Rove Indictment the End for Bush?

[Bluesplayer]

I think Bush's presidency is effectively over. Especially if Rove is indicted later today. He might go up and down in the polls for the next 2-1/2 years, but will never get too close to 40% again.

If the Democrats win both houses in November, that will be a knife in the heart.

The question then becomes what a Democratic congress will do, and whether Bush, who has never vetoed a single bill yet, will simply veto everything produced by that Democratic congress. And can we, in a time of war, have a president who has lost the ability to lead?

How does everyone think this will play out?

[TrogL]

1. Tea Party anyone?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

2. I think B*sh's reign is essentially over no matter what

happens with Rove.

The general populace has had it. Probably just because of gas prices, but I don't care why, as long as they are.

[andino]

3. Hehehe

My hope is that the Dems in congress remove all of his travel spending after a trip to the ranch so that he is stuck there w/o a way back to Washington.

[bluestateguy]

4. I don't think Bush can function without Rove

He just can't. Bush is not all that bright and he has never been known to "do policy". Bush trusts Rove more than anybody, perhaps even his own father.

Also never underestimate the stupididy of the American people, who like to come running back to Mommy when they get scared. Another terrorist attack may have that effect. Or not. I don't know. Or a convenient capture of Osama bin Laden could be arranged with a few phone calls to the Carlyle Group.

But Rove hasn't been indicted yet. Let's wait and see.

[Kutjara]

5. The biggest danger may be...

...that the Repugs 'let' the Dems win in November. Then they sit back for the next 2.5 years, while the inevitable shitstorm plays out (stay in Iraq: nightmare; pull out: nightmare; immigration: nightmare; deficit: nightmare), and then blame it all on the Dems during the 2008 campaign. The hard core wingnuts would (in typical fashion) forget that Bush ever did anything wrong as they greedily slurp the Kool-Ade of Dem incompetence.

It's very likely that, no matter who runs the country in the near term, things are going to get a lot worse before they start to get better. The big challenge for Dems is to make the nation understand that they are busily halting the slide, and not causing it. The Repugs will be very clear that it's all the Dems fault.

The punishment for not making the nation understand is Jeb in the WH in '09.

[Fredda Weinberg]

6. You're missing the forest for a tree

However we might need to personalize our grievances, the problem is not one person - or even a single political party. There's an old saying, "You can't beat something with nothing" and that's all I seeing at DU these days.

I started posting here with a positive agenda and walked away when lies became more popular than reality. I'm seeing that need again.

Rove is a tactician who is easily replaced; the forces he represents have been around since the founding of our republic and won't dissipate because one individual stumbled.

The best we can hope for out of this mess is a temporary reprieve, but don't fool yourself: those who have want more and will stop at nothing to maintain their privileges.

Do we stand together against the darkness? I fear not, but I know that I'm still doing my part to leave the world just a little better than I found it.

[newswolf56]

13. Very well said. See my additional tinfoil paranoid's comment below. n/t

[fishwax]

16. good points n/t

[TomInTib]

7. The end is near, but what do they (Dems) do then?

It is gonna get a lot worse before it turns around.

N Y Times had an interesting take on this today.

I do not know if this is "premium" (subscriber) or not, but here goes the intro:

DEMOCRATS are all but breaking out the Champagne. Republicans are divided and disheartened; President Bush's poll numbers seem to be in free fall. Many Democrats are talking not only about victory in November but about what they will do once Congress is in their hands.

Such talk may well be premature. Election Day is six months away, and the party has lost many a winning hand. But here is a slightly heretical question, being asked only partly in jest right now: Is it really in the best interest of the Democratic Party to win control of the House and Senate in November? Might the party's long-term fortunes actually be helped by falling short?

As strange as it might seem, there are moments when losing is winning in politics. Even as Democrats are doing everything they can to win, and believe that victory is critical for future battles over real issues, some of the party's leading figures are also speculating that November could represent one of those moments.

