Suppose Bush wins re-election...

Just a hypothetical here, folks. Let's say George Bush gets a definitive win, if not a landslide, on November 2nd.

Given the unprecedented (at least during my lifetime) partisanship and nastiness which has taken place in the last four years, what kind of reaction could be expected from the losing party?

Even in some of the most spirited debates here, I haven't seen the kind of rampaging lunatic anti-Bush diatribes which exist elsewhere on the Net. How are some of these most rabid of far-Left Bush haters going to respond? Will we see Florida 2000 on a national scale, along with cases of civil disobedience...or will the venom and partisanship suddenly shut off until the mid-term elections in 2006?

Just curious to hear some thoughts.

I think some of them will expload on the interweb and talk about how the ""brown shirts"" have taken over. I don''t think they can mentally deal with Bush winning again, it will shater their world view. If you remember after the 2002 elections if you read the leftwing websites such as punkvoter.net and one of Kerry''s favourite sites, Democraticunderground.com, it was mass hystaria.

I think the Democrats need power far more than the Republicans since government means so much more to them. They truely believe that the government is the best thing in the world and that they should be leading it. I don''t think anyone can see John Kerry losing the election and going back home to Boston. Al Gore couldn''t just let it go.

I think if Bush loses he will be like his father and get out of the spot light and run his ranch or be the chairman of the MLB.

How are some of these most rabid of far-Left Bush haters going to respond? Will we see Florida 2000 on a national scale, along with cases of civil disobedience...or will the venom and partisanship suddenly shut off until the mid-term elections in 2006?

If he won by a landslide or just definitively..then there would be little to react to....the people, sheep, monkeys, system, process will have worked/spoken. At least last time around there really was an issue. Now if had another Florida....it would be another two weeks of people caring and then they would be bored and over it..

Think about it, Americans (US) have more important issues to deal with...like the last Friends episode..etc.

We have had 4 years to enact changes....voting reform, electorial college, whatever....but it just doesn''t matter.

Most people forget after a week.....just like 9/11. Not more on...just forget or not care.

Bush will win, that''s not a question in my mind. I don''t want another four years of him, but I know better than to think it won''t happen.

I think that it will be a reasonably close election, though not necessarily as close as last time. I also expect it to be even nastier post-election in America than it was last time, as (even if I''m wrong and Bush loses) the losing party will be bitter beyond reason and the winning party will be far too arrogant about it and rub everyone''s nose in it.

"Farscry" wrote:

... the losing party will be bitter beyond reason and the winning party will be far too arrogant about it and rub everyone''s nose in it.

Yeah, that Nader is an annoying prick when he wins.

If Bush wins, I hope the Dems give themselves the good kick in the pants that they need...but I don''t know if that will happen. The Republicans have clearly been the better organized and better focused party for the last several years. Now I get the feeling the tide is changing. I still don''t think the Dems are nearly as focused or on-message as they should be (to use l337 DC speak), but I think the Republicans are starting to get bogged down in infighting and lack of faith in Bush.

I think the Republicans are starting to get bogged down in infighting and lack of faith in Bush.

None of which will matter come election day.

"ralcydan" wrote:
I think the Republicans are starting to get bogged down in infighting and lack of faith in Bush.

None of which will matter come election day.

Maybe, maybe not. But if the election is very close and it comes down to a matter of turning out the party-faithful, and all but the most hardcore Republicans are feeling uninspired about Bush, it could definitely matter.

I like how it''s implied that the partisanship is the property of the Left. I imagine if Bush wins again he will inspire, foster, and participate heavily in an even greater degree of partisanship as he will have nothing left to lose. He will continue to divide America as he has for the past four years, and the conservatives who like sticking it to the Dems will continue to giggle and blindly defend his every action.

So, it''ll be a lot like the past four years.

So, it''ll be a lot like the past four years.

Amen, brother...

