Catching Bin Laden wouldn't matter! Bush is still going down!

[trumad]

I remember when they caught Saddam my Dad called and said, George W. Bush just got another 4 years! I told him No Way! The capture of Suddam gave Bush a one week bump and that was it. Plus...if Dubya rolls the dude out a couple of weeks before the election then I think folks will smell the fish in Denmark!

I honestly think it's turning out to be Jobs and the Economy...

[JuniorPlankton]

1. I hope you are right. But I have my doubts :( */sigh/*

[movonne]

2. I am not sure of that...I think it will give him another bump, I have

not seen American people being aware of much. We can just hope they do smell the fish in Denmark.

[brainwashed_youth]

3. Yes, it does matter

If Osama is caught, Bush will get a huge boost in the polls and that might just do it for us democrats.

[trumad]

4. That's what a bunch of folks said about Saddam...

And lets get this straight...I hope they do catch the son of a bitch! Get it over with!

[hlthe2b]

6. Bush*'s main vulnerability on the supposed "war on Terror"

Is that he failed to deal with Osama-- the known threat, but instead went into Iraq for a threat that the public has since come to know as highly exaggerated (at a minimum). But, he he parades Osama out there or shows his demise, Bush will probably be at least partially effective in convincing many that he dealt with the key threat to the US. It may well do a lot to neutralize some of the anger at Iraq....

I wish I could agree with you Trumad, but it would certainly motivate his (currently waivering) base and probably some independants as well.

[OneBlueSky]

5. I hope you're right, but be aware . . .

that BushCo will do anything and everything to get their boy re-selected . . . they will lie, they will cheat, they will steal, they will threaten, they will instigate a crisis, they will change VPs, they will diddle with electronic voting, they will spend obscene amounts of money, they will even start a war if need be . . . yes, he's vulnerable, but he ain't goin' down without a dirty, nasty fight . . .

[Karenina]

10. Thank you, OneBlueSky

for stating the obvious so succinctly. :toast:

[YNGW]

7. Economy & Security

>I honestly think it's turning out to be Jobs and the Economy...

Economy and jobs go hand-in-hand. I'll go with Economy and Security, in which case, capturing would make people feel more secure in that we are accomplishing our mission to hunt down and capture terrorists. An economic recovery at this point remains to be seen, but any new jobs this year will indicate recovery, rightly or wrongly, to most Americans. Nothing's in the bag.

[truizm]

8. I think we should remember this Noam Chomsky quote...

NOAM CHOMSKY on the democrats:

The Democratic political opposition is very tepid. There has been very little debate, traditionally, over foreign policy issues. That's recognised right in the mainstream. Political figures are reluctant to put themselves in a position where they can be condemned as calling for the destruction of the United States and supporting its enemies and presenting fantasies, and be subjected to fantasies of the kind that in fact were included in that email. Politicians are unwilling to subject themselves to that, and the result is that the voice of a large portion of the population simply is barely represented, and the Republicans recognise it. Karl Rove, the Republican campaign manager, made it clear before the last election in 2002 that the Republicans would have to try to run the election on a security issue, because if they faced it on issues of domestic policy they would lose. So they frightened the population into obedience, and he has already announced that they are going to have to do the same thing next time in the 2004 election. They are going to have to present it as voting for a war president who will defend you from destruction. Incidentally, they are simply rehearsing a script that runs right through the 1980s, the first time they were in office - the same people, approximately. If you look, the policies they implemented were unpopular. The population was opposed, but they kept pressing the panic button, and it worked. In 1981 Libya was going to attack us. In 1983 Grenada was going to set up an airbase from which the Russians would bomb us. In 1985 Reagan declared a national emergency because the security of the United States was threatened by the government of Nicaragua. Somebody watching from Mars would have collapsed in laughter. And so it went on through the 1980s. They managed to keep the population intimidated and frightened enough so that they could maintain a thin grasp on political power, and that's the effort since. They didn't invent that tactic, incidentally, but it unfortunately has its effects, and political figures and others are reluctant to stand up and face the torrent of abuse and hysteria that will immediately come from trying to bring matters back to the level of fact.

I don't think it will be about the economy and jobs.

[Malva Zebrina]

9. I agree it will be more terror, terror terror and more war, war war

this is what turns people on--attacking and ruling the world and they see George as the saviour who will protect this country from terror. I think Chomsky is spot on.

If that is the case. all the more reason to pound it home that Bush went AWoL and is a despicable coward sending our young ones off to be killed on lies and pretenses, shored up by wearing military costumes. This will be a strong suit against his assumption of the Commander in Chief role if people begin to see AWOL instead of CIC whenever he dons another military costume. I will bet he does not wear another one at all.

Outrage.

[MissMarple]

11. Oops! Trumad, we are thinking on the same lines.

I just posted a similar thread. I think the drips are beginning to tip the dam. :D