Predictions for four more years?

[wasteofo2]

If Bush wins, will it be, as Kerry has put it "4 more years of the same", or will Bush and his administration finally admit some mistakes and take some measures opposite to previous actions to correct them?

I'm really worried that the Bush administration is so ideological that they simply won't change course, but you never know, didn't Reagan quietly sign some huge tax-hike in his second term?

[Moonbear]

If a lame duck president doesn't think he's done anything wrong in his first term, why would he bother to change anything in his second term? I think it's pretty obvious it will be four more years of the same, or maybe less; the question is whether or not you think that's a good thing. There are voters out there who think the status quo is okay, but if they are expecting anything different out of Bush in the next 4 years than what he's already shown he will do, then I hope they aren't holding their breath.

[phatmonky]

Bush has sweeping domestic reform planned. I look forward to much of it.

[Smurf]

what, you think bush is gonna do that when he can fight another war and extend the US sphere of influence? pfffft.

[Gokul43201]

(In reference to phatmonky's hope) I agree. I think there's going to be big (attempts at) changes : in Social Security, Government Spending and Taxation, but I can't see very mush else changing.

What changes have been promised ?

[gravenewworld]

Honestly, it doesn't matter who will become president. America is #)($(#@ anyway.

[phatmonky]

Honestly, it doesn't matter who will become president. America is #)($(#@ anyway.

Yes, a deficit that isn't the highest percentage ever(while the GDP this year was still the highest we've ever had), a war in Iraq, and a steady growth economy is truly the signs of total decline :rolleyes:

[Gza]

Yes, a deficit that isn't the highest percentage ever(while the GDP this year was still the highest we've ever had), a war in Iraq, and a steady growth economy is truly the signs of total decline

I take it you have something to back that statement up with. Last time I checked we are under the highest deficit in history.

[BobG]

I take it you have something to back that statement up with. Last time I checked we are under the highest deficit in history.

You're both right. The budget deficit is the highest in history in raw numbers. As a percentage of the GDP, it's extremely high (around 4.2%), but not even close to the record. The record deficit as a percentage of the GDP was in World War II, when the percentages ranged from 14.2% to 30.3%. World War II was a major exception, though. Not counting World War II, the highest deficit by percentage was 1983 at 6%. 2004's 4.2% (projected) would barely crack the top 10 non-WWII years.

Still, "a deficit that isn't the highest percentage ever" is pretty faint praise for a very mediocre economic 'recovery' (job growth is almost high enough to match population growth, now).

Reference: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hist.pdf
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=4985&sequence=2

[phatmonky]

Still, "a deficit that isn't the highest percentage ever" is pretty faint praise for a very mediocre economic 'recovery' (job growth is almost high enough to match population growth, now).


There's a reason I mentioned percentage.
My point is, it's not doomsday :rolleyes: And America isn't @#$@#$@#$@#$@#

[Gokul43201]

Here's my concern.

Bush is on a second term and Cheney is not going to run for President after this. That in itself is a little scary.

There's one, and likely more, Supreme Court spots to fill.

The GOP more than controls the House and Senate.

Rummy and Wolfie are not getting shafted.

The people seem to want a "faith based policy".

[tumor]

All those numbers about how good US economy is doing might not be real,remember guys they lied to the World about WMD in Iraq.

[Dooga Blackrazor]

The people seem to want a "faith based policy".

I'm not very familiar with the foundations of America but isn't the country supposed to support secularism?

[wasteofo2]

Here're some of my concerns:

1) Republicans now control the whole government.

Their narrow majority in the Senate has become a larger majority, with less likelyhood that there will be enough Republicans who might vote against insane policies Bush wants, and more that may just tow the party line.

Their control on the Legislative Branch will only tighten.

How can a government controlled by one party be expected to check and balance itself?

2) People say the Iraq/Vietnam comparison is insane, that we won't need a draft etc. However, Iraq is slowly degrading, as Vietnam did. Kennedy sent the first troops to Vietnam in '62, and the draft didn't start up until '68. These things take time, but with more and more Americans dying, it seems there's no way to a resolution besides pulling out or sending more troops. Bush's made lots of promises that he couldn't keep before. He said he didn't want to participate in Nation Building, and we're building 2 nations. Of course, with that, times changed, but the same thing could happen with the draft. I have no problem picturing Bush saying "In 2004, when I said there would be no draft, things were different, times change, things have become much more dangerous in Iraq and dangerous times require somewhat drastic steps. This is why I'm re-instituting a draft".

