I think that nearly anyone who stumbles on this humble blog would agree that another Bush win would be a disaster for the country, world and human race in general. What about the political parties though. It has been mentioned by some on the various Republican blogs I sneak into once and awhile that a Bush win in November might be a disaster for the Republican party and would in fact guarantee a Democratically controlled House and Senate in 2006 and a Democratic president in 2008. On the other side Bush has screwed things up so bad that there is no possibility that Kerry will be able to straighten things out in 2 or 4 years meaning republican victories.
Andrew Sullivan chimes in on this topic:
I wonder if either candidate has pondered the benefits of actually losing this election? If Kerry wins, you can see how the Republicans would then blame all the inevitable mess in Iraq on his vacillation (even if he doesn't budge an inch), and marshall a Tet offensive argument that implies that if only Washington hadn't given up, the Blessed Leader would have seen the war to victory. Kerry wouldn't be able to win, whatever he does. And because he'd be more fiscally responsible than Bush (could anyone be less fiscally responsible?) he wouldn't have much in the way of domestic goodies to keep his base happy. But if Bush wins and heads into a real, live second Vietnam in Iraq, his party will split, the country will become even more bitterly polarized than now (especially if he's re-elected because he's not Kerry) and he'll become another end-of-career Lyndon Johnson. The presidency of the U.S. is never an easy job. But it could be a brutal one these next four years. Which sane person would want the job?
I for one, always thought no sane person would want to be president. David Brinkly said it well years ago.
"We all agree that you would have to be crazy to want to be president and then we wonder why we have crazy presidents."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Be Nice