Blah Blah Flowers

It does seem that the Democrats may have a good chance of overthrowing George W Caesar Augustus Germanicus. Therefore should Democrats work for a Bush victory in the Presidential election? In school history lessons we were taught about the principle of retreating armies burning the land and seeding it with salt to make it unfit for the following army to use to sustain them. Although in the last four years Dubya may not have retreated at all he's certainly sewn salt around him, alienating foreign countries and ruining his economy, while preparing an attack on the principles of the Constitution. If a Democrat were to win, most of his term will be spent undoing the damage Bush has done, which will certainly involve doing unpopular things to the economy. This could cripple him and his party, come 2008 and possibly for much longer. The public punishes a Government by voting them out at the next election. But they then tend to blame the replacement straight away if things aren't sorted out. If Kerry promises things that Bush's handling of the economy doesn't allow him to do, all people will remember at the next election is that Kerry lied. It won't matter why. Will Bush give up his dream of a second term in the White House in the name of full Republican domination of the political process from 2008 through to maybe 2020?

Therefore, is it better to allow George Bush to be at the helm when the American economy hits the iceberg? To have Cheney, Rumsfeld and all the rest playing as they sink? What's better for the world, a Democrat in charge of the White House, or Bush, who launched two wars when his country was in a stable state but is now sliding into meltdown?