From this perspective, it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world politically to watch the Republicans struggle through the last two years of the Bush presidency. There's the prospect of continued conflict in Iraq, high gas prices, corruption investigations, Republican infighting and a gridlocked Congress. Democrats would have a better chance of winning the presidency in 2008, by this reasoning, and for the future they enhance their stature at a time when Republicans are faltering.

maybe more here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/weekinreview/14nagourney.html?pagewanted=print

[Renew Deal]

10. Or we can show up and lead.

I think this is a pile of bunk. Another possibility is we make lemons out of lemonade and make people proud of their government. I don't think it's too much to ask.

[TomInTib]

12. I know that. We need a message, not a massage.

I was just offering a differing point of view (not necessarily mine) I thought was worth, at least, factoring.

It is really all about 2008, isn't it?

Do you come out with everything in the 4th round of a fight or wait until your opponent has worn himself down and you take him completely out of the fight?

Sorry about the sports metaphor but I have been (redacted) and I tend to go Neanderthal.

I am a fierce competitor. And I know the paramount goal is winning the whole deal.

So the Dems focus on winning a majority of the House and Senate seats up for election and then deliver the knockout punch in 2008.

If we get a bi-cameral majority now, the 'pubs will point the finger at us until 2008 and try to place the blame of all the pre-ordained failures on the ineptness of the Left. That gives the idiots more room to vote R in 2008.

I am not arguing, just thinking.

[Renew Deal]

28. I was referencing the NYT article.

I didn't take it as your idea. Either way, I don't buy that we should lose intentionally just so they have no one to blame. How about we win and try to accomplish something. Let them be obstructionists.

[calimary]

32. Good points, both of you. But if they retain the majorities in both Houses

you CANNOT forget the risk this poses to ALL of us for the rest of bush's term.

Here's what we'd face, if the situation continues with the one-party government we have now:

1) bush would immediately start making noises about improved political capital, about having just faced and passed his latest "accountability moment," and proclaim that this is a validation of everything he is and everything he does and everything he believes - by the American people.

2) Sooooo... which potential disaster that could still happen in this country are YOU willing to risk letting him and his cronies handle? Potential disasters here meaning accidental, naturally-caused, OR manmade (terror).

3) How much WORSE will everything that's already truly horrid become on their watch, considering the way they're "watching"? Meaning everything and all the issues - immigration, global warming, women's rights, the complexion of the courts, the incursions into personal freedoms, the domestic spying, the lying about the war, the dying from the war, the torture, the outsourcing, the gas prices, Iran, our looted budget, our balance of trade, our reputation in the world, you name it. How many more of our sons and daughters will have been killed in Iraq? And how do we know that, if they prevail, there won't be YET ANOTHER war underway by then - in Iran? You okay with this asshole maintaining control of the launch codes - UNRESTRAINED? UNQUESTIONED? UNINVESTIGATED?

4) Which brings us to the accountability question. It will mean this bastards slips through without ever being held accountable. No Dems in control means the Dems can't set the agenda at the committee level, launch investigations, ask questions, enjoy SUBPOENA POWER, AND can be expected consistently to observe the law in the proceedings by swearing every witness in, under oath - as these republi-CONS have many times refused to do (ask alberto "torture's okay" gonzales and most of the uber-bosses of the oil industry).

5) The message that these points above will telecast all over everywhere, AND certainly, on all the airwaves, that an election win or validation is equal to - these guys were doing the good thing and should be allowed to continue it. That's like letting a nasty or unruly kid continue what they're doing instead of checking the behavior so they learn that it ISN'T WHAT YOU DO. Think of the message that was sent to evangelicals and hard-line fundies after 2004 - that everything that had gone on was indeed God-sanctioned because the proof was in the winning. And look what's happened since? Roe v Wade is on the ropes.

6) How high will the death toll be by then, if we leave them all in charge? How many Americans will have died, and how many mothers (and fathers, too) will have cried and had their guts ripped out, for their overreaching vision of American supremacy and delusions of empire?