3) Bush isn't showing any signs of realizing anything he's ever done has ever been wrong in any way. He's simply blind to reality. I'm gonna have to pay off this damned debt in the form of taxes, and I'm gonna have to suffer under it in the form of higher rates of damned near everything.

[phatmonky]

Here's my concern.

The people seem to want a "faith based policy".

expand on this.

[graphic7]

expand on this.

I've posted this statistic 3 times. 90 percent of the people that voted for Bush in my state voted because of his 'faith.' I fail to see what Gokul is suppose to expand on.

If this statistic doesn't tell you that the American people are wanting faith, specifically Chrstianity, to be an important part of the government, I don't know what to tell you.

[phatmonky]

Here're some of my concerns:

1) Republicans now control the whole government.

Their narrow majority in the Senate has become a larger majority, with less likelyhood that there will be enough Republicans who might vote against insane policies Bush wants, and more that may just tow the party line.

Their control on the Legislative Branch will only tighten.

How can a government controlled by one party be expected to check and balance itself?

2) People say the Iraq/Vietnam comparison is insane, that we won't need a draft etc. However, Iraq is slowly degrading, as Vietnam did. Kennedy sent the first troops to Vietnam in '62, and the draft didn't start up until '68. These things take time, but with more and more Americans dying, it seems there's no way to a resolution besides pulling out or sending more troops. Bush's made lots of promises that he couldn't keep before. He said he didn't want to participate in Nation Building, and we're building 2 nations. Of course, with that, times changed, but the same thing could happen with the draft. I have no problem picturing Bush saying "In 2004, when I said there would be no draft, things were different, times change, things have become much more dangerous in Iraq and dangerous times require somewhat drastic steps. This is why I'm re-instituting a draft".

3) Bush isn't showing any signs of realizing anything he's ever done has ever been wrong in any way. He's simply blind to reality. I'm gonna have to pay off this damned debt in the form of taxes, and I'm gonna have to suffer under it in the form of higher rates of damned near everything.

1>I voted for ( and he won) a local replublican congressman because he was a Republican vocal about the lack of fiscal conservatism in Washington. Don't be so sure that there will be just towing of the party line. There is also a realistic plan to pay down the deficit coming forth from Bush himself. A steady growth, steady paydown is exactly what we need - that is being offered.
2>There will be no draft. I don't understand how this can be made any clearer. It will take an active attack on the USA to bring forth such a thing, and if that happens I hope you do't have a problem fighting. I don't. Iraq won't do it.

You have more to worry if Kerry had won:
- His own party supports the draft, and even wrote a bill to begin the draft
- He opposes moving troops out of Europe and the Korean peninsula
- He wants to increase the armed forces by 40,000
- He was relying on France/Germany/Russia to help us in Iraq. HE would have to get more support


3>You'd have to worry a lot more if we implemented an awful tax and spend policy in the middle of a recession. Our GDP has grown every year. It did last year, it is this year. the deficit will start to decline. Things could be better, but this is not doomsday, and Bush is a better economic choice than Kerry (a mediocre plan vs. NO PLAN.)

[phatmonky]

I've posted this statistic 3 times. 90 percent of the people that voted for Bush in my state voted because of his 'faith.' I fail to see what Gokul is suppose to expand on.

If this statistic doesn't tell you that the American people are wanting faith, specifically Chrstianity, to be an important part of the government, I don't know what to tell you.

I've never seen this statistic.
He didn't reference this statistic.

He is to expand on what he meant by it, where he got the info from, etc.

[graphic7]

I've never seen this statistic.
He didn't reference this statistic.

He is to expand on what he meant by it, where he got the info from, etc.

Go to CNN, click on TN, click on exit poll information and take a look. Don't play dumb. :rolleyes:

[phatmonky]

Go to CNN, click on TN, click on exit poll information and take a look. Don't play dumb. :rolleyes:


Get off my nuts Graphic. I asked for an expansion on a VERY broad statement. I answered your questions, and I didn't know what state you were from.
There's no need for you to start acting like a little kid.

[graphic7]

Get off my nuts Graphic. I asked for an expansion on a VERY broad statement. I answered your questions, and I didn't know what state you were from.
There's no need for you to start acting like a little kid.

What's broad is 91% of the people that voted for Bush, thought his 'Most Important Quality' was 'Faith.'