/agree Elysium

"Ulairi" wrote:

I think some of them will expload on the interweb and talk about how the ""brown shirts"" have taken over. I don''t think they can mentally deal with Bush winning again, it will shater their world view. If you remember after the 2002 elections if you read the leftwing websites such as punkvoter.net and one of Kerry''s favourite sites, Democraticunderground.com, it was mass hystaria.

I think thetruth360 guy stole Ulairi''s userid/password and is posting under his name. The spelling style is unmistakable.

"Gorilla.800.lbs" wrote:
"Ulairi" wrote:

I think some of them will expload on the interweb and talk about how the ""brown shirts"" have taken over. I don''t think they can mentally deal with Bush winning again, it will shater their world view. If you remember after the 2002 elections if you read the leftwing websites such as punkvoter.net and one of Kerry''s favourite sites, Democraticunderground.com, it was mass hystaria.

I think thetruth360 guy stole Ulairi''s userid/password and is posting under his name. The spelling style is unmistakable. :shock:

hehe nope. The Democrats have been unglued since Bush has taken office. The party leader called him an idiot, no Republican leader ever did that with Clinton. They called him slime but not an idiot. The former Democratic VP goes on a tirade to anyone who will listen, Clinton doesn''t even do that.

The Democrats have gone so far to the left that they cannot get back to the middle. They forgot everything Clinton was trying to teach them. They need to stop being the party of socialists (which they are) and be the the party of Clinton. I would vote for someone who was like Clinton.

I like how it''s implied that the partisanship is the property of the Left. I imagine if Bush wins again he will inspire, foster, and participate heavily in an even greater degree of partisanship as he will have nothing left to lose. He will continue to divide America as he has for the past four years, and the conservatives who like sticking it to the Dems will continue to giggle and blindly defend his every action.

How exactly has he done that? He has gone for every big entitlement the Democrats have wanted, he isn''t cutting federal spending, he doesn''t go out and insult the Democrats. The problem is that the majority of Democrats do not think he should be President and think they were cheated.

The Democrats are pissed off not the middle of the country. They still like Bush even if they won''t vote for him.

He will continue to divide America as he has for the past four years,

Examples please? I hear this one a lot and it makes no sense to me. He has given democrats a lot (too much) domestic legislation. He has annoyed his base by being passive in the face of absurd, baseless, daily accusations by a party that will stop at nothing to regain their control of Washington. Other than tax cuts, I can''t think of a single piece of legislation that has passed (including the much villified Patriot Act) that couldn''t have as easily passed under a democrat President.

If Bush has been in any way devisive, it has been to the Republican party. He has utterly abandoned the notion of smaller government, which was a cornerstone of Republican success in recent elections.

"Gorack" wrote:
He will continue to divide America as he has for the past four years,

Examples please?

1. Using loopholes to get radical right-wing judges past the vetting process.

2. Implementing radical ""anti-terror"" policy while mocking and ridiculing anyone who rightly questions administration policy.

3. Using phrases such as ""You''re either with us or against us.""

4. Cutting taxes for the ultra-rich while shouldering the middle class with the burden of making up for the deficit because he''s too much of a dolt to realize that you can''t keep spending at the same rate if you''re going to cut your income!

5. Generally purusing a foreign policy agenda that has no bearing on the wishes or interests of at least half the country, while making no attempt to reach out to his critics.

"hubbinsd" wrote:

Using loopholes to get radical right-wing judges past the vetting process.

I didn''t know expressly granted Contitutional powers, like recess appointments, were ""loopholes.""

"hubbinsd" wrote:

Implementing radical ""anti-terror"" policy while mocking and ridiculing anyone who rightly questions administration policy.

I can certainly agree that this administration has radically changed the way we fight terror (thank God), but name the instance Bush mocked or ridiculed anyone ""rightly"" (I like the assumed correctness of any critic there) questioning policy.

"hubbinsd" wrote:

Using phrases such as ""You''re either with us or against us.""

Without being insulting, the people who continue to bring this quote up are utterly ignorant of what Bush said. He said it to nations harboring terrorists. Period.