Some situations just simply are untenable. They CANNOT be allowed to continue. Period. The bad behavior HAS TO BE checked. I can understand the argument that persuades that we just keep giving them more rope - let republi-CONS be republi-CONS, and that will stain the carpet forever. Yeah. That could well be true. And, let's be realistic, that could still happen (especially in favor of people with a penchant for stealing). But that opens us up to being completely vulnerable to the RESULTS of their incompetence, bad judgment, shortsightedness, wilfull pig-headedness, selfishness and stingey-ness, arrogance, bullying, and lying-lying-lying - until January, 2009. I'm not sure we can afford that, or can withstand that, considering all the body-blows we've taken. What makes you think they'll get it any better or smarter or more beneficial to a wider swath of Americans if they read their "victories" and their survival in November strictly as verification that we really ARE on the "right" path. And the media will be led, like good little sheep, to get back on the bandwagon and repeat and underscore that message to the masses already pre-conditioned to let someone else do their thinking for them. The pile-on we've worked so hard for so long to break up will resume, back business as usual, until another calamity that these assholes aren't prepared for and can't handle and WON'T handle except to pass the buck and then whine for more tax cuts jolts them out of their stupors again. I just don't think we can afford it. Not JUST monetarily, either.

The risks, for me, are too great. I'm working for 2006. Stanch the blood flow NOW. If you wait, the big operation may eventually be a success, but the patient won't make it.

[meow2u3]

31. You're half right. We have the message

but we need a message so strong the bedwetting conservatives can't shoot it down without making themselves look like the assholes they are.

[beltanefauve]

15. Adam Nagourney

Nope. Sorry. He's a right-wing shill. All his articles have that same formula, and if you read enough of them you can pick up on who wrote them without looking. They're all designed to cast doubt on Democrats.

[autorank]

8. He's a goner. People are now willing to believe 2004 was stolen, lots of

them.

I think that the 2006 elections will be a disaster but there will be such a fear of stealing congress, the Democrats will take control, but their margin will be shaved by residual, built in fraud. Remember, that vote swathing (touching the screen for Kerry and having your vote recorded for Bush) occurred at over 9 to 1 in Bush's favor (that's what I mean by "residual").

Given a Democratic congress, they'll figure that they won because they're smart and do what they've been doing, which is fail to show the boldness the times require. But I predict that the "fury of the people" will be such that they won't stay that way for long. Record turnout in 2006 will blow everybody away.

Many Democrats will run on an impeachment platform, impeach them both. This will sell and it will be opposed by McCain, who will lose it and really turn off the general public.

All in all, it's good but for the fact that we may be in an irreversible path to a 20' rise in sea level due to our waste and profligacy. Shame, huh...no more London, Netherlands, NYC, NOLA, Florida (to speak of). In the bigger picture, the victory may give the USA a chance to redeem itself for our 3% of the population consuming 25% of the worlds energy resources. But I'm not optimistic. The facts of global warming/climate change have been starkly revealed over the past 2 months and zip, zero, zilch, nada. What can you do?

[Renew Deal]

9. I'm starting to doubt if he will make it to 2009.

There are too many angry people around. The mood of the country is very bad.

[ginnyinWI]

11. Lowest approval ratings for a prez going into midterms EVER.

That's what someone on MTP said today. We've never been in this territory before--nothing this bad. No doubt he'll be even lower as soon as this latest NSA thing really sinks in.

I think *'s presidency has been effectively over since last spring. What have they to show for all of 2005-6? Nothing positive and plenty of negatives:

Terry Schiavo
Failure to reform Social Security (after an extended road show on it)
Katrina--worst disaster in our history handled horribly and still ongoing.
Harriet Miers--shook the confidence the wingnuts had in the administration
NSA story broke in November
Libby resigns following indictment
Cheney shoots lawyer friend in the face, followed by obfuscation of facts.
Dubai Ports fiasco
NSA pt. 2 recently
And always ongoing: Iraq--where's the victory?, and Afghanistan--where's Osama?
Deficits as far as the eye can see.
Rove indictment coming up

have I missed anything?

If we get a huge victory in December he will be effectively boxed in. He may resign--just decide to quit and hope for a pardon by his replacement.

[beltanefauve]

17. Abramoffgate, Plamegate,

easy to miss. Its one scandal after the next with no resolve. I'm dizzy.

