POLL: Do you think Bush should be replaced in the next election

Remove all ads!

Absolutely, along with the rest of his administration and a good number of congressional incumbants. But I fear that won't happen.

 

Bush is a good president. He has somehow managed to spend (potentially) hundreds of billions of dollars, get hundreds killed, and squander the good will of the entire world in order to fight a war that has *increased* terrorism.

 

From an outside of the US perspective: Absolutely.

As an aside to those of you who've said if not him, then who? Let's have this poll when we knoew who the other option is etc, I only have this to say: It really doesn't matter. Bush or no-one I'd take no-one, Bush or anyone - Anyone hands down. The bonus is that at the next election you're in a win situation regardless of who Bush is up against.

The guy has done absolutely nothing for the US internally that's worthwile other than look after the interests of the people who got him elected ie Dad and his chums, and abroad, well let's just say that I don't think American foreign policy has been held in lower esteem since the hight of the Vietnam war if ever.

You could and should have better, hell, regardless of what some people think over here, you deserve better. Regardless of party politics Bush just isn't the man for the job.

I note with some satisfaction that his poll numbers are slipping. There may be hope yet.

[Edit] If the Republicans amongst you can't stomach voting Democrat to get rid of him, then I suggest you start working on getting a Republican candidate to challenge him. I know it's perhaps not the done thing to challenge the office holder etc, but even within the party there MUST be disquiet over how badly he handles himself and the lack of respect he commands home and abroad?[Edit]

 

I voted yes because the way i see it if he stays in the white house for four more years i fear that no US citizen will be able to visit Europe without having some tomatoes or eggs or you name it be thrown at him/her. This guy is incompetend and is a danger to you as well as the whole world. See the enviromental progress US has achieved during his time. He managed to turn the whole issue about ten years back

 

YES. I can't think of anything altruistic that he's done for the world.
I can't like a person who's job is to speak out loud and he can't speak his mothertongue correctly.
I can't like a man of power that maybe could, but didn't, sign the Kyoto protocol.
...

Or is he misunderestimated?

 

Finally, people are waking up to how bad things have gotten. The lastest polls shows that Bush is now at barely 50 percent and dropping fast. The election is still a year away but at least people are taking a critical look at what has been happeing to this country outside of the "terrorist threat" issue.

The Clark numbers are very surprising. It shows that voters are looking for a better choice than what they have now. Any combination of Dean/Clark/Kerry could be real trouble for Shrub. But he has so much speical interest money and support that it will be hard for the American people to take back their government from "Corporate Global."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/09/22/elec04.poll.bush.clark/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/09/23/bush.media.reut/index.html
http://www.msnbc.com/news/969441.asp

 

I look at this question purely from a foreign policy point of view (sure, my dislike plays in here and there). I don't care much for american domestic issues.

All in all I think Bush should go. He is IMO unsuited for the job - he takes diplomatic issues personally, lacks patience and reportedly, discipline - all key abilities for a president. Bush's trampling and bullying hasn't helped to improve his image overseas. Worst, reelected he'll probably keep a good part of his actual crew and that is indeed a scary prospect. A new face would help America to make a new start.

The really tough question is who might follow. People have said they'd wished Bush should be shot - I disagree, that'd be a nightmare, Cheney is much worse, and worse, Cheney actually knows what he's doing - this is where I give Bush Jr. the benefit of doubt So an election is definitely the best alternative

A republican successor isn't in sight. Certainly a traditional republican approach to foreign policy is desirable, something like what Dubya's daddy did, only without wasting minor countries in proxy wars and with moral principles.
Diplomacy and international relations are per se conservative; both rely on stable relations and continuity ensured by static, binding and generally accepted rules - that explains the global outcry about Bush's, that is neocon, "let's try something new and topple the world order" pre-emptive and hegemonia bull, not to mention their very clumsy, destructive and I could go on, so, in brief, undiplomatic approach.

The democrats, while they are much more sympathetic to me, would try a Clinton-like approach to foreign policy. That is better than Bush Jr's but still. It was them who "internationalised" Al Quaida from a reginal organisation to a global enterprise by calling them up in ex-Jugoslavia. And the NATO war (where, to it's shame, germany engaged too) on Jugoslavia was as much a blatant violation of international law as Bush's war on Iraq, only with a clear objective.

The libertarians are unlikely to gain a majority and while IMO being prudent in their interpretations of the constitution (like their insisting on a congressional declaration of war rather than a presidential decree) they have a weird isolationalist view of the world that IMO isn't conform with reality, not to mention their fear of the big government. There is a role for the US to play on the global scene, and a crucial one.

I don't give the green party much hope, but I like Nader.

And however that will look, the US will need to play slow and steady to regain the decade of goodwill used up by Bush. Sadly, re-gaining lost trust unavoidably has to be a primary objective of US foreign policy in the next decade.

 

The odd thing is that we went to war in Kosovo to protect Muslims who were being put to the torch by the Yugoslavians. There were many of us here who feared that genocide was taking place in places like Bosnia. Many of us felt a desire to aid Eastern Europe after all the suffering that was brought on by the artificial partitioning after WWI & WWII. Perhaps we were wrong. Maybe we should have left it to the Europeans to settle problems in their own backyard. After all, what's another dictator in Eastern Europe worth? I'm sure most of them conform to the standards of "International Law" anyway.

[ September 25, 2003, 06:58: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

As a US citizen who is allowed to vote, I thought I might give some perspective on this. G. W. has lied to the public (where are the WMD's?) and has allowed the absolute worst in corporate America run rampant (Iraq contracts, IPO cheating, massive illegal reporting by Arthur Anderson, ...) Should he be replaced? Yes!

So, who should replace him? A trained monkey comes to mind. Possibly even a trained skunk. If the Democrats would get their collective heads out of their asses, they would easily destroy the Bush administration in any debates.

Now to reality. Many of these problems had occurred before the congressional elections in 2002. The Republicans won BIG TIME even though the bulk of the country was suffering in major ways. If the democrats keep pointing their guns at their own heads, then Bush will, sadly, be re-elected.

As for his foreign policies: I supported eliminating S. Hussein's regime; not because of the WMD's but because he was A. Hitler revisited. Still, Bush made the WMD's his selling point and got very bad marks.

As for asking the U.N. to now deal with the mess in Iraq; I would be surprized if any nation other that Britain would even consider the proposition. I am amazed that France wants to help. Why? To get shot up?

The vast majority of the Iraqi people are thrilled to death that Hussein is gone. However, a very, very small minority can make life a living hell for the rest. This is what G. W. did not take into account. This is what his planning staff did not take into account. Now, that staff is trying to claim that they knew.

If they knew that they were going to need 1 million troops, why didn't they ask congress to instill the draft?

Well, that's all I have to say about our current president.