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html

[phatmonky]

What's broad is 91% of the people that voted for Bush, thought his 'Most Important Quality' was 'Faith.'

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html


Perhaps I'm reading that exit poll wrong:
Doesn't that say that OF THE people that thought Religious Faith (8%) was the most important quality for their candidate, 91% of that 8% voted for Bush?

[graphic7]

Perhaps I'm reading that exit poll wrong:
Doesn't that say that OF THE people that thought Religious Faith (8%) was the most important quality for their candidate, 91% of that 8% voted for Bush?

I maybe be reading it wrong them, however, the totals don't add up to 100, though.

[phatmonky]

I maybe be reading it wrong them, however, the totals don't add up to 100, though.


You'll notice the topics of importance add to 93%, meaning there were probably some OTHER,etc.

The percentage to the right all add to 99% or 100%

[wasteofo2]

1>I voted for ( and he won) a local replublican congressman because he was a Republican vocal about the lack of fiscal conservatism in Washington. Don't be so sure that there will be just towing of the party line. There is also a realistic plan to pay down the deficit coming forth from Bush himself. A steady growth, steady paydown is exactly what we need - that is being offered.
2>There will be no draft. I don't understand how this can be made any clearer. It will take an active attack on the USA to bring forth such a thing, and if that happens I hope you do't have a problem fighting. I don't. Iraq won't do it.

You have more to worry if Kerry had won:
- His own party supports the draft, and even wrote a bill to begin the draft
- He opposes moving troops out of Europe and the Korean peninsula
- He wants to increase the armed forces by 40,000
- He was relying on France/Germany/Russia to help us in Iraq. HE would have to get more support


3>You'd have to worry a lot more if we implemented an awful tax and spend policy in the middle of a recession. Our GDP has grown every year. It did last year, it is this year. the deficit will start to decline. Things could be better, but this is not doomsday, and Bush is a better economic choice than Kerry (a mediocre plan vs. NO PLAN.)

Honestly, at this point, I've heard too many false promises from this administration, too many optimistic predictions that turned out to be totally wrong, and too much general BS from this whitehouse to take any promise of Bush doing better seriously. He'll have to show me.

Bush can say there won't be a draft, but hell, I'm sure Kennedy and Johnson said that same thing as well.

Again, the Bush Administration has said WAY too many things that aren't true for me to take any promises of theirs seirously. Uniter not a divider, no nation building, cleaner air and water, WMD's for sure, fiscal responsibility, bringing an attitude of accountability to Washington, bringing allies to the table, fighting for smaller government etc. He's just a master of BS, even better than Clinton. Clinton was slick and slimy, Bush is like ****ing teflon, nothing he says ever comes back to haunt him and no one holds him accountable for a damn thing, especially not himself. And when he makes a promise that doesn't hold true, is he a liar? No, he's not a liar, he never made the promise in the first place, and his current justification is what it has always been and is right. 2+2 is fuking 5 with this guy.

[BobG]

2>There will be no draft. I don't understand how this can be made any clearer. It will take an active attack on the USA to bring forth such a thing, and if that happens I hope you do't have a problem fighting. I don't. Iraq won't do it.

You have more to worry if Kerry had won:
- His own party supports the draft, and even wrote a bill to begin the draft
- He opposes moving troops out of Europe and the Korean peninsula
- He wants to increase the armed forces by 40,000
- He was relying on France/Germany/Russia to help us in Iraq. HE would have to get more support


I agree with you that there will be no draft .... and the military would be the most opposed to it. Nobody wants to depend on inexperienced short termers - today's technology and tactics require more experience than past wars. However, increasing the size of the armed forces is smart and necessary.

The Rumsfield vision of the military was partially validated by Afghanistan and Iraq. But it was really only validated for one type of warfare. Beat the enemy as quickly as possible and then get the hell out.

Rumsfield model just plain doesn't work when it comes to occupying a country. Not only doesn't it work, but he has to get a whole lot more revolutionary about the mission of the military. Peacekeeping and occupation of foreign territories are no where in any of the military's core missions. Not only are they not core tasks, but the military has constantly complained about the number of peacekeeping missions they have been tasked for, claiming they reduce the amount of training they can devote to maintaining readiness for their core task - waging war.

There's only three options:

Don't get involved in so many of these peacekeeping missions such as Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, or Lebanon. Don't create situations where you have to occupy a defeated country to maintain the peace.

Admit the military's going to be constantly tasked for these types of missions, make peacekeeping missions one of their core tasks that they have to train for, and increase manning so they can do the job.