[newswolf56]

14. The grave danger here is Bush will do what many feared Nixon would do:

fabricate a national-security excuse and impose dictatorship. Moreover -- in contrast to Nixon, who was deeply troubled by his own declining popularity -- Bush demonstrates an absolute, almost sociopathic lack of concern for his own commode-swift plunge in the polls. Whether a symptom of irrationality or proof the fix of corruption or conspiracy is solidly in place, Bush's behavior certainly reinforces fears that a coup may be forthcoming -- in which case any Democratic victory (much less any return to progressive values) would be nullified and thus forever prohibited.

Nor is "forever" hyperbole: such a coup would undoubtedly impose Christian theocracy, which (in companionship with Islamic theocracy) would damn humanity to resumption of the Dark Age that began in 313AD with the Edict of Milan -- a Dark Age that, this time (and given all the givens) would prevail until humanity itself becomes extinct.

[Fredda Weinberg]

18. We've faced the enemy and it is us

My father survived Hitler, so I grew up learning what I would one day have to face - after all, he repeatedly noted, Germans were the most civilized people in the world. But they were also a frightened, defeated people who exhibited normal mob behavior under stress - and a mob under stress is a dangerous thing.

As I see it, the threat remains, but we have communications tools at our disposal that we shouldn't abuse. That's why I've not joined the group-hope we've seen this weekend; it's been too easy to discredit our media and we keep falling for the veronica. We should have learned by now to keep our powder dry and refrain from firing until we see the whites of their eyes.

* doesn't fear a coup; he fears not being able to come up with another one. It was so easy to shut down the vote count in Miami with a tiny mob and influence the Supremes with the threat of a military revolt ... it's reasoned dialogue the idealogues can't handle.

I can't despair because it's been so easy to counter the reactionary forces - I'm proud of the work I did to support Pacifica stations when their board was saddling the organization with unbearable debt ... sound familiar? And I didn't have to start from nothing - the resource was already there and just needed our attention.

Our strongest allies against dictatorship are across the political aisle - Republicans feel that their party has been hijacked by well-organized forces and they're correct. But repressive politics is bad for business and gives us even more formidable forces available to support our progressive agenda.

But it requires a positive attitude. Yes, religion preaches fire and brimstone but it also promises salvation. Large demographics are looking for political alliances to realize the dream of affluence - and if you can't make the dream real, make it sound possible.

So get busy, because it's the antidote to the angst you're experiencing. Participate, because we are part of the solution. I do whatever I can whenever potential exists to promote positive change and retreat when tactics dictate. When I go down, it'll be fighting for a cause I'm willing to die for - and I'm not fighting alone.

Good to have you on my side - and we are doing the right thing at the right time. As my brother noted, the Internet could be our salvation - and check my sig for additional advice.

[newswolf56]

20. Four responses:

(1)-As I suspect you already suspect, I am busy -- and have been so (to one degree or another) for just about all my life.

(2)-Your father's comment about 1930s Germany and the Germans of that era ("Germans were the most civilized people in the world") is absolutely true in every sense possible, which is precisely why all the attempts to make analogies between '30s Germany and the United States today are not only pathetically fallacious but absurdly arrogant -- and thus total failures. The sociological analogy is to Czarist Russia c. 1900: beyond the bread-and-circus glitz and glitter of the consumeroid facade, no industrial people since Czarist times have ever been so abysmally ignorant as today's U.S. citizens -- the result of a corporate-run educational system no less deliberately productive of ignorance than the Czar's deliberately imposed lack of schools that kept pre-revolutionary Russia in the bonds of hopeless illiteracy -- and for precisely the same reason. An apt political analogy between today's U.S. and some other time/place doesn't exist -- or at least I can't think of one: no people on the face of the earth ever squandered so much promise in exchange for so much entirely illusory gain, to such an extent the entire blood-won gift of the Founders is now (particularly after white America's indifference to the genocidal aftermath of Katrina) ever more obviously pearls before swine.

(3)-Even if the level of induced ignorance could somehow be healed, until the U.S. electorate re-acknowledges the historical truth of class struggle -- an awareness once strong in this nation but methodically purged by the savagery of the McCarthy Era and thus probably beyond any rational hope of recovery -- the likelihood of genuine progressive renaissance is nil.

