What if * pulls a Grover Cleveland?

[ButterflyBlood]

Grover Cleveland is the only president to every serve two nonconsecutive terms. After being elected he lost to Benjamin Harrison (despite, like Gore, winning the popular vote) and then ran agan the next election and defeated Harrison.

Since Kerry won't be able to clean up all of *'s mess, hell he couldn't if he had as much time in office as FDR did, could * run again saying that Kerry's failed and they should've stuck with him and all that? It'd be pretty frustrating to have that dumbass come back after working so hard to defeat him this year.

[Zynx]

1. That is an evil thought.

Don't speak of it.

[aden_nak]

2. Not after the truth starts coming out.

Once the NeoCons aren't in charge, editing reality for our consumption, I think Bush will shift into his rightful place as one of the least popular Presidents of all time, and he'll do it in RECORD TIME.

[BlueEyedSon]

5. We're replacing the leaders of the gov't, not of the media.

How the heck will any truth come out?

[grytpype]

6. Really.

The revelations we will get once Kerry is in charge... we'll let's just say that the Bush Presidency is worse than we could possibly imagine. And we will find out the truth once Kerry kicks the Simian Squatter out of the People's House.

[aden_nak]

10. I don't think I could imagine them being any worse.

I already think of them as pathological liars, treasonous criminals, and homocidal death-junkies.

[democraticinsurgent]

3. he might try

but as james traficant found out it's tough to conduct a viable campaign while in federal custody. The striped outfits just don't project the right image for some reason.

more likely it would be brother Jeb's turn. or maybe Neil.

[library_max]

4. No, once out of office he'll be as viable politically

as Dan Quayle.

[calico1]

7. I agree. There is something about a candidate losing

an election, even if like Gore, he really didn't lose. They are just not as attractive the second time. And Gore didn't serve. Bush has had almost 4 years and has done a lot of damage. Once Kerry is in office and Bush's henchmen can no longer hide anything, more of the truth will come out. He'll be as desirable to voters as poison ivy in another 4 years.

[Yupster]

16. I agree

there is no great love among Republicans for Bush that would keep their suppor after a loss.

He will be yesterday's news, and a loser, and there will be fresh faces.

I could see Reagan doing that because his supporters were so tied to him personally. I just don't see the same thing with Bush.

[yellowcanine]

8. Pubs would never nominate * for anything again - in fact, many will

secretly give a big sigh of relief when he goes down.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. I'm wouldn't waste time worrying about that

In the past, Americans have given their "war Presidents" the benefit of the doubt and re-elected them. Madison (1812), Lincoln (1864) and FDR (1944) were re-elected during wars. That may have changed in 1952 when Truman retired rather than face re-election during the Korean War and in 1969 when Johnson stepped aside rather than face an election that promised to be a referendum on his handling of the Vietnam War.

Bush is bugling the war on terrorism and needs to be replaced. There has been no effective war. Instead of fighting terrorists like Osama, he made Iraq the "central front" (his term) of the war although Saddam had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks, had no working associations with terrorists, especially not Islamist terrorists whom he saw a threat to his power in Iraq, and wasn't a serious threat to his weakest neighbor at the time of the invasion. Mr. Bush knew or had reason to know this was the case; he simply lied his way into a war that had nothing to do with any real threat to Americans.

If Bush is defeated on such a record, there is no way the GOP will turn to him again. I can't say who the Republicans will turn to in 2008, but it probably won't be anybody tainted with having been a member of this incompetent and corrupt administration.

[MallRat]

11. If * loses, he'll lose the "fire in the belly."

Actually, I have some doubts about whether he even has the "fire in the belly" in 2004. He has been less-than-enthusiastic in campaigning this year.

-MR

[Feanorcurufinwe]

12. What a ridiculous notion.

Your doom and gloom predictions of Kerry's failure are going to turn out to be very wrong.

[quaoar]

13. I imagine

That the leading contender for the GOP nomination in 2008 is much more likely to be Bill Frist. I don't see Guiliani or Pataki or any other pro-choice Republican ever winning the nomination.

[I_like_chicken]

15. What Pataki not win!?!?!

but he's done soo many good things for New York. He's reinstated the death penalty, and we've only had 10 late budgets since he got into office 10 years ago. And he's a great campaigner, I mean hes won reelection 2 times, against very weak democratic canidates, that takes talent.

[leyton]

20. I agree, Frist or Romney.

Frist just seems like an obvious front-runner to me. He's a doctor, he's not some old fart, he's fairly young (I think?), he's from the South. If he raises his profile, he could be formidable in 2008. Don't know much about Romney (imagine one Massachusettsan challenging another!) but I hear his name bandied about a lot.

[I_like_chicken]

14. He'll never win a republican primary

Not with Bill Frist and New York's great governor George Pataki running. Oh, lets not forget Rudi Guilani.

[absolutezero]

17. he wouldn't be able to run

He'll still be serving out his sentence

[WI_DEM]

18. this country will have had enough of the Bush clan

no more Bush's I gurantee it.

[Capn Sunshine]

19. It will be hard to run from exile in Libya

Along with the royal Saud family. By that time, if charges haven't been filed, it would be our own damn fault if he ran again.

[snippy]

21. If Bush loses the republican base will turn on him with rabid viciousness.

It is their nature.