Just overwhelm the problem with increased manpower. Throw enough manpower at the problem and we're bound to succeed.

[selfAdjoint]

Bush can say there won't be a draft, but hell, I'm sure Kennedy and Johnson said that same thing as well.

I well remember that in the election campaign of 1964, Johnson swore he would not send troops to Viet Nam, and he tried to tar Goldwater as a supporter of a bigger war there. At this time we had only a small contingent there. And in January after the election, Johnson announced a big increase in the troop stength there with a jump in the draft to match.

Of course Bush (or for that matter Kerry) is a more honorable man than Johnson. Sure he is.

[phatmonky]

I agree with you that there will be no draft .... and the military would be the most opposed to it. Nobody wants to depend on inexperienced short termers - today's technology and tactics require more experience than past wars. However, increasing the size of the armed forces is smart and necessary.

The Rumsfield vision of the military was partially validated by Afghanistan and Iraq. But it was really only validated for one type of warfare. Beat the enemy as quickly as possible and then get the hell out.

Rumsfield model just plain doesn't work when it comes to occupying a country. Not only doesn't it work, but he has to get a whole lot more revolutionary about the mission of the military. Peacekeeping and occupation of foreign territories are no where in any of the military's core missions. Not only are they not core tasks, but the military has constantly complained about the number of peacekeeping missions they have been tasked for, claiming they reduce the amount of training they can devote to maintaining readiness for their core task - waging war.

There's only three options:

Don't get involved in so many of these peacekeeping missions such as Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, or Lebanon. Don't create situations where you have to occupy a defeated country to maintain the peace.

Admit the military's going to be constantly tasked for these types of missions, make peacekeeping missions one of their core tasks that they have to train for, and increase manning so they can do the job.

Just overwhelm the problem with increased manpower. Throw enough manpower at the problem and we're bound to succeed.

I agree with this all.

[franznietzsche]

I take it you have something to back that statement up with. Last time I checked we are under the highest deficit in history.


But its only 4% of GDP as opposed to 6% which was the record.

[franznietzsche]

Another thing,something liberals will never understand:

This election was not won because of campaign promises.It was not won on foreign policy, and it was not won on the economy.

It was won on culture. One of my history professors made an interesting point: The wars of the 20th century were political and economic wars. Communism, Fascism, Democracy and Capitalism. He then said the the warsof the 21st century will be wars of culture. Christianity and Islam, Secularism and Fundamentalism, Conservatism and Liberalism. As Bush's term progressed, and especially in this election this has shown true. The conflicts between the rest ofn the world and Bush are ones of fundamental cultural belief. Conservative Theism vs Socialist Liberalism. That is what this election came down to, and the first culture is the stronger in America. People's reasons for voting have changed. OUr reasons for going to war have changed. Until you liberals figure this out and stop spouting the same useless ideas, you're going to be faced with this kind of Republican domination of the federal government. get smart, and do it quick.

[graphic7]

Another thing,something liberals will never understand:

This election was not won because of campaign promises.It was not won on foreign policy, and it was not won on the economy.

It was won on culture. One of my history professors made an interesting point: The wars of the 20th century were political and economic wars. Communism, Fascism, Democracy and Capitalism. He then said the the warsof the 21st century will be wars of culture. Christianity and Islam, Secularism and Fundamentalism, Conservatism and Liberalism. As Bush's term progressed, and especially in this election this has shown true. The conflicts between the rest ofn the world and Bush are ones of fundamental cultural belief. Conservative Theism vs Socialist Liberalism. That is what this election came down to, and the first culture is the stronger in America. People's reasons for voting have changed. OUr reasons for going to war have changed. Until you liberals figure this out and stop spouting the same useless ideas, you're going to be faced with this kind of Republican domination of the federal government. get smart, and do it quick.

Are you saying 'Conservative Theism' is right?

[franznietzsche]

I'm saying its clearly the more popular choice of the american people. And frankly, as far as I'm concerned anyone who talks of a war on poverty and reeks of socialism should never be elected to any office of any kind on this side of the Atlantic.

I'm far less fond of social conservatism. But if it keeps socialists out of anything resembling a position of power, I'm willing to count my blessings. That said i don't support a constitutional ban on gay marriage, and i don't support over turning roe vs wade (i don't like abortion, but i think the court's decision was right based on the criteria they are supposed to use). The ideas that won this election are the not the reasons i would choose for voting for Bush. As I said in another thread, I'm very glad Kerry lost, not so thrilled that Bush won.

