Bush re-election bid to coincide with 9/11

paladin · Post by **paladin** » 2003-04-22 10:45pm

http://www.yahoo.com/s/78755

For 2004, Bush's Aides Plan Late Sprint for Re-election
by ADAM NAGOURNEY and RICHARD W. STEVENSON

WASHINGTON, April 21 President Bush (news - web sites)'s advisers have drafted a re-election strategy built around staging the latest nominating convention in the party's history, allowing Mr. Bush to begin his formal campaign near the third anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks and to enhance his fund-raising advantage, Republicans close to the White House say.

Does this appear to anyone else as "slimy and disgusting?"

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-04-22 10:53pm

Not to sound like an asshole here, but from a political POV, something like 9/11 can be great for a Prez. All he has to do is make a speech and the public will love him.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-04-22 10:55pm

"Slimy and disgusting?" Sure. Unexpected? No. Any President would do that. It's par for the course.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-22 10:57pm

No worse the next guy. Anyway, "near 9/11" is pretty vauge and yahoo news isn't somthing I place much trust in.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-04-22 10:58pm

Standard political bullshit. I have hope that the masses won't buy into this, but it is only hope.

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-04-22 11:16pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:No worse the next guy. Anyway, "near 9/11" is pretty vauge and yahoo news isn't somthing I place much trust in.

Exactly what was going through my head. Near 9/11 could mean 8/31, or 9/20.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-04-22 11:28pm

The War on Terror is the only thing Bush has going for him. Of course he's going to play to it.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-04-22 11:53pm

Durandal wrote:The War on Terror is the only thing Bush has going for him. Of course he's going to play to it.

He's also very quoteable, though that's probably been unintentional.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-04-23 12:51am

Gandalf wrote:
Durandal wrote:The War on Terror is the only thing Bush has going for him. Of course he's going to play to it.
He's also very quoteable, though that's probably been unintentional.

"I've attempted more contributions to the English dictionary than any other president!" isn't exactly a workable campaign slogan.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2003-04-23 02:12am

I'm not suprised, since he's built an image by attaching himself to the War on Terror.

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2003-04-23 03:14am

Its not as if he's going to go out of his way to remind everyone of the dump the economy took his first few months in office.

There's no way around it, but as president he is practically obligated to commemorate 9/11 someday. If he can avoid political maneuvering while the cameras are on him for that day he can minimize the flak he'll take from the media.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-04-23 06:54am

Durandal wrote:
Gandalf wrote:
Durandal wrote:The War on Terror is the only thing Bush has going for him. Of course he's going to play to it.
He's also very quoteable, though that's probably been unintentional.
"I've attempted more contributions to the English dictionary than any other president!" isn't exactly a workable campaign slogan.

Don't misunderestimate my President! I'm believing that this is well thought out strategery, so lets roll! Round up those darn Democrats and smoke them out of their holes. God bless America.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-23 08:03am

Gil Hamilton wrote:I'm not suprised, since he's built an image by attaching himself to the War on Terror.

Like it or not that's been America's priority. Of course he's been preoccupied with it; America has.

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2003-04-23 02:29pm

Sounds like a good strategery.

Kelly Antilles · Post by **Kelly Antilles** » 2003-04-23 02:32pm

Darth Fanboy wrote:Its not as if he's going to go out of his way to remind everyone of the dump the economy took his first few months in office.

Uh, and do you really think that a Presiden who has only been in office a few months is the CAUSE of that??

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-04-23 02:44pm

If this is true it does disgust me to the core. But its also a reality that 9/11 has shaped this president and presidency. Bush was a floundering, muttering idiot that made me cringe everytime I watched him in action. Then came 9/11, he had the deer in the headlights expression on that day and thankfully we had a real leader in one Rudy Giulianni (Thank GOD for him in those first few dark days) Then there was the speech before Congress. I spent the day praying this idiot would not fuck this up.

That speech turned it around for me. I became a true beleiver and I was one of those that said, you know what Thank god that it was Bush in office and NOT Gore. He is doing everythig that I feel needs to be done to secure our nation and our place in the world power scheme.

I may not agree with many of his domestic policies, his slant towards the religious right, his so far tepid response to our economic woes but Christ we're showing the world not to fuck with us and we are indeed a SUPERPOWER and that is a comforting thought for me.

So on one level I am disgusted by any naked attempts to cash in on the tragedy and on another level how can he NOT point to what has been THE defining moment of this man and this presidency.

Some have made the comparison to Henry IV where the young king was seen as a buffoon and a lout and when the time for war came he became a great king. Not altogether a bad analogy.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-04-23 03:55pm

Stravo wrote:That speech turned it around for me. I became a true beleiver and I was one of those that said, you know what Thank god that it was Bush in office and NOT Gore. He is doing everythig that I feel needs to be done to secure our nation and our place in the world power scheme.

