A different Bush Presidency

Why? Its always the same. Always somebody says he will be a one-termer. Why? Without a 9/11-recession there will be a booming economie in 2004. And Bush Approval-rating where before 9/11 always 50% or higher. Do you have another reason for this one-term-crap besides "I dont´t like him"
How about, LOTS of People don't Like him ...

Bush didn't have a Real Kitchen-Table Issue to Work on until 9/11, That's Why he Harped on it So Much ...

Or do you Forget All of The Meaningless 2001 Talk about Whether or Not to Build a National Missile Shield?

:D
 
Here's a way to have a more `successful' Bush term... 2005-2013. Gore actually wins in 2000. 9/11 happens. Gore invades Afghanistan but will not push for the invasion of Iraq, even though many pundits and congressmen are calling for it. Widespread criticism from the left that Gore is invading too much, and from the right that he's invading not enough. The GOP, already steaming because they feel Florida and the White House were stolen from them, feel they can run Bush again, though he faces stiff competition. They see it as divine fate playing out again. Some progressive anti-war candidate runs as an independent, diverting some of Gore's base. Bush wins in a squeaker.

First term, he invades Iraq. Similar to how it played out but quicker, and Iraq is more prepared. A bloody war and still unsuccessful, probably - but this time, it's more like Nixon coming in on Vietnam. He still had time to sell it to the American people, and had it not been for Watergate, Ford probably could have been elected President in his own right in 76.

Also, the economy hits as it does OTL, but with Bush in the helm for only 4 years, the case can be made much stronger that it's the Dems' fault. The Dems' control of Congress is also delayed until 2010, most likely.
 
Top