Bottom line: This is a socially conservative nation on the whole. The senate races more than the presidential race have shown this. Daschle has lsot his seat in the senate. Kerry and Edwardsare both out of the senate. The republicans now hold the senate 56:44. Their hold on the House is larger. Social conservatism has clearly been chosen by the American people.

[Gokul43201]

expand on this.

Note that I've used the word seem, because this is a personal opinion based on random obervations. Here's a few recent ones :

On monday, I overheard a heated debate at a neighbouring table at Wendy's, where 3 guys were "bashing" a fourth over, among other things, how Kerry is a disgrace to Christianity because he supports stem cell research, and thank God Bush "knows" the difference between right and wrong.

Today, I was talking to a girl in our group who is a devout Christian, and a marginal Bush supporter. She believes that abortion and stem cell research are wrong. She also believes that her religion is hers, and she is uncomfortable with the influence of politics on religion and vice-versa. She talked about how this Pastor in one of Columbus' largest (possibly the largest) churches, unabashedly promotes the Republican agenda, making it the focus of discussion for the last few months. (I took a friend to this church once - for a 10-day conference involving at least 10,000 visitors a day.) Anyway, some of the things she told me reinforced my above opinion.

But to get back my point, I believe that Bush choses the Bible over the Constitution. He is against gay rights, stem cell research and abortion because the church is. I feel his defense/military decisions are also rooted in religious belief. Now, while there are some people (most of these on Campus) who are incredulous and terrified that the President decides what's good for the country on the basis of a 2000 year old book, I find that many people that I've come across are either fine with it, or won't have any less.

Finally, and this is a digression, I don't think Bush is really a devout Christian. He is definitely a believer, and having found that adopting policy that appeases the church, makes them, and (possibly as a result) a large fraction of the country happy with him, he simply uses this approach to raise his approval. It helps him to make church-friendly decisions, so why change ?

[Gokul43201]

Conservative Theism vs Socialist Liberalism. That is what this election came down to, and the first culture is the stronger in America. People's reasons for voting have changed. OUr reasons for going to war have changed.

I agree. America is largely a conservative theistic society.

Until you liberals figure this out and stop spouting the same useless ideas, you're going to be faced with this kind of Republican domination of the federal government. get smart, and do it quick.

There are times when the populist idea is not necessarily the right idea. If getting smart involves pandering, I'd rather have Liberals in the minority opposing what they believe are wrong policies, than in the majority proposing them.

[gravenewworld]

Tyranny of the majority

[franznietzsche]

I agree. America is largely a conservative theistic society.



There are times when the populist idea is not necessarily the right idea. If getting smart involves pandering, I'd rather have Liberals in the minority opposing what they believe are wrong policies, than in the majority proposing them.


Thats fine, but then realize that the liberals will not regain anything resembling and equal power in government for years, maybe as long as a decade. As much as i hate the liberal economic agenda, that is far longer than i want to see the republicans in such a dominant position with the ability to force through almost anything they want.


Tyranny of the majority


That is what democracy is.

"The idea that more than half the people are right more than half the time" ~ H.L. Mencken.

Edit: TO correct an earlier statement, apparently Kerry has not lsot his Senate seat, he still has four years. But Edwards and Daschle have lost their seats.

[gravenewworld]

If tyranny of the majority is what democracy is, then screw democracy. Tyranny of the majority is the same thing that gets people like hitler elected. The majority isn't ALWAYS right.

[phatmonky]

If tyranny of the majority is what democracy is, then screw democracy. Tyranny of the majority is the same thing that gets people like hitler elected. The majority isn't ALWAYS right.


Hitler wasn't elected with a majority, and there are many other factors involved in the threatening of other political bodies that allowed his party to take the minority chunk it DID take.

[franznietzsche]

If tyranny of the majority is what democracy is, then screw democracy. Tyranny of the majority is the same thing that gets people like hitler elected. The majority isn't ALWAYS right.


Refer to Mencken quote.

[Gokul43201]

If the politicians didn't make unpopular choices, you'd still have segregation.

My biggest complaint against conservatism is that, it is by nature, antithetical to progress. Clearly, you need a balance between progressivism and conservatism to move in the right direction.

[gravenewworld]

Ok I agree the Hitler example was a bad one, but for example, the majority of Americans supported America's stance of the El Salvadoran government and military in the '80s which led to the slaughter over 75,000 innocent El Salvadorians.

