Daily Kos

Is Bush Trying To Throw The Election?

Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 01:18:13 PM PDT

I first started wondering this a couple of weeks back when during an interview with a reporter, Bush mentioned his plans to bring Social Security privatization back to the forefront next year.

Then all of the sudden, the most unpopular president since Richard Nixon holds two press conferences in as many weeks, when he infamously known for not having very many of them.

So I started wondering, is Bush trying to throw this election to the Dems? Here's what I came up with.

Follow me below the crease.

Bush, and the Republican Party leadership actually want the Democrats to take control of congress. Why?

Iraq.

Bush has decided and announced that the troops would not leave Iraq "on his watch." He's painted himself into a corner with this war, and has finally realized that there is no way for him to attain his goals of a democratic and free Iraq.

Democratic control of the congress would force his hand to change course. He wants this. He doesn't want to face up to having made a plethora of mistakes. It also allows him to blame Democrats for losing the war. But very few will buy that.

Why else would he be putting his unpopular mug all over the TV leading up to the election. Republican candidates across the country complain everytime he opens his mouth about Iraq. Now you hear that the GOP is giving up on a good many races across the country. They want to lose enought seats to lose control of congress, but keep it close.

This strategy also makes for defusing Iraq as an issue for the 2008 elections. Any Republican supporting the occupation still in 2008, who wants to be President will get shellacked. They need the Democrats to win to solve their problems. To clean up their mess.

I've also read other diaries here that have suggested a economy taking a huge dump next year. This would also give Republicans an argument about Democrats and the economy.

Now ofcourse, many of these strategies depend on Democrats playing into the evil GOP games. The Dems will hopefully forsee these attempts and thwart them.

As much as the Bush Administration is corrupt, I really believe that these guys feel that these past 6 years are as much as the country can handle without crumbling. It's a cowardly move, but it is finally Bush raising the white flag, secretly admitting defeat.

The bad news is this though. If I am wrong about the above, then the only other reason Bush would be doing what he is doing is because they're stealing this election too. And they can then say that he "rallied the base" to win the election.

Poll

Is Bush Throwing The Election?

7%14 votes
50%88 votes
13%23 votes
28%51 votes

| 176 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: 2006 elections, iraq (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 31 comments

  •  Tips/scoldings (8+ / 0-)

    Just thinking out loud I suppose.

    Viewing the world through my Kos tinted lenses.

    by The 1n Only Leoni on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 01:17:07 PM PDT

    •  My navel has lint in it. (0+ / 0-)

      And what looks like a tiny flake from breakfast. What did I have? Oh yeah. Cornflakes. No wonder it looks like a flake.
      The lint is a greyish color. My shirt is grey. Wonder if that is why the lint is grey. Most likely. Hmmmm. It could be that it judt turnd that color, though. Does wikipedia have an article on navel lint? When I get time, maybe I should look it up.
      Hmmmm. My navel has lint in it. And what looks like a tiny....

      Buy my book! The Servant of the Manthycore by Michael Ehart, foreword by Michael Moorcock http://www.mehart.blogspot.com/

      by IsraelHand on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 01:49:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Q. "Why else would he (4+ / 0-)

    be putting his unpopular mug all over the TV?"

    A.  Megalomania.

    Change you can Xerox! Yes, we can!

    by DCDemocrat on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 01:18:31 PM PDT

  •  I don't think he cares about Iraq (0+ / 0-)

    I mean, really, he has to pretend he cares for political reasons, but he doesn't give an elephant's ass whether the country falls apart or flourishes.

    You think it matters to him whether Iraqis have schools or electricity? It didn't matter to him when Nola was submerged -- why should he care about Iraq?

    He already got what he wanted out of this war: Saddam in jail and a way to assuage his daddy issues and feelings of inadequacy.

  •  saying Cheney and Rummy (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    lysias, deepfish

    will be with you "till the end" is one way to throw an election.

    The torture boys - Together Forever

    http://www.youtube.com/...

    D-Day, the newest blog on the internet (at the moment of its launch)

    by dday on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 01:19:55 PM PDT

  •  If you really want to be conspiratorial (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    lysias, kbse matt, Turkana

    Consider the possibility that the House of Bush has made a deal with the House of Clinton under which Hillary gets four years in the White House in exchange for not pursuing criminal charges against Bush 43's administration and business buddies. Then, in 2012, Jeb! runs against her as a reform candidate.

    Replete with "misstatements" and elisions and retracted and redacted and revoked assertions.--Carl Bernstein on HRC's record.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 01:20:09 PM PDT

  •  I don't think we have time for this (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    MaineMerlin, Turkana

    If Republicans want us to win, then I agree with them.

