I would say that it ultimately depends on how effective his economic policies are in this next year. For those of you don't remember, Bush Sr. had a 90% approval rating after the first gulf war and he was still beaten because his economic agenda was not sufficient enough to repair the economy. However, another worrying note in Bush Jrs future potential future election success is that there doesn't seem to be a well-defined democratic leader in the forefront to challenge bush ...

___________________
Retro ...

i voted no.
but i cant do anything bout it

___________________

*BUMP*

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

I think once the mud-slinging starts, Bush has the advantage. As an incumbent, we already know most of the "dirt" on him. Most of what we are about to hear about Kerry, Edwards or whoever will be running against him will be new, at least in the eyes of the American people. While we all know about no WMDs, poor economy (at least at the start of his tenure), etc., we have yet to hear the real bad stuff on the Democratic candidates. I think Americans are fickle and have very short term memories. It will be easier for the voting population to push aside what Bush has done in the past and concentrate on all the comparatively new things they will hear about who ever is running against him. It is politics and the advantage of running for re-election. I also think the democratic candidates are very "vanilla," and for all intents and purposes offer very little in terms of real differences between themselves and Bush. Americans also love charisma...Regan had it, so did Clinton. None of the current nominees are even in the same ball park. (unless you consider crazy-man Dean )

quote:

Originally posted by cougar23 Well, if you ask me personally, I'd rather have ALF as the president that that traitor Bush. ALF is smarter, more charismatic, and less likely to start World War III. And he doesn't look and sound like the angel of death when speaking.

Too bad for you that Lieberman is out then. He is quite the resemblence of the father in ALF. They look and sound almost the same.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith define successful. successful for the PNAC, bush and his oil buddies, and McDonnell Douglas? yes. Successful for the people of the middle east and North Korea? no.

The heck you say??? What planet have you been living on? McDonnell Douglas was acquired by Boeing in 1997! Might want to inform whoever put that idea in your head that the company doesn't even exist anymore.

Who ever i support always wins -- so yea, go Bush go!

___________________
We don’t thrive on military acts. We do them because we have to, and thank God we are efficient.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I think once the mud-slinging starts, Bush has the advantage. As an incumbent, we already know most of the "dirt" on him. Most of what we are about to hear about Kerry, Edwards or whoever will be running against him will be new, at least in the eyes of the American people. While we all know about no WMDs, poor economy (at least at the start of his tenure), etc., we have yet to hear the real bad stuff on the Democratic candidates. I think Americans are fickle and have very short term memories. It will be easier for the voting population to push aside what Bush has done in the past and concentrate on all the comparatively new things they will hear about who ever is running against him. It is politics and the advantage of running for re-election. I also think the democratic candidates are very "vanilla," and for all intents and purposes offer very little in terms of real differences between themselves and Bush. Americans also love charisma...Regan had it, so did Clinton. None of the current nominees are even in the same ball park. (unless you consider crazy-man Dean )

I agree with you about Reagan and Clinton's charisma. Those guys were meant for the job.

That's also one of the main reasons why Mr. Roboto Gore and Dole both lost.

John Edwards has great charisma in my opinion and could have beaten Bush pre-9/11. I'm not sure about now though (despite the fact Bush had as much foreign policy experience as Dean going in). Kerry, they're going to hit him with the gay marriage issue even though he's against gay marriage. I don't think he's the kind of guy who would just take it lying down though. It’s not mentioned much, but the “tough buy” image is going to count for a-lot in a post 9/11 election. Kerry and Bush both have that.

I agree though about Bush having the advantage with being a sitting president. It's really a referendum on him and his policies.

His recent budget just gutted funding for police, firefighters etc, so he shouldn't count on their support. If the perceived "jobless recovery" continues, that's certainly not going to help him either. The perception about the state of the economy and also healthcare coverage (and lack thereof) are going to be the two biggest concerns for Americans when they vote. National Security is a close third.

I was listening to the I Man this morning, and he interviewed a dude who had written a biography about Kerry. He said he was amazed with the amount of conservative vets who were supporting Kerry. That veteran factor might prove to be big, but then again it didn’t help McCain or Dole all that much. Imus said his wife is very conservative and will be voting for Kerry.

This is just my own personal opinion, but I think these Vietnam pics of Kerry will be worth more in the general than any perceived weak Senate voting Record on defense:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...8¬Found=true



There’s also a movie shot in Vietnam of Kerry wielding an M16:

http://www.johnkerry.com/videos/

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/