This thread could be called "Justify Bush: You Can't". And indeed we can't. He is a popped boil, a festering sore or whatever delightful image you would like to conjure up, on the body politic.

He is a disaster for the US and possibly the world. I yield to no man in my loathing for him. Among other things, I still think his hypocritical stance on nuclear proliferation is revolting-- jawboning other states not to acquire nukes while, at the same time, at the behest of US firms, refusing to pursue the securing of Russian nuclear material, lest these firms have to provide workers' comp for their workers. I started a thread about this.

At any rate, have some more Embarrassmints--I have a good supply.

Having said that, he was right to lash back at the Taliban in their Afghanistan refuge. I think very few, outside the loony Left, will dispute this.

As to why he was elected in 2004 (for the first time), 3 obvious possibilities:

1) He is damn lucky that the despised United Nations pulled his chestnuts out of the fire---, as I said in the "Irony:   Bush and the UN" thread in April 2004. The UN did this by making possible an Iraqi leader, rather than Bremer, to put an Iraqi face on the opposition to the insurgency. This also undercut the "Crusader" approach of the insurgency. This has resulted in avoiding the Vietnam syndrome predicted by some posters on Mudcat. If the general US electorate had perceived Iraq as another Vietnam, Bush very likely would have lost.   They did not. So Bush can thank the UN for his victory.

2) Bush, as a classic demogogue, played successfully on fear--especially fear of homosexuals and of terrorists. It seems a host of brilliant voters, perhaps even some Mudcatters, were convinced our cities were full of homosexual terrorists.

3) If you look at US political history, at least since 1945, there is a strong correlation between a defeat for a sitting president and a 3rd party which takes votes from him/ and or strong primary opposition. If there is no 3rd party taking votes from the president and he has to primary opposition, he wins. It's not surprising Bush won in 2004--the 3rd party and the primary problems were on the Democrats' side.

Ike won in 1956, Johnson would likely have lost in 1968, due to antiwar sentiment and thus primary opposition, Nixon won in 1972--no 3rd party taking his votes, Ford lost in 1976 after a desperate struggle against Reagan in the primaries.

I believe that 1980, which I first believed was an exception, is not in fact--I believe Carter had strong primary opposition-- from Ted Kennedy, was it?. Perhaps I'm wrong on this.

1984--no primary opposition for Reagan--he won. 1992--the 3rd party took many votes Bush senior would likely have gotten. 1996--no primary opposition for Clinton, nor a 3rd party.

2004--you may say that Nader got few votes this time. True, but

1) Kerry could not assume this.

2)   Kerry had to zig to the left to get the nomination, then zag to the right to try for the general electorate. Thus he was a sitting duck for Bush's single most effective line--"flip-flopping". Added to this, with no primary opposition, Bush was free to use his huge warchest to define Kerry early-- a la Early Money Is Like Yeast (the feminists'   EMILY's List)--especially as the above-cited "flip-flopper". Even late in the campaign Kerry could not assume he had the Left's vote--they had somwhere else to go--Nader.

2008 will be different--both parties will have primaries--with their expensive and bruising consequences.