What if Bush screws up?

Ok congrats Republicans you did it yet again. You guys kept control of congress and the white house, you even won more states this time around. The question I ask you all is what if Bush screws up his second term badly? For example Iraq gets worst and leads to a civil war, or WMD terrorist attack here at home, or anything else that can be think of. And please dont tell me it cant happen, im just asking what if. Would this hurt the Republican party?

Originally posted by CMCLA2003
Ok congrats Republicans you did it yet again. You guys kept control of congress and the white house, you even won more states this time around. The question I ask you all is what if Bush screws up his second term badly? For example Iraq gets worst and leads to a civil war, or WMD terrorist attack here at home, or anything else that can be think of. And please dont tell me it cant happen, im just asking what if. Would this hurt the Republican party?

well, to answer your last question, yes. duh. if it happened while bush won 100% of the vote, it wud hurt them.

you cant be the ruling party, in all areas, and not be held responsible for everything.
also, just generally, at least one republican will die. hence, the party gets (slightly) weaker.

if bush screws up, ok. presidents screw up. it happens, but not very often. i see no reason to believe that he is any more likely to screw up than any of the 41 others.

attacks here, war in iraq, thats not him screwing up, thats him failing. a HUGE difference. nixon screwed up. hoover and coolidge failed. there is a large difference in why it happens, how it happens, and the effect of it happening. if bush screws up, well be angry, yell, make a movie. if he fails, hes done for, his party will disown him.

I am not even sure how the question "What if Bush screws up?" can be asked in the future tense.

Incompetence, criminality, cronyism, corruption, negligence and failure are already the hallmarks of anything that this administration has touched.

Masked avatar, why not try and start the new board out with logical discussion instead of your senseless rhetoric-as-usual policy? Your spin is even more fitting for the Clinton admin, so shove it.

CM, what do you mean by screwing up? There are so many ways to screw up and so many possible repercussions, one cannot reasonably discuss it in those general terms.

I guess the easy answer is, yes, if he screws up, he can obviously harm the party, and he can dash the chances of anyone associated with him the opportunity at the Oval Office in 2008.

I don't expect he can do anything to screw up congressional seats, but he could do something to, say, knock Condi out of the running in four years.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

Incompetence, criminality, cronyism, corruption, negligence and failure are already the hallmarks of anything that this administration has touched.

Hey that is was is going on right now on our country, I will have to say we are pretty much screw anyway it only can get worst. Right?

What you think Thomas

I thought Bush screwed up already.

but seriously, i get your point and if he screws up anymore than he currently has, I think there will be the possibility of impeachment. He will finally have to be held accountable for his decisions and inactions.

As far as I can tell from your writing, I'd say you were trying to say the same thing MA said, and had you read my post you would know what I say. As a matter of fact, I say to you what I said to MA; try and contain your rhetoric and nonsense and make objective, reasonable and lucid posts. Generalities and worn out spins make not a reasonable postr that contributes to dicussion.

Originally posted by worldwatcher

I thought Bush screwed up already.

but seriously, i get your point and if he screws up anymore than he currently has, I think there will be the possibility of impeachment. He will finally have to be held accountable for his decisions and inactions.

Screw it. It is obvious why politics had to be separated from ATS. Mindless drones not discussing but spewing the same old crapload of cliches, blurbs and gelatenous statements bearing no fact or evidence.

Enjoy.

gee thomas, can't we just agree to disagree?

where's your answer about what happens to Bush if he screws up? Or is it in your opinion that this guy is beyond screw up, because imo, no man or president isn't capable of being a screw up.

some of us feels he has already screwed up. You obviously don't feel that way, but come on TC tells us what would happen if he did??

btw I saw your answer regarding condi and the republican party, I want to know about Bush.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
CM, what do you mean by screwing up? There are so many ways to screw up and so many possible repercussions, one cannot reasonably discuss it in those general terms.

