Do you think Bush would have a chance of making it in 2004 if there was no 9-11 attacks or war in Iraq. What I mean to say is, aren’t there more topics of interest that should define Bush’s leadership besides those two topics. They seem to be the only issues on the table.
So my question is to the Bush boosters, what else has Bush done? :huh:
And to the lefties, what else has Bush done or not done to make you vote against him?
I don’t really know what else he would have done, but it would have been nothing drastic - which isn’t a bad thing. He would have been an average President such as Clinton (minus Lewinsky), and he would easily win re-election because, in the US, incumbents usually win unless they screw up really badly.
He would have continued his tax cuts, we probably wouldn’t have a deficit (actually a few hundred billion in deficits isn’t really bad…for a $11 trillion + growing economy), he would have continued the Clinton-model and backed out of Kyoto, the Farm Subsidies Bill would have been passed, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Reform, Faith Based Initiatives, etc. would have also gone through Congress.
So, I’m guessing, he would have accomplished the same legislation minus Iraq and Afghanistan, and you would have a moderate Democrat (maybe even Gore) running against him for this year’s election
EDIT: But it’s tough to predict all this. Without the Prez.'s popularity after 9/11, the Republicans may not have won both houses of Congress. So it’s really tough to predict what would have happened.
I have to agree with Kirupa. Basically the majority of America seems to want a President with less issues. A President that works on local issues like taxes, school reforms, and lowering the deficit. Seems when war and conspiracies become involved votes get skiddish.