[russ_watters]

Interesting point, franznietzsche. I've never heard it before and its not bad. I do have a hard time drawing such distinctions though, especially since many of our enemies (Iraq) are secular dictatorships, not unlike the ones we faced in WWII. In general, though, I think it works.

[setAI]

Conservative Theism vs Socialist Liberalism. That is what this election came down to, and the first culture is the stronger in America.

in 2004 they are stronger- but the populations of cities [blue areas]- particularly of minorities- are increasing exponentially while rural states/counties [red areas]will remain at the same population- by 2015-2020 the cities will represent 3/4s of the total population- people in rural areas are isolated from other cultures and beleifs and so aren't pressured to embrace them- but people in cities who have to live/work with other cultures and learn other ideas through the media/internet/schools learn to open their minds more- religiosity wains- it's a numbers battle that the right cannot win in the end- though they ride high now- it's their nadir

Until you liberals figure this out and stop spouting the same useless ideas, you're going to be faced with this kind of Republican domination of the federal government. get smart, and do it quick.

only for a little while longer- then the GOP won't have the numbers anymore- math is a *****

[franznietzsche]

Actually since 2000 the states bush won had increased in population more than the states that Gore/Kerry won. Had Bush won exactly the same state he won in 2000 he would have had 7 more electoral votes than he did then.

[franznietzsche]

Interesting point, franznietzsche. I've never heard it before and its not bad. I do have a hard time drawing such distinctions though, especially since many of our enemies (Iraq) are secular dictatorships, not unlike the ones we faced in WWII. In general, though, I think it works.

Saddam was. But the insurgents we are currently fighting aren't. Iran is not secular. North Korea is, but i would argue that North Korea is a remnant of the previous century's political conflicts who's interests now coincide with cultural enemies. Further, the culture of the communist elite is very different from that of the American ruling elite. The russian politburo almost relieved their collective bowels in their pants when they saw Nixon forced out of office by the populus, such a thing to them was unheard of, unimaginable even. The culture is very different. The difference now is that the cultural difference has become the motivation, not the political difference, which used to be the motivating factor. And i think that Bush's reelection reflects this, he was chosen because he fits the cultural beliefs of the majority of Americans, whereas Kerry fits the cultural beliefs of the majority of Europeans.

[setAI]

Actually since 2000 the states bush won had increased in population more than the states that Gore/Kerry won. Had Bush won exactly the same state he won in 2000 he would have had 7 more electoral votes than he did then.


this data is irrelevent when considering that many Red States were only red becasue their urban votes where just short of their rural votes- but in the near future cities like Columbus/ Indianapolis/ Denver/ Des Moines/etc will grow past the populations of all their state's rural precincts- the global trend of civilization is becoming exponentially more urban since the modern era began- it simply cannot be denied that within ageneration the overwhelming majority of Americans will live in large cities-

[franznietzsche]

this data is irrelevent when considering that many Red States were only red becasue their urban votes where just short of their rural votes- but in the near future cities like Columbus/ Indianapolis/ Denver/ Des Moines/etc will grow past the populations of all their state's rural precincts- the global trend of civilization is becoming exponentially more urban since the modern era began- it simply cannot be denied that within ageneration the overwhelming majority of Americans will live in large cities-



Actually since the human era began.

[BobG]

Bush's victory winds up a little short of a mandate for his policies. In fact, it only took one day for the battle over what the Republican Party stands for to start.

Arlen Specter has already made it clear he doesn't consider Bush's victory a mandate to appoint Supreme Court Justices that would overturn Roe vs. Wade (although Specter's nickname is RINO - Republican in name only). The clue as to how much of a mandate Bush really will come from whether or not Specter is bumped out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I think he got a stern warning privately about his comments, but there hasn't been any Republican Senators coming out against his comments.

Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel both had some negative comments about the situation in Iraq right in the middle of the campaign. They are much more mainstream Republicans with key committee seats and neither received any flack for their comments. In fact, Lugar's comments pretty much opens the door for any Republican congressman to stand up against Bush.

Bush will get his economic policies through, provided he at least recognizes there is a debt and shows some restraint, but I don't think Republican majorities in both branches of Congress are as meaningful as might seem. The conservative Christian wing may have showed they can flex their muscles, but quite a few Republican Congressmen don't have enough faith in the right wing's durability to stake the party image on them.