Like if he fails in Iraq, and Iraq falls into a civil war after the Iraqi elections. And with a civil war in Iraq, the American public will see more US deaths in Iraq and more antiwar protest could begin demanding our troops to be pulled out. Now the democrats could run a effective campaign in 2008, since "most" democrats were against the war in Iraq, which could led to the democrats taking back control of the government. So isn't there a lot of pressure on the Republicans because of those type of situations? I know I was quite broad with my question and i apologize, and many things can happen in the next four years; like, Iran gets nuclear weapons, WMD terrorist attacks.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Masked avatar, why not try and start the new board out with logical discussion instead of your senseless rhetoric-as-usual policy?

My position was that the Bush administration has already screwed up, many times, so that it cannot be a "What if" scenario.

It is necessary to address that with the []logic that you desire, in order to make any sense of the present and future value of the solution. If you do not start from the same baseline, then your assumptions take you further and further apart from any resolution.

I am sorry that this was not clear to your logical brain.

Wordwatcher Thomas motto is "disagree with anybody that disagree with Bush policies"

Sorry Thomas but the truth is just there, if you just let go of ideologies and reach a littler bit more you will see that our nation has lose face with the rest of the world since Bush has been in power.

And I don't think that anybody here is posting rant. But I understand this is "Conservative" forum so insults or post against the government are not allowed, by bad Don't worry soon Ed and Grady be here to make it alright.

Hey I still like you even if you call me a ranting poster.

What IF Bush screws up in the future? What about it? He will still be adored and worshipped by the millions in the Bush wing. No left or right wings. Just the Bush wing.
If he messes up ( i hate the word screw on our brand new forum) he will simply blame everyone else as he always does.
Bad intelligence, this isnt what he meant, others did it, etc...

A Bush by any other name is a Rose.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Screw it. It is obvious why politics had to be separated from ATS.

Enjoy.

Sorry, TC, I missed your farewell post there.

I estimate that about 2500 of my posts at the old ATS Political Conspiracies forum contain the evidence that you seek.

Goodbye to you, farewell!

MA, dont you go anywhere, we need your mind here! I lust for your knowledge. Besides, who's going to make me laugh?

I thought personal insults and attacks weren't allowed on here Thomas Crowne? Yet you, as a moderator, do it?

Your spin is even more fitting for the Clinton admin, so shove it.

Originally posted by sensfan
I thought personal insults and attacks weren't allowed on here Thomas Crowne? Yet you, as a moderator, do it?

I agree, can moderators be warned? They should follow what they preach.

I wasn't insulted, but when TC elects to model himself on people with no sense of decorum or self-control or deportment, such as the incumbent "president", then people observe that of him and respond in kind.

I forgive him his total lack of manners, but not his constant obfuscation and determination not to deal with the facts at issue.

Tit for tat "Bush did this" - "So what Clinton did that" is not the level of logic or reasoning that TC aspires to.

So far no one has really gotten the goods on Bush in any meaningful way to make any of the many invented, fabricated and outright outlandish charges stick.

So to speak of the past in any format supporting impeachment is just a pipedream - keep on dreamin if thats your game - thats your right. In fact I encourage you to do so because ultimately less damage to the republic may occur whilst you are occupied in this endeavor.

As far as the future is concerned its a stretch to imagine Bush being as stupid and depraved as Clinton was getting himself into the impeachment situation..

Rhodes Scholar = 0 Harvard Graduate = 1, thats the score so live with it.



[edit on 2-12-2004 by Phoenix]

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I wasn't insulted, but when TC elects to model himself on people with no sense of decorum or self-control or deportment, such as the incumbent "president", then people observe that of him and respond in kind.

I forgive him his total lack of manners, but not his constant obfuscation and determination not to deal with the facts at issue.

Tit for tat "Bush did this" - "So what Clinton did that" is not the level of logic or reasoning that TC aspires to.

Have you ever said anything that wasn't snobbish and condescending? I mean come on who talks like that?

The facts are this. You believe Bush has screwed up therefore it must be so! Just like you believe the election war rigged so it must be so. Perhaps if you were to approach a problem, any problem in fact, without a predetermined position, maybe, just maybe you could find the truth.

you say you have posted 2500 posts in the old forums. I believe that. Unfortunately 2450 of them are to insult a previous poster and the other 50 quote salon.com

I am not saying that Bush did not screw up. I am just saying that based on reading your posts, anything you have to say on the matter should be taken with an ocean of salt.






[edit on 12/2/04 by Seth Bullock]