Regime change in the US before it's too late

Uh... You're gonnna need to get rid of quite a few more world leaders. They ain't the only two supporting the war.

Australia, Poland, Italy, Hungary, Japan, Spain, Portugal, etc...

After you're done with those people, take care of the 70% of the US that supports Bush. Seriously, the only "morons" are people who want to get rid of an elected president who committed no impeacheable crimes. Why not just wait until the 2004 elections?

Good lordy...

Hey, thanks for posting it to the MacNN forum. I mean now that the word is out on here it should only take a couple weeks before the task gets accomplished. Moving up the elections by a year and some change should be a snap for the collective influence we hold here.
Kudos to you for having the courage to begin the crusade!!!!





moron

Someone neglected to Tell John Kerry the same thing.

What a moron

Where were you when Saddam was killing his own people by the thousands? Where was your concern for human life then? Or is this just how you spin your political view these days?

The loss of human life is tragic, no matter what the cause. However, lives lost in this war will be small compared to the destruction Saddam has already caused and would have continued to cause if given the chance.

Just thought I should note:

Regime change suggests changing the entired system of government, not just the leader.

So, you want to get rid of Bush, but you are suggesting throwing away the entire system of government.

How about just winning a f*cking election in 2004?

Yeah, cuz, y'know, he IS the only one campaigning now...

Partisan Pride!

LOL

the 70 % approval rating is absolute propaganda.period.
and NO a republican supreme court decided the election not the people...and yes we have to wait til 2004 to attempt to oust him, but i'm counting on the same corrupt election process to fail us again.

But it was legit when Clinton was President, right?

I don't give a crap about numbers, because you can find numbers to back up anything.




A Republican Supreme Court?

One of the two decisions was 7-2. The other was 5-4.

As far as corrupt elections, are you in favor of requiring ID to vote?

Did you mind the corruption when students at University of Wisconsin voted as many as 20 times and proudly bragged about it?

Did you mind the corruption of a judge keeping polls open in Missouri for hours after they were supposed to close?

Did you mind the corruption of giving cigarettes to homeless people in exchange for votes?

Did you mind the corruption in 2002 in South Dakota where Native American Reservations were taken advantage of by the Democrats to win the Senate seat there?

Or do you only complain about elections when Republicans win them?

Hey, I just got the same book....

The Liberal's Playbook: Platitudes for Everyday Use (2003 ed.)

You did not answer last time, are you dumber than human shields or not?

I don't think it's possible.

WHAT!? Theses polls are from know Liberal sources. Pure propaganda . The Supreme court upheld the law, the did nothing other than that. If they had we would have known it with the media scrutiny that was going on.

Corrupt election Process? they recounted and recounted and recounted and Bush STILL WON! GET OVER IT!

Even after the election was certified, the recount of florida ballots conducted by an independant auditing firm and paid for by a major newspaper (several, I think), Bush would have won. I don't like the outcome, but I voted and I had my say.

"Even after the election was certified, the recount of florida ballots conducted by an independant auditing firm and paid for by a major newspaper (several, I think), Bush would have won. I don't like the outcome, but I voted and I had my say."

Sure the count from the ballots that weren't destroyed and carted off to the dump...he didn't win the popular vote and the election in florida was just too close...they should have held another election just for florida...they would have done as much if they were overseeing an election in a third world country...but not the perfect us democracy, no way...that's why i don't have any faith that it would turn out any differently in 2004.

You're right, It'll be a landslide in 2004 for Bush so there won't be any arguement

I don't know about that. History is repeating itself in more ways that one here. The economy is what killed Bush Sr.'s re-election hopes. If the war is over too quickly (think of what news we hear about Afghanistan now), the economy goes front-and-center. It ain't looking good either.

I'm not laying blame on GW's spats, but this is one "elecetion" indicator that is going against him in a big way....



(edit: post preview is your friend!)

There are similarities, and a glaring difference or two.

One is that in 1990-91, the country was heading in to recession, today it is (weakly) heading out of one. The impact by election day on public perception is therefore rather different.

Secondly, the national mood is different. The mood in 1991 was "come home America" and "it's the economy stupid." Foreign affairs was seen as peripheral, and a distraction. That mood changed after 9/11. (Sorry to mention 9/11, but it is a factor, especially among those who are the most likely to vote).

Thirdly, In 1991, Bush I was distrusted by many core Republicans. Today, Republicans are united and Bush II won't face a Perot on the right.

Fourthly, the Democrats are comparatively disunited. In 1991, there was a hunger for the White House among activists after 12 years of being out of power that allowed a moderate New Democrat to be elected. Today, there seems to be a hunger among activists to renominate George McGovern.

Fifth, Bush II was with his father in 1991 and has learned by his mistakes. He won't ignore domestic policy in the run up to the election, and there won't be a "read my lips" moment.


I'm not saying it is in the bag. I'd be the last one to call an election two years out. But I do think that even if Bush stumbles between now and Nov. 2004, the Democrats will have to be either very good, or very lucky, to unseat him.

This is what the article that I (ineffectively) linked says. There are a few analysts out there who think we are back on the brink with recession...a bad one. The main indicators are not good. One more month of bad unemployment news (which is expected) could tip the balance. Then it will be about "the economy, stupid."

If the Democratic party can put together a decent economic policy for their platform, you could measure the time it will take for the political climate to change with an egg timer.

It kinda depends on how soon Iraq fades from the spot-light. Most of the poll breakdowns I've seen give high numbers for the the Iraq issue but the numbers are terrible when domestic policy is extracted.

And GHWB was wildly popular (more popular) during and shortly after Gulf I and GWB is.

Just saying it ain't gonna be a slam dunk for him, and anyone who says it will based on his current popularity hasn't looked at history very closely.

I agree it isn't a slam dunk. I don't think that any election is ever a slam dunk.

But I do think that the other factors push in Bush's direction even allowing for a weak economy. A huge recession could change things, of course. So could any number of other factors - scandal, mistaken policy, a dark horse candidacy. On the other hand, the economy could go into a boom. Remember how wrong most economists were in 1982? Economist's predictions are notoriously wrong.

Anyway, we'll see.

Not this again.

Die hard Democrats may want a more liberal candidate for President, but that doesn't mean that they'll actually choose one in the primaries.

The vote for me because I can win in the general election concept has won over plenty of otherwise unelectable primary candidates over the last ten years (in both parties). People in Iowa and New Hampshire; Democratic, Republican, or otherwise; tend to be anti-war, but you can bet that they'll both vote for Lieberman, more hawkish than Bush, in their primaries anyway simply because he can defeat Bush in the general election.

Maybe but Reagan vs. Mondale was pretty much a slam dunk.

The election result was, but not predictions two years out.

Yes but most predictions 2 years out usually aren't A lot can happen in 2 years.

That was really my point in the response to someone saying bush would win in a landslide in '04. I tried to give one reason, and it got bogged down. My apologies for not being clear....though I do love it when simey corrects me because I always learn something or get a fresh perspective.

That was me making that prediction. You know how preditions when an election is still a while away.