(4)-Check out my profile (and maybe some of my other posts) and then, if you're so inclined, PM me -- especially toward the end of furthering the advent of reciprocity clusters.

[tulsakatz]

19. if the Democrats do get control....

....and at this point, I think it's a good possibility, I think Bush's pResidency will be over whether or not he is impeached.

He won't be able to work with the democrats and in fact will probably try to insult them again..........like that's going to help.......not very likely. At that point his reign will be over so even if he stays he will be so ineffective that he might as well be gone.

[Disturbed]

21. If the Democrats do get control

and Bush is not Impeached what will happen if there is another vacancy on the SC, maybe even two?

[the48er]

22. Cheney's Replacement Is the Next President

Cheney goes first, whether because of health, Plame, the NSA, whatever, but he goes first. So whom does Bush nominate as Cheney's replacement, i.e., try to install as the next president? Though quite a few horribly misguided Dem's think McCain's not so bad, a lot of Republicans don't like him, so I'm not sure that one's a given.

[laugle]

33. I agree Cheney will probably resign, but the person

who takes his place will never be president! Afterall, Who wants to be associated with a failed presidency, and why would people want to vote for more of the same?

You are wayyyy out of the ballpark!!

[Toots]

23. "And can we, in a time of war,"

I see you have bought into their propaganda. The USA is not at war with any country..We are supposedly performing police action though and not very damn well.

[lwcon]

24. I'm not so sure about that, but...

... that's the first sentence I've heard that has "Bush" and "effectively" in it.

___

Hey, the liberal light is always on at the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. Please stop by and say "hi!"

[Nimrod2005]

25. Agree with you, here are some addtitional reasons:

Nothing will get done this year, all the stupid politicians are busy getting re-elected. So 2006 is gone.

In 2007, Bush is going to be in even deeper shit because of Iraq, 2007 is when the Iraqis really fight (each other) for a seat at the table, this year is just someone trying to intice someone to pick up an AK47. 2008, elections again, they will have about 12 working days in DC and that's it.

I have been saying all of this since last Christmas.

[PRETZEL]

26. He's been a lame duck for a while now,

We already have a President who's lost the ability to lead. But be that as it may, what would happen if the Dem's take control of Congress come November. If I was advising the leadership the one thing I wouldn't do is make this an assault on all the ills that this Presidency has caused. That isn't to say that I wouldn't investigate them, I just would take the position that it is the responsibility of Congress to know the full extent of what was going on in order to fully and effeciently perform those oversight functions that the previous Congress' have failed to do. I'd leave it at that. No memtion of wrong doing (at least publicly).

They also have to be somewhat moderate in their proposals. I'm not sure the general public is going to agree with alot of additional spending programs just to force Bush to start using veto power. They need to start with balancing the budget (and that very well may include repealing the tax cuts) with an emphasis on accountability of war related expenditures (do not make cuts unless you can prove mismanagement).

In short, the new democratic majority needs to be more moderate in their governance. I don't believe the people would want a new debate (or a rehash of 1992) that could very well lead to an extremely short lived majority.

[Doctor_J]

27. I doubt it - the man has mores lives than a cat

I don't realy think there's anyone to bring him to account. Is there? Besides, he hasn't actually done any work - new ideas for Iraq, budget improvements, homeland security upgrades, etc. - for more than a year. Besides the approval ratings - which mean essentially nothing - things are humming along nicely for Smirk. He still sleeps 10 hrs/ night, gets drunk alot, goes on vacation, and attends fundraisers. His life couldn't be better.

[enough already]

29. It has to happen today

What is Fitz waiting for?

[noonwitch]

30. By itself, an indictment of Rove would probably not spell the end for Bush

If Rove talked to prosecutors and implicated Bush or Cheney in a crime, I think that would be more of the beginning of the end. I really doubt that will be the case, though.

[E-Z-B]

34. Let's see how fast Dubya distances himself from Rove

"I don't recall ever meeting him, Kenneth Lay, nor Jack Abramoff..."