Democrats and the news media to effectively carry out their appointed functions was just as pronounced.

[shin]

Indeed.

[skvorisdeadsorta]

If this was a year ago I would be still be trolling for fish tacos, booze, and records.

[luke]

Oh man I love fish tacos.

So Skvor, you eat fish? What's the rules on your vegetarianism?

If this was a year ago, there's still no way in hell I'd vote for Bush...but if this were a couple of years ago, you can bet I'd be out there busting my ass to keep Kathleen Blanco out of office...

[rockkid]

I’d say were it a year ago & the Palme issue were in the forefront he’d not have a chance in hell.
I think he’s sunk.
Somethings rotting at a high rate of speed IMO

[kmc]

If this were a year ago, Bush would still be President. He would win due to the current restructuring of the Democratic Party.

[chrisfan]

Ken, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Job performance is only have the equation in a re-election bid. The organization of your opponent is the other half, and until the Democrats figure out that "Well the Republicans suck" is not an adequate campaign slogan, things are even, if not slightly to the advantage of Republicans.

[shin]

Poll: Bush would lose an election if held this year

(CNN) -- A majority would vote for a Democrat over President Bush if an election were held this year, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Tuesday.

In the latest poll, 55 percent of the respondents said that they would vote for the Democratic candidate if Bush were again running for the presidency this year.

Thirty-nine percent of those interviewed said they would vote for Bush in the hypothetical election.

The latest poll results, released Tuesday, were based on interviews with 1,008 adults conducted by telephone October 21-23.

In the poll, 42 percent of those interviewed approved of the way the president is handling his job and 55 percent disapproved. In the previous poll, released October 17, 39 percent approved of Bush's job performance -- the lowest number of his presidency -- and 58 percent disapproved.

However, all the numbers are within the poll's sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, so it's possible that the public's opinion has not changed at all.

More than half, 57 percent, said they don't agree with the president's views on issues that are important to them, while 41 percent said their views are in alignment with those of Bush on important issues.
Democrats preferred on issues

On separate issues, a majority of those questioned felt the Democrats could do a better job than Republicans at handling health care (59 percent to 30 percent), Social Security (56 percent to 33 percent), gasoline prices (51 percent to 31 percent) and the economy (50 percent to 38 percent).

Forty-six percent also believed Democrats could do better at handling Iraq, while 40 percent said the GOP would do better.

In 2003, 53 percent said Republicans would better handle Iraq and only 29 percent believed the Democrats would do better.

The only issue on which Republicans came out on top was in fighting terrorism: 49 percent said the GOP is better at it, while 38 percent said the Democrats are.

And there was a dramatic shift downward in the latest poll, compared with September, in the percentage of people who said that it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq.

This time, 49 percent said it was a mistake, versus 59 percent who felt that way last month.

Find this article at:
www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/25/poll.bush/index.html

I'm used to Chrisfan being utterly wrong on these things, but you too, Kenny? Come, now.

[chrisfan]

We discussed that already Shin. Just about any time that you have a named candidate running against an idea, the idea wins. There is no negative campaigning being done right now against "A Democrat".

[ClubberLang]

let us pray

[shin]

chrisfan said:

Ken, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Job performance is only have the equation in a re-election bid. The organization of your opponent is the other half, and until the Democrats figure out that "Well the Republicans suck" is not an adequate campaign slogan, things are even, if not slightly to the advantage of Republicans.

Well apparently I felt it necessary to point out that apparently "Well the Republicans suck" is an adequate campaign slogan.

[chrisfan]

shin said:

chrisfan said:

Ken, I think you've hit the nail on the head. Job performance is only have the equation in a re-election bid. The organization of your opponent is the other half, and until the Democrats figure out that "Well the Republicans suck" is not an adequate campaign slogan, things are even, if not slightly to the advantage of Republicans.

Well apparently I felt it necessary to point out that apparently "Well the Republicans suck" is an adequate campaign slogan.

Only if you can figure out how to run on it without a counter-attack of "Democrats have always sucked, and they have no plan".

[shin]

Ah, the Kettle Black defense. Always effective at masking one's own incompetence.

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

I'm no fan of Bush, and I doubt very much he'll ever be as loved on the world stage (outside the USA of course) as Clinton, who is regarded as a hero for the reasons shin captured back in those photos.

But... we're judging Clinton's achievements five years on, and after he'd had the full 8 years to construct a legacy.

Lets see how Bush is judged in 8 years time to make the full comparison. I think Bush has got himself into a position where he's ultimately going to be remembered (and judged) by history on the long-term outcome of his Iraqi/Middle East policy.

For all his faults, if Iraq turns out to be a stable democracy freed from the yoke of tyranny - and just maybe shows other middle east states a way forward (much to the fear and consternation of all those foreign terrorists in Iraq right now who have a huge vested interest in seeing US policy fail) - then ultimately Bush's legacy will, amazingly and against all odds, be pretty impressive. Factor in the possibility of real progress in Israel/Palestine and it gets even better.

Of course, these are huge ifs.

But I stick with my original line on Iraq that this could just turn out to be the right thing, if everyone just keeps their nerve. Plenty of British Iraqis seem pleased with the progress being made, and it took over 4 years to get Germany viable after WWII, so I urge patience before we pronounce Bush a failure.

[Dr. Drum]

jllm said:

But I stick with my original line on Iraq that this could just turn out to be the right thing, if everyone just keeps their nerve.

In other words, stay the course. So, this post is a deliberate provocation, right?