Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Bush: A lame duck?

  1. Jun 20, 2005 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    God I hope. They have done enough damage to last for decades.

    This is the news of the day among the talking heads. Pretty much all of Bush's key agenda items are either in trouble or already dead. Popular support for the war is gone, SS reform and private accounts are DOA, the Bolten nomination is in trouble [though it looks like Bush can and will sneak him in without congressional approval during the summer break]. Sixty percent of American do not believe the country is going the right direction under Bush, and the bad stories just keep coming ala Gitmo. To top it all off, already the GOP has elections to think about.

    Will the madness finally end?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 20, 2005 #2
    everything bush & co has done has been done before many times by other admins. it's only now that people are paying attention. that's the only thing different about bush. remember that extreme hawk JFK invading south vietnam? he only got away with it because the american people didn't care.

    "All this wickedness has been exhibited before, regularly; if not packed quite as densely in one administration as under Bush, then certainly abundant enough to reap the abhorrence of millions at home and abroad. From Truman's atom bomb and manipulation of the UN that spawned bloody American warfare in Korea, to Clinton's war crimes in Yugoslavia and vicious assaults upon the people of Somalia; from Kennedy's attempts to strangle the Cuban revolution and his abandonment of democracy in the Dominican Republic, to Ford's giving the okay to Indonesia's genocide against East Timor and his support of the instigation of the horrific Angola civil war; from Eisenhower's overthrow of democratically elected governments in Iran, Guatemala and the Congo and his unprincipled policies which led to the disaster known as Vietnam, to Reagan's tragic Afghanistan venture and unprovoked invasion of Grenada.
    When the United Nations overwhelmingly voted its disapproval of the Grenada invasion, President Reagan responded: "One hundred nations in the UN have not agreed with us on just about everything that's come before them where we're involved, and it didn't upset my breakfast at all."{5} George W. couldn't have said it better.
    For those who think the United States has been unconscionably brutal to detainees in Iraq, here's how the US handled them during Vietnam: "Two Vietcong prisoners were interrogated on an airplane flying toward Saigon. The first refused to answer questions and was thrown out of the airplane at 3,000 feet. The second immediately answered all the questions. But he, too, was thrown out.
    The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 gave fair warning: "The American continents ... are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers. ... we should consider an attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety."
    Add a word about "terrorists" and it could have been penned by Condoleezza Rice. The door was of course left open to hemispheric colonization or neo-colonization by the United States.
    In the war with Mexico, beginning in 1846, the US went yet further; not simply colonization, but the wholesale incorporation of half of Mexico into the new Yankee land; a war that excited Congress, which approved it overwhelmingly with minimal discussion, and the American people, who rallied and rushed to volunteer for the splendid expedition. In December 1845, the editor of a New York daily had written of "our manifest destiny to overspread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government entrusted to us.""

  4. Jun 20, 2005 #3
    What? No, Bush will be remembered as the greatest president in American history! :rofl:

    True that one can find fault with every president/administration, and no doubt these actions are what contribute to anti-American sentiments. The key is what has been highlighted. Bush has broken the barrier on every level possible.

    I don't believe the American people don't care, but rather the people often are not aware, or if they do follow politics and world affairs, they are not given accurate/full information.

    In the meantime, keep in mind that fault can be found with every leader everywhere--citizens complain about their government no matter what country. Power corrupts.
  5. Jun 20, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yah, i think the greatness is nearing an end. Democrats think they somehow run the country even after being handedly defeated in the elections and no one seems to want to do anything about it. I mean look at McCain, you hold a nice majority in the Senate and he goes off and demands a compromise? Oh come on, why not just ask Hitler which part of France he wanted to have. I guess the democrats were just able to lie enough to people to de-rail Bush's agenda this time.
  6. Jun 20, 2005 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Democrats are where the Republicans were in 1952. The GOP had lost five straight presidential elections and had only had a majority in the House for one term since 1932. They were widely believed to be a permanent minority party. But they won with Eisenhower, and then added the wink-and-nod southern "conservatives" to their voting strength and took off.

    This is not to say the Dems are destined to win, but just that it's unwise to write them off because of their difficulties in the recent past. They've got to do what the GOP did, find a big chunk of the oppositon's strength and convert it.

    May I suggest old people? Everything the GOP has done, allegedly for us, has been a scam that only benefits corporations and RICH old people. Yeah we're socially conservative as a group, but Clinton managed to triangulate that, and the Dem party could too, if it could just lose those New York marxoids.
  7. Jun 20, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    When did the Democrats NOT control old people? Look at teh SSI debate. Lie to old people and all of a sudden AARP is shoving little letters into everyones mailboxes. Thankfully, much of what the GOP has done has benefited those who need help the most :) Gotta love an economy where all of a sudden, everyoens car has to be a pricey SUV....

    wait a second... thats not good at all...
  8. Jun 20, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    But do you really believe Hillary can win a national election? I don't. The Dems need to come up with a better candidate, if they want to have a chance of beating Giuliani or McCain.
  9. Jun 20, 2005 #8
    Hillary will continue testing the water, and may pass on 2008. In the meantime, Guiliani and McCain aren't exactly landslide candidates either.
  10. Jun 20, 2005 #9


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Yah but McCain is a moderate... who doesnt love a moderate. And everyone loves Guiliani.... not sure why... but everybody seems to love him. I thought they were gonna try to put that Obama up as a nominee... or wait, isnt he really young?
  11. Jun 20, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Gold Member


    When Bush last spoke about his energy plan, it was not impressive, and his position on trade lacks support--I'm not so sure I agree with that assessment. As for current GOP control, there is concern that those in congress who voted against stem cell research (among other things) may be in jeopardy in 16 months.

    In the meantime, aside from other possible Dem contenders:
    Reuters - Updated: 11:25 p.m. ET June 19, 2005
    "Biden says he'll run for president in 2008"
  12. Jun 21, 2005 #11


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Well, its tough for a war hero to lose an election, but I agree with your basic point.
    The trouble is that the party simply isn't willing to do that. Its a problem marketing: the Democratic party is blaming the market for not buying their product when they should be changing their product so that they can sell it in the existing market.
    Baby boomers will, of course, be the most influential group for the next decade or two. What they choose to do with that power remains to be seen. Some things are obvious (don't reduce my SS/Medicare benefits even if it hurts my kids), but those are relatively small issues. Yeah, that's right - I said Social Security is a relatively small issue. Why? It never changes. People pretended that it was a relevant issue last election (yeah, even I bought into the possibility that there could be reform), but because old people vote and will never accept changes, it won't ever really have a chance.

    As for Bush being a lame duck - he still has a pretty strong majority in Congress. Anyone notice that nuclear power is making a comeback...? If that's the only thing he does this term, he'll be a hero.
  13. Jun 21, 2005 #12


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I was on Amazon searching for books on various political topics. So many pro-Bush titles. :rolleyes: Shhhh... don't tell the Republicans Bush is a lame duck, and the party may be in trouble.

    Everything is great, yeh that's the ticket. :tongue:
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Bush: A lame duck?
  1. Bush Bush Bush (Replies: 6)

  2. Abortion and Bush (Replies: 25)

  3. The Bush Effect (Replies: 12)

  4. Bush loosing it (Replies: 39)

  5. Bush Doctrine. (Replies: 10)