[GENIERE]

Bush's victory winds up a little short of a mandate for his policies… With gains in the Senate, the House, Governors and many state legislatures, how can it not be considered a mandate? …In fact, it only took one day for the battle over what the Republican Party stands for …Arlen Specter has already made it clear he doesn't consider Bush's victory a mandate to appoint Supreme Court Justices that would overturn… Specter later clarified his statement negating your point. Richard Lugar and Chuck Hagel both had some negative comments… Republicans are not (usually) in lock step spouting the daily talking points; McCain makes a career of it. …They are much more mainstream Republicans with… You and I may differ on what defines mainstream. Those that profess tenets similar to the President’s, I consider mainstream. …Bush will get his economic policies through, provided he at least recognizes there is a debt and shows some restraint… He does and he will. The debt incurred under the President’s Administration is not a big problem, there’s been much bigger without immediate consequence. The US debt has accumulated over the last 50-60 years to be extremely dangerous and must be attended to. The best way to decrease debt is to grow the economy the way JFK did it, lower taxes. …I don't think Republican majorities in both branches of Congress are as meaningful as might seem. The conservative Christian wing may have showed they can flex their muscles, but quite a few Republican Congressmen don't have enough faith in the right wing's durability to stake the party image on them… If you are basing that statement on exit polls, the polls determined that of the voters who responded yes to the moral issue (22%), 79% of those voted for the President, or about 16%. It is not the big factor the media is trying to lead us to believe, nor can we put any trust in the exit polls.

[BobG]

I thought Specter spoke quite clearly. His 'clarification' is why I think someone had told him he'd better take a more low profile approach. (At least he didn't claim he'd been misquoted in his autobiography).

I felt the number of amendments banning gay marriage made a stronger statement than the exit polls. The religous right did make a strong statement that you can only push so far before you get a united push back. While they have some legitimate beefs (anti-religion court cases have reached the point of absurdity), having them as the main driving force of the Republican Party is disturbing. You'd lose a large segment of Republicans, me included.

Who knows. Maybe they aren't as significant as all that, anyway. Bush originally courted the gay Log Cabin Republicans, claimed he would pursue a humble foreign policy, not one that looked towards nation building. Maybe he'll dump the religous right, as well, now that he's done with them.

And, admittedly, I tend towards the more moderate side of the Republican Party.

[BobG]

One reason I fear the religous right becoming the driving force behind the Republican Party. They've tended to ally themselves with the wrong causes, especially some of the Southern coalitions.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/04/alabama.segregation/index.html

Moore and the Christian Coalition argued that repealing the segregationist 1956 amendment would open the door to court-ordered tax increases for education.

Despite the narrow margin, Christian Coalition chief John Giles declared victory.

"The Christian Coalition of Alabama will work to ensure that reckless trial lawyers and activist judges will not be able to open the floodgates to increase taxes and that private, Christian, parochial and home-school families will be protected," Giles said in a statement on the group's Web site.


To be fair, Giles also added:

"The Christian Coalition will lead the way to remove the racist language in the next election."

[schwarzchildradius]

He's going to get what he wants. Flat tax of 15% (exactly the same that is in place in Iraq), no tax on capital gains. Privatized social security, the privatization (which will cost trillions) paid for with borrowed money. Falling dollar, rising oil prices. Bloated, wasteful, militaristic government.
He's not going to start any more wars, but we will be fighting in Iraq for four moree years.

He's not going to get outlawed abortion, prayer in public school, gay marriage ban, because he doesn't believe in any of that, that was just a trick.

Luckily, when the Democrats lost, the demagogical radicals lost their scapegoat; therefore the responsibility and guilt for the catastrophic events that lie ahead rests with the extremists who triggered them.

[wasteofo2]

Luckily, when the Democrats lost, the demagogical radicals lost their scapegoat; therefore the responsibility and guilt for the catastrophic events that lie ahead rests with the extremists who triggered them.
I doubt it. I saw a representative of the Bush campaign and one from the Kerry campaign doing a town hall style question and answer thing on CNN, and someone asked something about what Bush'll do to make the economy better. And the Bush representative said that when you're talking about the economy, you have to remember, that when George Bush came into office, he was handed the worst economy since the great depression. Luckily, there were lots of boos from the audience, so the public isn't TOTALLY blind, but these guys will try anything to get out of taking responsibility for their mess ups.

