Looking ahead to Bush's second term...

FreeDuck wrote:

Well, I know something about that case and Arafat wasn't involved. It is a favorite example though. Somehow it's worse than firing a missile into a man in a wheel chair in the middle of a crowded street. Nobody has the moral high ground in that conflict.

But back to the topic. Doesn't it sound like Bush is telling those of us who didn't vote for him to go f*** ourselves? That's the way some of the things in his speech sounded to me.

Arafat wasn't involved??

Quote:

What did this event have to do with Yasser Arafat and the PLO? According to Israeli intelligence reports and information relayed by Italian Defence Minister Giovanni Spadolini:

...the terrorists were in contact, via the ship's radio telephone, with a PLF [Palestine Liberation Front] co-ordinator in Genoa. He, in turn, got in touch with the PLO headquarters in Tunis for final instructions.

Source

Revel can feel "sad" for anyone she wants to. The fact that Arafat and his "band of thugs" are truly ugly slimeballs who delight in sending youths--both male and female to their deaths, while he rakes in the cash doesn't make Yassir Arafat a coward?

His hands are covered in the blood of Jews, Americans, and Israelis (to name a few) but the people he really has betrayed are the Palestinians.

You people feel sorry for him all you want.

Well, I certainly hope that Bush uses some of his 'political capital' to solve the problem in his second term. He has nothing to use and could create quite a legacy for himself if he can pull it off.

How do you all think he will manage to privatize social security?

The election is over, and now I hope we can focus on policies and positions (as opposed to personalities and parties).

Mid-East Conflict

One of the things I was hopeful about with Bush is what seemed to be a willingness to make bold moves in the mid-east conflict.

Some of that was very likely related to trying to sell the war in Iraq but he did set some precedents and went on record as saying America supports a two-state solution.

He even set a goal for statehood in 2005.

The Palestinians have had too much political instability for much movement on this front, and this administration seems to have forgotten about the mid-east once the invasion of Iraq got underway, but maybe Bush will go for legacy and actually put some weight behind a resolution.

I hope he does, I hope he makes an earnest effort at pushing both sides toward a teritorial resolution.

I hope so too, but I see little to make me optimistic. The 'Roadmap' was, as you know, coincident with British demands for some movement on the Israel/Palestine problem as there was a broad consensus among foreign affairs personnel that this situation was a key element, if not the key element, in the rise of Muslim anti-western extremism and hatred. The likelihood that beginning a war with Iraq would make this situation worse was pretty cavalierly ignored by the Bush administration. Further, if Bush maintains his Defence Department lineup, then he will maintain a group of folks (Wolfowitz, Perle, and others) who hold connections and allegiances and philosophies with Likud. If those allegiances remain as they appear to have been, then American policy may well continue to reflect Israeli preferences to the likely detriment of Palestinian desires. Still further, anything like a Palestinian political or civic infrastructure seems clearly to have been a target of Israel policy, and this doesn't bode well for anything like a functioning Palestinian state or for Israel's desire that there be one. Two new factors...Arafat and the recent vote in Israel. I'm not optimistic.

Gay Marriage

Now that the election is over, I'd like to see if this was election politics or if he really does want to push this issue.
This election is over, but not the next one. One of the first steps Rove took in preparation for 2004 was to deny the possibility that any rightwing third party might arise to take votes from Bush. The growing threat of a rightwing third party is no longer from Buchannan, but from the radical religious element, such as was in the air when Moore was not, in the view of the radical religious right, adequately supported. Also, this element is now far more cohesive and more powerful within the party than is the libertarian wing. Continuing Republican power in both houses and for the presidency is now utterly dependent upon the religious right. Of the issues this element will continue to demand of the Republicans, two probably stand at the fore: gay issues and abortion. If Bush were to back down on gay marriage, a religious third party becomes a much more real possibility. He won't back down on this. He'll push it hard.

Government Spending and Taxation

Bush has been very agressive in forwarding a more fiscal conservative agenda with his tax cuts. With his increased spending and seeming lack of concern for the deficit it makes me wonder if he's setting a future administration up for the social cuts.
With an actual popular vote mandate and Republican control of the government I wonder if this will be pursued in this second term.
I think Krugman has this one dead on. This administration is not fiscally conservative. Remember that Bush vetoed zero spending bills, and has driven the debt to unprecedented levels, and that he has pledged to cut taxes further and that the war will cost god knows how much. For those who have been reading about Grover Norquist, a key figure in the Bush/Republican team, the notion of 'starving the beast' will be clear - the bankrupcy of the government to facilitate the dismantling of New Deal social arrangements. Krugman speech to London School of Economics April 2004

Post 9/11 Government Freedoms

I'm far less concerned than most here about these moves by this administration. But I am curious to see if they will be pursued even further or perhaps even reversed to some degree.
I doubt the latter.
I doubt the latter very much indeed. Though there are Republican voices in the Senate and House that have spoken up and voiced traditional libertarian concerns about privacy and civil rights issues related to the Patriot Act, this is not an administration that brooks a lot of discord, particularly when they feel the issue is important, whether that importance relates to operations or re-election. Nor is it an administration that considers legal precedent to be much of a concern (Abu Ghraib, etc). Nor is it an administration who will feel terribly queazy about using the tools provided in the Act for other purposes (eg finding lost legislators, or, more frighteningly, the recent FBI statement that the main terrorist threat internally arises within the environmental movement). So the question becomes, how important will the administration actually consider the Patriot Act and its tools in order to procede as they desire and to facilitate re-election in 2008. We can hope that mature Republican voices will temper, but we can't be confident that will happen.

The plan

If the first term was Iraq/tax cuts, then what will characterize the second term? I doubt that foreign policy in the second term will be as agressive, there are no targets as easy to sell and hit as Iraq and I think much of the "invade other countries" political capital was spent.

But this Administration is ambitious, so what do you think this upcoming term will be like?

I think it will be just like this fellow says...
the future

At a press conference on Thursday Bush reiterated this list, and said again that he intends to unite, not divide, the nation. "The campaign over, Americans are expecting a bipartisan effort and results. I will reach out to everyone who shares our goals," Bush said.

But not all Republicans are thrilled with the prospect of all-out warfare in the Senate over judicial appointments. Sen. Arlen Specter, expected to become the next chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has warned the president against naming nominees who might be too conservative to win broad Senate support.

Abortion Remark by G.O.P. Senator Puts Heat on Peers
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 - Angry conservatives flooded Senate phone and fax lines on Friday demanding that Republicans prevent Senator Arlen Specter from presiding over the Judiciary Committee after he remarked that strongly anti-abortion judicial nominees might be rejected in the Senate...

Will the Dems also heed the will of the majority of the electorate or ignore the will of the voters and continue to attempt to obstruct their agenda?

"Would you, Larry?"

If conservative were in the minority, I would hope we would be the loyal oppostion, but not an obstructionist minority.

"Would you, Larry?"

If conservative were in the minority, I would hope we would be the loyal oppostion, but not an obstructionist minority.

Larry434 wrote:

"Would you, Larry?"

If conservative were in the minority, I would hope we would be the loyal oppostion, but not an obstructionist minority.

Fine. But what of the example I gave regarding judicial nominees under the two vote-supported presidents?

With Bush as President, over four years, 6 nominees were blocked in the Senate while 171 were confirmed. That's 3.4 percent blocked.

With Clinton as President, over his last five years, 20 percent of his nominees were blocked by Republicans in the Senate.

larry

Let's drop, or take this up elsewhere. Craven's thread is intended otherwise.