Posted on 09/23/2006 11:48:29 AM PDT by Signalman
One hears not an encouraging word about US President George W Bush these days, even from Republican loyalists. Yet I believe that Bush will stage the strongest political comeback of any US politician since Abraham Lincoln won re-election in 1864 in the midst of the American Civil War.
Two years ago I wrote that Bush would win a second term as president but live to regret it. Iraq's internal collapse and the president's poll numbers bear my forecast out. But Bush's Republicans will triumph in next November's congressional elections for the same reason that Bush beat Democratic challenger John Kerry in 2004. Americans rally around a wartime commander-in-chief, and Bush will have bombed Iranian nuclear installations by October.
One factoid encapsulates Bush's opportunity: in a February 14 CNN/Gallup poll, 80% of respondents said they believed that Iran, if it had nuclear weapons, would hand them over to terrorists; 59% said Iran might use nuclear weapons against the United States. A slight majority of those polled, to be sure, did not wish to use military action against Iran, but that should be interpreted as "not yet", for two-thirds said they worried that the US would not do enough to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Americans are a misunderstood people. Only one in five owns a passport, and a tiny fraction of non-immigrant Americans learns a foreign language. US apathy regarding what might plague the rest of the world is matched only by US bloodlust when attacked. President Bush earned overwhelming support by toppling Saddam Hussein, a caricature villain who appeared to threaten Americans, but earned opprobrium by committing American lives to the political rehabilitation of Iraq, about which Americans care little.
(Excerpt) Read more at atimes.com ...
He better hurry up.
Not likely
Was there an October surprise in 2004? I don't remember one.
He's wrong that Vietnam was the only time we turned on one of our leaders. We turned on Truman during Korea. People forget that Truman is only hailed as a great President after the fact. When he decided not to run for re-election, he had something like 25% approval ratings.
Patton put it best: "America loves a winner, and will not tolerate a loser."
Both Johnson and Truman were seen as losing. Truman certainly WASN'T losing, while Johnson was only at a stalemate, but the perception was that they were losing. That's why they were unpopular.
Bush has the problem of the disconnect between the wider WOT and Iraq. He's winning the WOT, but he's percieved to be losing in Iraq. He's not, but that's not the point, the perception is all that's important.
Focusing on Iran will help, and it's vital that we do that, and not just for internal political reasons. But I really hope there is something that can happen between now and the election in Iraq that will signal 'win' on it.
Maybe George HW Bush will make another SR-71 flight to Iran to commemorate the first "October Surprise" of 1980?
Agreed.
Kerry kindly gave us one by using the fradulant documents.
I guess if you are the conspiracy type, you could say the Bin-Laden tape.
But as far as one of our own? Not really.
I guess the Repubs didn't need one - it was easier to watch the Dems try and spectacularly fail. I can't wait to see what they have planned for next month.
Here in lies the the Rove target. no?
Most likely, you mean. One can tell that they know what's coming.
>Was there an October surprise in 2004? I don't remember one.
Maybe that was the surprise.
Spengler is a fraud.
Hmmm. October surprise, huh? He gives McLame a wedgy and tells him to pipe down?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
This guy is an idiot. Bush will not try to use an attack on Iran as an "October surprise"!!!
He announces that Osama is dead -- 'rats collapse in a heap.
the october surprise will be a sure thing -- too many unknowns in something as heavy duty as an attack on Iran. the demonicrats could cry foul saying it is an election year stunt for example, Iran could get in a lucky retaliation punch, etc.
Iran will be bombed *after* the november election (but, IMHO, it *will* be bombed, make no mistake about that)
There was no need for one, Dan Ratherbiased destroyed the media's ability to throw the election and neutralized any real chance they had to smear the Swift Boat Vets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.