Bush looks like the "stand-in" waiting for the "real President" to show up

[glarius]

Everytime I see him in one of these photo ops in the White House, that is the feeling I get...:puke:

[flakey_foont]

1. Like the NFL?

with the 'replacement players'????

[glarius]

2. Whatever....his strut just doesn't do it for me....I STILL don't believe

he's really the president....:D

[rock]

3. And a poor one at that (stand-in that is)

[Beetwasher]

4. Read This Article in Newsweek:

Jonathan Alter agrees with you!

Super-Sizing the President
George Bush has never fully inhabited the role of president. He still often seems to be impersonating a commander in chief

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4271853

[glarius]

6. What Alter says about Bush being in over his head I saw when he was in

Quebec a while back for a big meeting of the world's leaders....CBC carried most of it live and he looked like a skunk at a garden party....He was so out of his depth...American television only showed taped clips where he was back-slapping or being Charlie Charm, so he didn't look like the dork he is....:D

[Taeger]

5. Bush is dropping like a stone ...

It really doesn't look very good for Bush right now. His approval ratings are down and MOST presidents typically experience a drop in their poll numbers heading into elections. If Bush takes a typical 5-8 point drop in approval, he's toast.

BTW, I think that Democrats DO need to keep up the anti-war(doggle) rhetoric. I don't think that it will score them many new supporters beyond those who already oppose the war and are skeptical of the intelligence leading to war. However, I do think it will sensitize the public to any near term military action.

Basically, I'm pretty concerned that Bush will engineer another conflict to boost his poll numbers and make it seem inprudent to switch leaders in the middle of the conflict. Democrats should be VERY sure to point out the demands that both Afghanistan AND Iraq are placing on our armed forces (and budget). They should also keep talking up the point that Iraq has WEAKENED our ability to fight terrorism, not strengthen it.

In this way, we can sensitize even Bush supporters to the need to NOT enter any new conflicts unless it REALLY IS an imminent threat to American security.

Democrats should be harping on ALL the things that the Bush administration HAS NOT done to strengthen our nation against terrorism.

* Failure to secure the borders (ties in nicely with labor and anti-illegal sentiments)
* Failure to fund first responders.
* Failure to invest in peace-keeping apparatus within the armed services.
* The willfull and politically motivated destruction of CIA assets (Valerie Plame and ALL her associates domestic and abroad) in WMD intelligence gathering.
* Failure to increase Coast Guard funding.
* Insistence on making Homeland Security a politically subservient organization. Basically, stripping homeland security of their civil service protection. They can no longer have autonomy against political persecution for investigating individuals close to key political figures.
* Failure to fully fund the air marshall service. AND moves to decrease air marshall funding last year.
* Failure to empower FBI officials to carry out investigations on Saudi nationals in pre 9/11 days.
* Failure to allow the FBI to function without initiatives being cleared through the administration. They had a VERY top down infrastructure in place that made sure Karl Rove had a crack at anything the government was doing.
* Failure to take action on warnings of planned highjackings. Well, they DID take action. John Ashcroft stopped flying commerical. Democrats should be VERY sure to point this out.


From the security standpoint, Kerry is probably the better candidate. From the economy standpoint, Edwards is a better candidate with his rabid anti-NAFTA platform.

I believe that Kerry needs to have a "change of heart" after "speaking to so many Americans about jobs leaving the nation". He should "realize that there are no provision in NAFTA and WTO to replace the jobs America is losing". He should "realize that the information sector jobs that were SUPPOSED to replace manufacturing losses our now being outsourced to India and China".

Under these conditions, a strategic alliance of a Kerry/Clark ticket would be a sure fire winning ticket.

In such an event, I believe that ALL the Democratic candidates should go to work for Kerry as surrogates and keep spreading the Democratic message to the regions that they will do best in. Sharpton will concentrate on inner city areas. Dennis would concentrate on blue-collar midwesterners and west coast greens. Clark would take the message out to the South and Southwest. Lieberman would concentrate on Connecticut because thats the only place where people like him ;-)

Go Democrats, end the Bush Empire.