Could O'Neill be laying the groundwork for a Bush lay-down in 2004?

[Beaker]

A lot of people are of the opinion that Bush the Former layed down for Bill Clinton in 92, in order to pull off the "Christmas Surprise" pardons of Cappy Weinberger and the IranContraFive that saved his sorry wrinkled ass- something that he wouldn't have been able to do if re-elected.
the Lil'Dictator has already accomplished two major PNAC goals of his presidency- the removal of Saddaam Hussein from power, and the harvesting of the U.S. budget surplus into the hands of the aristocracy, further eroding that pesky middle class.

But-

the bills are about to come do on all the checks that have been written over the past 4 years- this is where the real work is going to start, and tough decisions will have to be made. Republicans cannot be allowed to raise taxes- that has to be layed on Democratic shoulders...and increases are inevitable. as are high interest rates. and an even bleaker economy.

Repuglicans don't know how to create wealth and budget surplusses, they only know how to harvest them- It's the Democrats who have the ability to sow the seeds, and allow the economy to grow and thrive.

and besides, that $200million plus campaign "warchest" will make a nice little nest-egg for him and pickles, should he decide not to use it all up before November, and allow himself to coast to a narrow loss in 2004.
The repukes will look to hold onto the senate and house, and allow the democratic president to take the heat for higher interest rates and taxes of the very near future.
and whether it takes 4, or 8 years to start bringing in the sheaves again, Jebthro will be there to collect the bounty for the wealthy once again.

[Adamocrat]

1. Jeb! No!

If Shrub loses this election, I doubt anyone with the last name Bush would ever be elected again.

[Beaker]

8. never underestimate the gullibility of the American people...

they've allowed themselves to be had by the repukes time and time again.

[lovedems]

2. That makes some sense to me

I was of the mind set when the chimp took office that he would do as much damage as he possibly could in 4 years without really caring about re-(s)election. However, the chimp and his handelers have had a taste of power and I don't think they want to give that up now. I think they will steal to stay in power, no doubt about it.

[RedSock]

3. i've thought this for awhile

i've thought this for awhile -- make a huge mess picking our pockets to hand $$$$$$ over to their wealthy friends (and themselves) and then let a democrat come in and try to clean it up -- and anger a lot of people by doing it -- then get ready to come back in power when there is another surplus to steal. ... taking the long view ...

then again, i also think they are grabbing too much power to ever let it go ...

it's going to be an interesting year!

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. In the winter...

...of 50/49 B.C., faced with the prospects of handing over his command in Gaul at the Senate's command, together with the massive ego-injury that would entail, and returning to Rome to spend the rest of his life answering questions in the Senate, and the courts, Caesar plunged the Roman world into a civil war rather than see his auctoritas diminished.

And Junta Boy is any different?

He crossed his Rubicon on 12.12.2000.

He is the American Ceaucescu. Going quietly isn't in the plan.

[ramblin_dave]

7. Will Bush meet the same end as Ceaucescu?

Or is that too much to hope for?

[peacetalksforall]

5. They need another four years to

ensure that documents of their thieving deeds are gathered in one place and secured or destroyed by a terrorist a/c.

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. The conservative think-tankers are actually claiming that we have a

cyclical political system of government where the Republicans spend and the Democrats are responsible for the real fiscal responsibility. In other words, they're trying to paint as normal this stupid pattern of raising surpluses in Democratic presidencys just for the Republicans to divert the cash to private cronies during Republican presidencys. The only stupid voters are the Republican supporters in the middle and lower class who haven't caught on that they do not benefit at all during Republican presidencys.

[cliss]

9. Now, if I was Paul O'Neill,

I would have waited a little bit longer before dropping the bomb on BeelzeBush et al. Maybe April or May would have been a more strategic choice, when the re-election campaign is in full swing, and they're busy showing noble photos of Bush everywhere in the media, on the Internet, on the radio, and I will be throwing up every day.

It might have been a more opportune time to hit them. They would have to spend valuable time defending themselves and attacking O'Neill in return.

But - he might know what he's doing. He's obviously consulted with people. Notice, he didn't blast away the day after he was fired. He laid low, had a book written, and now he's talking.

So - good for him.