I was thinking "Why isn't McCain in office?" Bush not only dropped the ball on foreign opinion, he dropped it catastrophically.

Stravo wrote:I may not agree with many of his domestic policies, his slant towards the religious right, his so far tepid response to our economic woes but Christ we're showing the world not to fuck with us and we are indeed a SUPERPOWER and that is a comforting thought for me.

But blatant shows of force do not the trust of the world secure. Bush's 'with us or against us' speech set the world against us from Day One. While I believe the UN is vastly overrated, I am aghast at how poorly the Bush Administration performed at securing overseas alliances.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-04-23 04:10pm

Stravo wrote:That speech turned it around for me. I became a true beleiver and I was one of those that said, you know what Thank god that it was Bush in office and NOT Gore. He is doing everythig that I feel needs to be done to secure our nation and our place in the world power scheme.

And he's squandered international sympathy and support in the process. While I agree that, in the aftermath of the attacks, Bush was preferable to Gore, it was only because of a bloodlust that needed to be satisfied. In a time of danger, people would rather follow a strong leader who is wrong than a weak one who is right, and Bush was most certainly wrong by telling people that they were either with us or against us.

Bush could have led the country running head-first into a brick wall, and they'd have all followed him because he can pander to their need for assurance of their own self-righteousness by declaring a "crusade" on terrorism.

Some have made the comparison to Henry IV where the young king was seen as a buffoon and a lout and when the time for war came he became a great king. Not altogether a bad analogy.

"Wars not make one great."

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-04-23 04:16pm

Durandal wrote:
Some have made the comparison to Henry IV where the young king was seen as a buffoon and a lout and when the time for war came he became a great king. Not altogether a bad analogy.
"Wars not make one great."

LOL

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-04-23 04:26pm

One thing to bear in mind about the economy is that it was beginning to tank a few months before Bush was elected, in fact before it was even assured that Bush was going to be the front-runner for the Republicans.

Al Gore would not use the "Clinton Economy" in his campaign for precisely that reason; if he was seen as accepting the credit [blame] for what had turned out to be a 'tech bubble' economy, it would bite him in the ass.

Say what yiou want about Bush and the economic handling, but he was not the one that started the financial downturn. I'm afraid somethings as dull and unspectacular as market forces and the like did most of it.

And before anyone mentions Enron or Global Crossing, the corruption of these companies did not start in the few months Bush had been in office. The corruption was there long before. And also remember that Bush did not bail out his fat-cat corportate buddies, but let their business fail in accordance to the market and their own incompetence. What would people have said to a taxpayer bailout, which Bush did not do...

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-04-23 04:52pm

Stravo wrote:
Durandal wrote:
Some have made the comparison to Henry IV where the young king was seen as a buffoon and a lout and when the time for war came he became a great king. Not altogether a bad analogy.
"Wars not make one great."

LOL

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2003-04-23 05:46pm

Ah, the bloody shirt has been taken out of the drawer for the first time in over a century.

However, it's only a draft, and could be discarded if some problem is found with it.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-23 05:57pm

Coyote wrote:And before anyone mentions Enron or Global Crossing, the corruption of these companies did not start in the few months Bush had been in office. The corruption was there long before. And also remember that Bush did not bail out his fat-cat corportate buddies, but let their business fail in accordance to the market and their own incompetence. What would people have said to a taxpayer bailout, which Bush did not do...

Oh, puh-lease. George W. Bush and his family and their associated oil businesses have been intimately connected with Enron for nearly 20 years. Why do you think Kenneth Lay had his own office in Washington DC as part of George Bush's advisory staff?

Check out this link: http://www.thedailyenron.com/documents/ ... -57471.pdf

The fact is that while GWB is obviously not the main cause of Enron's failure, he DID profit from its shenanigans and he DID respond to the public outing of their criminal activities with half-hearted window-dressing, not much more than a slap on the wrist and a toothless demand for America's corporate community to behave. Of course, immediately after this, as if by miraculous coincidence, it was time to liberate Iraq, so Enron became yesterday's news.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-04-23 06:22pm

Kelly Antilles wrote:
Darth Fanboy wrote:Its not as if he's going to go out of his way to remind everyone of the dump the economy took his first few months in office.
Uh, and do you really think that a Presiden who has only been in office a few months is the CAUSE of that??

How come the US had been running a surplus before Bush came in?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-04-23 06:25pm

Ted wrote:
Kelly Antilles wrote:
Darth Fanboy wrote:Its not as if he's going to go out of his way to remind everyone of the dump the economy took his first few months in office.
Uh, and do you really think that a Presiden who has only been in office a few months is the CAUSE of that??
How come the US had been running a surplus before Bush came in?

Because of accountants.