[franznietzsche]

I doubt it. I saw a representative of the Bush campaign and one from the Kerry campaign doing a town hall style question and answer thing on CNN, and someone asked something about what Bush'll do to make the economy better. And the Bush representative said that when you're talking about the economy, you have to remember, that when George Bush came into office, he was handed the worst economy since the great depression. Luckily, there were lots of boos from the audience, so the public isn't TOTALLY blind, but these guys will try anything to get out of taking responsibility for their mess ups.


Actually he was handed a bad economy. The tech bubble had collapsed at the end of the clinton administration, and all through 2001 things went downhill, before he had done anything (as Michael moore spent ten minutes pointing out in farenheit 9/11). from 2002 on, things have been moving up, consistently if not rapidly. He cannot be blamed for the events of march 2000-june 2000 when the recession began, IIRC. Furthermore the president doesn't ahve any real power over the economy anyway. Not directly at least. And as i said, things have been steadily improving since 2002.

[schwarzchildradius]

Actually he was handed a bad economy.
Reeeeeely?
(1998) Lowest peacetime unemployment rate since 1957; (1998) first budget surplus since 1969; (1999) highest stock market index in history.
Earned-income tax credits, college scholarships, family leave for workers, capital gains tax cut (1997)
from 2002 on, things have been moving up, consistently if not rapidly.
If you're talking about the deficit, unemployment, and poverty-stricken children with no health insurance, you're right.
Furthermore the president doesn't ahve any real power over the economy anyway.
(1) establishing fiscal discipline, eliminating the budget deficit, keeping interest rates low, and spurring private-sector investment; (2) investing in people through education, training, science, and research; and (3) opening foreign markets so American workers can compete abroad.

[schwarzchildradius]

Also:
Largest Surplus Ever (FY2000); Largest Three-Year Debt Pay-Down Ever; Lower Federal Government Spending (22.2% in 1992 to 18% in 2000); Reduced Interest Payments on the Debt; Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote; Negotiated the Balanced Budget Agreement of 1997; Dedicated the Surplus to Save Social Security and Reduce the National Debt; Extended Medicare Solvency from 1999 to 2025.

Many of these benefits have since been recklessly & intentionally destroyed.

[Gokul43201]

from 2002 on, things have been moving up, consistently if not rapidly.

Depends on how you define up. Relative to absolute stagnation, or relative to average/expected growth ?

The job creation rate at least is only just keeping up with the population growth. That's not really a growth.

The growth in the stock market started only with the announcement of the Iraq War in Mar 2003. The DJ is up about 2% relative to Jan 2002, but up 30% from Feb 2003, fuelled in large part by the gains among Exxon-Mobil (up 50% since 02/03), Halliburton (up 100%) and other honchos in the energy and Defense contracting sectors. Pharmaceuticals, Infotech, Automotive and Consumer Goods have underperformed the Dow.

Yes, some things have picked up and gotten better...but not nearly as much as Don Evans or Scott McClellan have been suggesting.

[russ_watters]

Reeeeeely?
(1998) Lowest peacetime unemployment rate since 1957; (1998) first budget surplus since 1969; (1999) highest stock market index in history.
Earned-income tax credits, college scholarships, family leave for workers, capital gains tax cut (1997) The statement you are trying to counter was that Bush was handed a bad economy. Meaning it was bad when he took office. So how do facts from 1-2-3 years before he took office help you any? How does the highest stock market in history in 1999 help you when the markets lost a sizeable fraction of their worth by the end of 2000?

No, it is a fact that Bush was handed an economy already in the crapper.

[loseyourname]

in 2004 they are stronger- but the populations of cities [blue areas]- particularly of minorities- are increasing exponentially while rural states/counties [red areas]will remain at the same population- by 2015-2020 the cities will represent 3/4s of the total population- people in rural areas are isolated from other cultures and beleifs and so aren't pressured to embrace them- but people in cities who have to live/work with other cultures and learn other ideas through the media/internet/schools learn to open their minds more- religiosity wains- it's a numbers battle that the right cannot win in the end- though they ride high now- it's their nadir



only for a little while longer- then the GOP won't have the numbers anymore- math is a *****

I wouldn't be too convinced of this if I were you. For one thing, most of the more democratic cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco) are pretty well saturated population-wise and any growth in the population of their metropolitan areas is only occuring at this point in far-off suburbs like south Orange County that are mostly republican. Furthermore, the cities that are still growing at a fast pace (Phoenix, Las Vegas, Kansas City) are not nearly as liberal as the older cities.