Does it matter if Bush is "in trouble"?

[ewagner]

Every once in a while I have to remind myself that Bush* should be only a sideshow to our real agenda. Our real agenda should and must be to beat the Neocon agenda and defeat any Neocon who supports it as they run for Congress. That of course is a collorary to the other favorable agenda of regaining control of one or both houses.

Bush being "in trouble" is important only in the following regards:

1. If he is weakened, he will have no coattails to drag other Republicans into office.

2. If he is weakened, Congressional Republicans will be more likely to abandon or fight his legislative agenda as opposed to marching lock-step with his demands.

3. If he is weakened, there will be a lot of in-fighting and fracturing of the party which may break up the so-called "solid south".

Remember that GWB is a lame, lame duck. We'll never actually have to defeat him again and he'll never run for another political office again. (as a side note: his screwing up in New Orleans probably torpedoed any chance he ever had of becoming the Commissioner of Baseball. Just think if he did for baseball what he did for New Orleans? Or Iraq?) Focusing all our attention on GWB is a wasteful enterprise...we need to expend our resources (people and money) as efficiently as possible to defeat the Neocon Scourage.

Unless impeachment becomes a REAL possibility I suggest we start treating Bush dismissively and move on to defeating the Neocons.

jmho.

[lectrobyte]

1. Does it matter? You think brother Jeb isn't expecting to fill his

chair in the oval office? Of course it matters. I'd like him to be in enough trouble that Bush's Beans changes their name out of embarrassment.

[Booster]

7. I love Bush's Beans and everytime I buy them I shudder just a

little. We shouldn't waste any more time on Bush because he's dead in the water, but we need to concentrate on getting Cheney; he's the real leader of the neocons and the most dangerous person in the world. And, yes, we have to make sure every American says "No More Bushes".

[cally]

2. We have to quit blaming Bush

Unless Dems connect his failures with the bigger failures of the Republican agenda and party, then we lose. The neocon/fundie agenda is our enemy and is what we need to defeat. Bush is now meaningless. We need to show the voters that the larger problem is that Congress did not oversee an out of control administration and that these folks are failures at leading the country.

[saltpoint]

3. A lot of GOP clowns invested heavily in this little monster.

Dubya has let them down and now they're nervous about their re-election chances.

There's a connection between neo-con and right-wing political funding and political pressure and the election ("selection" actually) of George W. Bush in 2000.

Just as the Commander in Chief has to shoulder responsibility when things go wrong, we political junkies like to lay the blame at his doorstep.

He's beginning to gt what he deserved. If others go down with him, good. They laid down the bucks and twisted the arms.

It'd be ok by me if we could clear them all out, re-count the vote in Ohio, and put two men named John in the Pres. & Vice-Pres. jobs.

[napi21]

4. I disagree with that philosophy. The worse Shrub looks, the more

supporters he looses! Something has to break the "admiration" many of his supporters have for him. He must be shown as the deceiptful, ignorant, arrogant, non-Christian man that he really is!

Those who turn on him will likely move away from the Pub Party too.

[Mz Pip]

5. He may be a lame duck

but he's still the head duck.

He can do a hell of a lot of damage in the next three years. Unless his own party turns on him he will just ram through whaterver crackpot scheme, agenda or fundy wish list item he feels like.

All that infighting is more flash than substance. They will support him and his dumb ass policies to the bitter end.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[readmylips]

6. The Evangelical crazies will also fall on their Arsess....

How funny....Their great leader chosen by God is a crook.