"hubbinsd" wrote:

Cutting taxes for the ultra-rich while shouldering the middle class

Every single taxpayer got a tax cut. proportionally, the lower income taxpayers got more than the higher income ones, even to the point of giving some people who didn''t pay federal income tax a credit. The proportion of federal income tax paid by the rich is the highest it has ever been - the bottom 50% of wage earners pay 4% of federal taxes.

"hubbinsd" wrote:

Generally purusing a foreign policy agenda that has no bearing on the wishes or interests of at least half the country

The war in Afghanistan had 90% approval when it started. The war in Iraq had 70% approval when it started. Perhaps you have something else in mind.

"hubbinsd" wrote:

while making no attempt to reach out to his critics.

Now that''s a funny one. If the critics would just get behind the president, we would be united - they are the ones dividing the nation...

The Democratic party has only themselves to blame for losing this one. It took them two weak candidates in 84 and 88 before they finally nominated a winner - maybe we''ll see history repeat in 2008.

Unfortunately, it will probably be Mrs. Clinton. Vote Kerry if you don''t want to see her in 2008!

"hubbinsd" wrote:

3. Using phrases such as ""You''re either with us or against us.""

Quite honestly, when we''re at war -- and we are at war, primarily with militant Islamofascists -- I''d rather divide the world into two camps: the group that is going to actively help us, and the other group composed of nations and people who are either actively opposing us or are playing both sides.

4. Cutting taxes for the ultra-rich while shouldering the middle class with the burden of making up for the deficit

You know what? My income places me well within the bounds of the middle class. I was damn glad to get that tax cut, because unlike the national deficit and 98% of the social programs in this country, those tax cuts had an immediate and visible positive effect on my household.

With it, I bought a bed for my oldest son, who had outgrown his crib. The rest we threw at some credit-card debt that we''re paying off this year.

National deficit? You might as well replace those words with ""boogeyman"" for as tangible and threatening it is in my house, my neighborhood, and for anybody I''ve ever talked to.

I''m not saying that bringing down the deficit isn''t important, but in the grand scheme of things it has less importance than a hangnail to most people''s daily lives and should be treated as such...instead of this ominous maurading giant Japanese movie monster.

Additionally, I would encourage you to re-read ral''s post. The top 50%, income-wise, pay 96% of the taxes in this country. If that doesn''t make you choke, let me add this statistic: the top 2% earns over 20% of overall wages paid but pays almost 43% of the taxes. If you earn $200k a year, you''re in that 2%.

If you earn $200k a year, you''re in that 2%.

I wish

To add to Ralcydan''s and Rantage''s comments. I also fall within what I would consider the middle class and I have seen these tax cuts first hand. I have received more money back and have had more checks sent to me from the Government than I have ever had before in the past.

And as far as Bush saying ""You''re either with us or against us."" I remember that speech and I remember that statement being aimed at the rest of the world, not at America.

And as far as Bush saying ""You''re either with us or against us."" I remember that speech and I remember that statement being aimed at the rest of the world, not at America.

Here is the quote:

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

I''m sure someone will misquote it again next week.

Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Two different sentiments there, in two separate sentences. The first states that if you are not with ''us'' then you must be a terrorist, a distinction that implies nonsensical infallibility to US foreign policy. The second statement I take no issue with, but one is not the logical conclusion of the other. It is, in fact, possible to ''not be with us'' and not be a terrorist regime. Bush''s narrow doctrine does not allow for that.

"Elysium" wrote:
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

Two different sentiments there, in two separate sentences. The first states that if you are not with ''us'' then you must be a terrorist, a distinction that implies nonsensical infallibility to US foreign policy. The second statement I take no issue with, but one is not the logical conclusion of the other. It is, in fact, possible to ''not be with us'' and not be a terrorist regime. Bush''s narrow doctrine does not allow for that.

Yes it does. The second sentance qualifies the first. I don''t know how you cannot see that he was refering to nations that support terrorist groups. He was not talking about France or Germany, he was talking about countries like Iraq and Afganistan.