    But let's agree for now that WE want us to win, and leave it at that.  I will be happy to talk about 2008 on November 8th.

    •  Win what? (0+ / 0-)

      A simple answer will do or even a definition of "winning in Iraq".

      •  asdff (0+ / 0-)

        There is NO winning in Iraq! We are not in a position to win or lose in Iraq. Iraq long ago ceased being a "war" and became a military occupation. There are 2 options in a military occupation: we leave or annex Iraq. Either way, nobody wins! Not the US Government, not the US taxpayers, not the troops getting their asses shot off over there, and certainly not the Iraqis being ethnically cleansed. Any talk of "victory" in Iraq (along with all the BS about "cut and run") is just rhetoric to take focus off what is really going on. Iraq is going precisely according to their plans. Iraq has never been about victory (or WMD or democracy, or any of the other myriad of reasons we were spoonfed). Ray McGovern said it best at the Downing Street Minutes Meeting in the basement of the Rayburn building: "We went to war in Iraq for the acronym O.I.L. O for oil, I for Israel, and L for Logistics". This "war" has been about looting the American treasury and ensuring American hegemony (read as Empire) from the get-go. They've succeeded beyond their wildest dreams at the first point, and failed miserably at the second. I suggest you watch the film "Iraq for sale". It will explain why we are really "staying the course" and will enfuriate you if you pay taxes in this country.

        "This is where some of my dreams become realities. And where some of my realities become dreams." -Willie Wonka

        by green917 on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 02:01:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Winning (0+ / 0-)

        is winning the midterms, and taking control of the House (and Senate if possible).

  •  Well... (0+ / 0-)

    he did just call Rummy and Cheney excellent men or somehting like that and that we were making progress, again!

    Just saw it on Blitzer...

    "People place their hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. They don't put their hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible." --J.R.

    by michael1104 on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 01:21:26 PM PDT

  •  bush is a sore loser (0+ / 0-)

    and he believes he's never wrong. he's doing what karl tells him will help their chances. a desperate hail mary. they don't know what else to do. calm down. focus.

  •  with the situation in Iraq being what the (0+ / 0-)

    catastrophe that it is, Bush might well love to have a Dem-controlled Congress on which to blame the long-run results of his mismanagement: "if only we had retained control of Congress, we would have achieved victory but with those Liberals blocking us at every stage..."

    We're shocked by a naked nipple, but not by naked aggression.

    by Lepanto on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 01:28:19 PM PDT

  •  Please... No more of these (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    FLDemJax, rcald, MaskedKat

    Looking for deeper meanings in the machinations of the Bush administration, searching for evidence of double-fakes, false flags, hidden agendas, it's like looking in the gullet of an oyster for Shakespeare's missing play.

    Why? Because these people never do anything in a subtle fashion. They come in with steamrollers. Most presidents would be kinda secretive about torture. Bush? He gets permission to do it written into a bill that's hand-delivered to his desk where he's "eager to sign it" in a goddamned signing ceremony.

    If he wants to stay in Iraq forever because "God tells him to" then that's exactly what he'll do. If he wants to leave, he'll go on TV and announce that pulling out feels right "in my heart," or in his gut, I can't keep track of his speaking organs.

    Every day's another chance to stick it to The Man. - dls.

    by The Raven on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 01:28:34 PM PDT

  •  If Kerry had been elected in 2004, they'd be (0+ / 0-)

    blaming the Iraq debacle (and the countless other debacles) on the Democrats.  I doubt if he's trying to throw the election, but he probably wouldn't mind if Iraq blew up in someone else's face and not on his watch (not that he watches much, if anything, except sporting events on TV).    

    •  Kerry in 2004 (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      ImpeachKingBushII

      Would have had us out of Iraq by now.  I'm quite sure of that.

      Warned you we tried. Listen you did not. Now screwed we all are.

      by slippytoad on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 01:34:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Even if we win back the congress... (0+ / 0-)

      ...next week Herr Bush cannot escape resposnsibility. You can delegate authority but you cannot delegate responsibility. He's got to "leave the dance with the one who brung him". He's said all along "I'm the Decider" and like it or not as Commander-in-Chief he's still the "Captain" until we impeach him or until he gets tried with war crimes at the Hague.

