The fate of the Republican party?

[iamthewalrus109]

In regards to Bush being even more hated and what another 4 years of the man will do for America, well it comes down to just dragging the US further through the sand. One point on this is the alternative, ie John Kerry. I think there are many undecided voters, some Reagan dems, former Reform party people, who could never really vote for John Kerry. A second point is, all this election takes is a win, there's no possiblilty for clear win in this election anyway, so, all the person has to do is win really.

Bush's problem will be that once he's back in office it's still his ball game, if Iraq goes even worse, and there's another terrorist attack, the country will be incensed due to the fact that GW Bush got us to that point. By the end of the second term the Republican party will be in ruins and all who supported Bush in any sort of public manner will be remembered as supporters of Bush's policies. What this leaves are those who have rallied against him for the most part, those who have decided to speak out on unfair, wasteful, and excessive policies, for tride and true Republican beliefs. His real base is the religious folk/christian conservatives, beyond that his true support is thin among traditional conservatives and Nixon/Rockfeller type Republicans. In the end the will probably several events and a worseing situation in the Middle East obviously. The American public will tire of this pre-emption strategy and want to return to a quieter time. Attacking other nations and stirring up trouble the way Bush has is not the way you stabalize anything. You need to pacifiy not just destroy.

In summary I don't see the country just blaming GW Bush for what's happening and what's going to happen. It is more thann likely it will be the Republican party that will be blamed, especially due to the decentralized way his administration is set up. It's not just GW Bush, but it's Dick Cheney, Dom Rumsfeld, and others that make this up. When you think of Dick Nixon, or Bill Clintion for example, power and decision was vested at the top, so when their scandals hit, and there policies were question it was more a matter of them as individuals than their administration, or their party, with Bush it's different, with him it's really a group effort, so much so that it imperils the Republican party itself.

- Walrus

[Kitsune]

...and there's another terrorist attack, the country will be incensed due to the fact that GW Bush got us to that point.

I actually don't know if this would be the case. Bush and his administration thrive on fear because he has successfully provided what the public thinks are solutions to the terrorist problem. Mind you, I think they're all illusions, but think back to when the country was worried about remote controlled airplanes loaded with explosives and everyone had an emergency kit that contained duct tape and plastic sheeting cut to the size of a designated safe room. At that time the public was, overall, ready to give up any of their civil liberties in exchange for protection from terrorists and everyone was shouting that in times of emergency we should all stand, as Americans, behind our president and not question authority.

My thoughts some months ago was that there would be two things that would secure Bush's election as president of this country: Osama bin Laden being captured or a terrorist attack (either real or imagined). Irrational fears instilled in the masses through silly warnings of potential terror and sensational media alerts did wonders to cloud everyone's reason and blind them to the actions of the administration. An actual attack, I think, would have everyone "singing jingo-bells" all over again and we'd see more images on television of scared caucasian children holding little American flags while being cradled in John Ashcroft's protective, manly arms. A failure to react on the part of the president would, again, be another shining moment.

Don't put your "terrorist hunting permit" or "never forget" stickers away yet, people.

[iamthewalrus109]

If we do get hit again, depending on the nature of the attack, there's real potential for backlash, judging from what GW Bush is running on, namely 9/11 and protecting America. With people voting for the man simply out of fear and a "protect me daddy" mentality, it stands to reason that any major attack on American soil will evoke a strong reaction towards Bush and the Republicans, with a "I only voted for you to protect me" type of mind set there could be hell to pay. On the other hand, if the threat is iminent of a nuclear attack, all this may be void anyway. If we get nuked, even with a primative device or dirty bomb, all bets are off as far as democracy is concerned, at least in the area that's been hit, if not the entire country. FEMA and a entirely miltary government would take over, along similar lines to those that were exposed in the 1986-1992 Iran Contra investigations. The curious part about all this is the remarkable quiet of terrorists since 9/11. A few bomings here and there sure, but no major attacks, and obviously none here. It really begs the question, are these forces being neutralized or are they just biding their time?

- Walrus