It is, in fact, possible to ''not be with us'' and not be a terrorist regime. Bush''s narrow doctrine does not allow for that.

The purpose of the second sentence was to define the parameters of the first. Specifically, those not with us are those that ""harbor or support terrorism.""

In a broader sense though, and outside of what Bush said, there are no neutral players in this conflict. Countries that obstruct our efforts may not necessarily be regarded as enemies, but they certainly aren''t our friends.

"ralcydan" wrote:
It is, in fact, possible to ''not be with us'' and not be a terrorist regime. Bush''s narrow doctrine does not allow for that.

The purpose of the second sentence was to define the parameters of the first. Specifically, those not with us are those that ""harbor or support terrorism.""

In a broader sense though, and outside of what Bush said, there are no neutral players in this conflict. Countries that obstruct our efforts may not necessarily be regarded as enemies, but they certainly aren''t our friends.

I just said that smarty pants.

I just said that smarty pants.

I guess great minds think alike, and so do ours...

The purpose of the second sentence was to define the parameters of the first. Specifically, those not with us are those that ""harbor or support terrorism.""

It doesn''t say that, though. It says you are either with us or you are a terrorist. The speech writer didn''t just accidentally put that statement alone in a single sentence. It would have been quite easy to directly link the two, but that''s not what happened. They are separate but related statements. It is equally reasonable to infer from the quote that those who harbor terrorism are those who are not with us as it is to read it as a tacit threat toward those nations who are not ''with us'' in other respects. It''s quite intentionally ambiguous. Considering the time and context of the speech, are you really trying to tell me this wasn''t as much a statement to other nations to get behind us or face the consequences as it was a statement of position on US handling of terrorist states?

trying to tell me this wasn''t as much a statement to other nations to get behind us or face the consequences as it was a statement of position on US handling of terrorist states?

Yes. You are taking one statement out of context when the context is very clear. It is about nations that support terrorist not other nations. The better arguement to make is why we haven''t gone after Saudi Arabia and the PLO.

You are making very tacky arguement that doesn''t hold any water.

It says you are either with us or you are a terrorist.

No it says you are with us orwiththe terrorists. Again, there are only two sides in this conflict, and inaction

Considering the time and context of the speech, are you really trying to tell me this wasn''t as much a statement to other nations to get behind us or face the consequences as it was a statement of position on US handling of terrorist states?

You tell me. Do you really think a presidential speech was intended as a threat that we might invade Switzerland if they don''t support our policies? Or was the statement perhaps for the nations specifically named in the very next sentence - those supporting and harboring terrorists?

You tell me. Do you really think a presidential speech was intended as a threat that we might invade Switzerland if they don''t support our policies? Or was the statement perhaps for the nations specifically named in the very next sentence - those supporting and harboring terrorists?

I guess Al Gore really did mean he invented the internet. Because he makes a ""The speech writer didn''t just accidentally put that statement alone in a single sentence"" and then he qualifies that statement.

The big irony of course, is that that specific sentence was a big hit. Every member of Congress, from Hillary Clinton to Ted Kennedy applauded it, on their feet as I remember. This was nine days after 9/11, and I''ll tell you I was in no damn mood to hear about countries being wobbly about which side of this conflict they were on, and I''ll bet you weren''t either.

The whole point of this came up because people keep saying that Bush has divided Americans, and they point to this statement as if it had been aimed at liberals opposing the tax cuts. This is both false and ridiculous.

You can nitpick as to whether Bush secretly meant Canada instead of Iran, but there has never been any question that our allies would support the fight against Al Qaeda, nor has there been any consequence but temporary ill-will when our allies have failed to support us, as in Iraq.

The worst I think you can assume from the statement was that it was overly demanding of countries that might truly be on the fence - such as Pakistan, or Saudi Arabia for that matter. But you know what? At least as of September 20, 2001, the fence-sitters had their ambivalence privileges suspended. And if anything, the reason Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - truly problematic countries - have been cooperating, is at least in part the stance that there was no other option for them, by Bush''s declaration.

I consider that a good thing.