      "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars". William Jennings Bryan

      by ImpeachKingBushII on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 05:35:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've wondered the same thing... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Orj ozeppi

    but I tend to think it has more to do with what is going to happen with the economy. CBS News (yeah, I know) did a story earlier this week on the housing market. I was shocked as I watched it! They were actually discussing the very real possibility that the country may slip into a recession as home prices continue to sink, foreclosures are on the rise and a huge number of those exotic adjust rate loans that were easily obtained by anyone with a pulse, start to reset. They said on average payments on these loans would be going up 20%-50%. The wallstreet firms were gauging the chance of recession as high as 80%.

    The economy is the one thing Bush keeps tauting as being "strong". He can't be so stupid to believe that the collapse of the housing market is not going to have a huge impact on the economy and it's going to happen sooner rather than later. I think they might be hoping that if the dems take control of Congress they can somehow pin the recession on the Dems. It isn't going to work, but maybe they are setting their sites on 2008!

    Attention Waxman Staffers! Clean up on aisle 1600! huttotex 3/27/07

    by reflectionsv37 on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 01:33:33 PM PDT

  •  I think it is (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    nancelot, ImpeachKingBushII

    tied in with Bush's various personality disorders.  He can't be the greatest president in history, he can't even be a better president than his father.  But he has an excellent shot at being the biggest fuck-up in history, and I wish I did not believe he would be willing to blow up the world just to hear how big a bang it would make.

    "Lady Sybil...she was large and she was kind."

    by Lady Sybil on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 01:35:48 PM PDT

  •  Bush saying today that he will never get rid (0+ / 0-)

    of Cheney or Rumsfeld will not help Republicans in the elections either.

    The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

    by lysias on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 01:48:50 PM PDT

  •  Bush would not willingly yield power (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    DFWmom, ImpeachKingBushII

    The God that talks in his ear is not into powersharing.

    In a democracy, the most important office is the office of citizen.- Louis Brandeis

    by crystal eyes on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 01:49:49 PM PDT

  •  Dems are in win win even if they lose. (0+ / 0-)

    I've long thought that it would not be a bad outcome if the democrats narrowly lost both house and senate as they could block everything bad but technically not be in charge. This could add up to a force 7 in 2008, since Bushco and the Republicans are going to be in total disarray win or lose after next week. In fact I think it's increasingly looking like a Democratic wipe out. I can see forty house seats, six senate and eight governorhips.    

  •  I voted "Don't Know" (0+ / 0-)

    Because you didn't leave us a non-cynical "no" answer.

  •  One word (that I can't spell ;-): Subpoena (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    DFWmom, ImpeachKingBushII

    Nope, he's not trying to throw it....

    None of the candidates are good enough to be fanatical about. They're all politicians

    by TeresaInSammamishWA on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 02:01:29 PM PDT

  •  nah (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    DFWmom

    Losing is never never an option when you want to win. Even if by losing you would go to the title game against a foolish and inferior team, you want the WIN. You always want the win.

    And republicans know about winning, they've done it quite a bit. And they want TOTAL (total total) DOMINATION (ation ation)!!!

    So no, I don't think so, although it's a fun theory, gamewise.

  •  Bush? Self-sacrifice? (0+ / 0-)

    If Dems gain control of Congress, they are going to crawl all over the Bush admistration with a microscope.  It is going to ugly.  It's going to involve terms like felony, impeachment and prison.  If it happens, it's not going to help Republican win the next round.  Even if they believed it would, Bush won't personally gain anything by it, and would go through some very unpleasant experiences.  I can't see Bush facing anything unpleasant for the sake of others.  

    Wait... Let me think about this...

    Nah!  Can't see it.  

  •  Bush has not labored in vain... (0+ / 0-)

    ...by enacting his "Enabling Acts" [USA Patriot Acts I & II and the Military Commissions Act--Torture and Un-Habeas Corpus act] given to him by the VICHY U.S. Congress [which gave him all of the power he needs to become dictator] to just "admit defeat". No. He neither has any intention whatsoever of surrendering to the hated Democrats, nor ceding any power to us, nor leaving office in January 2009!
      Herr Bush is not [contrary to popular belief] the villiage idiot missing from Crawford, Texas. He and his brownshirts Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Rove, Wolfowitz, etc. etc. have a PLAN and that plan is well-organized, well-conceived, unrelenting, well-funded, and backed by every power broker and heavy hitter that counts. Mark my words Kossacks this man cannot be underestimated and every time he has been "down for the count" he has gotten up and kicked our asses !
     

    "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars". William Jennings Bryan

    by ImpeachKingBushII on Wed Nov 01, 2006 at 05:21:14 PM PDT

Permalink | 31 comments