Thread: Being Associated With Bush Can Be Hazardous!

By John W. Lillpop

First it was Tony Blair, the affable Brit whom Americans like because he actually speaks English the old fashioned way--correctly!

Mr. Blair was an ally of W--some cynics say he was more of a lap dog-- through thick and thin until the British people pounded Blair for such poor judgment when it comes to associates. They do have a point, you know.

Next it was American Republican senators and house members who paid the price in 2006. Supporting W and his idiotic immigration reform scheme, among other issues, rankled a lot of voters who unwisely elected Democrats to replace RINOs.

That is rather like replacing the rats infesting one's home with poisonous spiders and snakes. Not a step in the right direction, say what?

Now comes word from down under that John Howard has joined the ranks of politicians smitten for being loyal to W. Again, the good people of Australia have a point, at least when it comes to rejecting anyone who follows the leadership of that dimwitted dyslexic cowboy whom we are obligated to call president for another fourteen dreary months.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071124/D8T42OMG0.html

Still, there may be hope in 2008 if W endorses an enemy of America like Rudy or Hillary to take over his spot on the throne. With the curse of W to contend with, no politician stands a chance, which is exactly what Rudy and Hillary both deserve!

who does GW support

Originally Posted by GREGAGREATAMERICAN

who does GW support

I do believe that Bush has expressed a fondness for Guliani. He may not have made it official with an explicit statement but he certainly has alluded to it.

Personally, I don't think he cares who the next president is. I really don't.

Originally Posted by LegalUSCitizen

Personally, I don't think he cares who the next president is. I really don't.

Co-sign.

BTW, the argument that Bush brought down Howard is a little weak.

If Australians wanted to send the Liberal Party a message about cozying up to Bush they would have done it in 2004-when the Howard-Bush alliance had been cemented for three years.

The fact is that Howard had been in power since 1995 and the voters were sick of him. He should have resigned after the last parliamentary elections and named Costello, or preferably, Downer, as his successor.

Originally Posted by LegalUSCitizen

Personally, I don't think he cares who the next president is. I really don't.

what oh no !!!
tell me the vise president aint running !!!

I think he know the powers that be will put in office the one they want - so he isn't concerned.

I don't think they would run Cheney - he would be under scrutiny somewhat. Something he has not had. He can sit in his bunker and do things out of sight and no one dare mentions it. As President, it might be a little different.