Looking ahead to Bush's second term...

The exit polls indicate that those who cast votes for Kerry either did so because they were against the war in Iraq (or felt it was going badly), or they were voting against Bush, or they felt the economy was doing poorly. This is per a poll done at MSNBC.

Of those that cast their vote for Bush, Zogby says, "As it turns out, the exit polls suggest that more voters listed "moral values" as their most important issue even though it barely registered in our pre-election poll or, for that matter, in our post-election surveys, either."

I wasn't polled and none of the reasons listed above affected how I voted.

Although it's clear to me that you will continue to harbor the idea that the war in Iraq was central to the election, it's my opinion that depending on the voter, one could "fill in the blank" with just about any of the issues, whether it's the economy, the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism, moral values, foreign policy, etc.

Perhaps you're right and Ms. Hutchinson was referring to the war in Iraq when she made her "worry" comment. Perhaps she was referring to a combination of issues. We'll most likely never know.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Lash wrote:

Bush doesn't have to satisfy anybody's demands now. He's a free agent.

Bush is a Republican, and the Republicans are not free agents. IMO, he will have some concern for the future of his party even if his own presidential future is a done deal.

My response was to someone's assertion that Bush had better get in line to appease the right wing of the GOP.

As I said--he's a free agent. He didn't make them any promises and owes them nothing. Even if he went full tilt toward stem cell research, and left abortion rights on the table, untouched--and changed his mind about Gay Marriage, and the Righties screamed and threatened--they'll never vote Dem. The worst they would do is not vote--IF BUSH WAS RUNNING. In 2008, a new GOP candidate will have to choose how to deal with them. Standing by my statement.

They won't leave the GOP because of one Republican.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

The only way that Bush could have become more involved in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute without throwing gasoline on an already burning Middle East would have been to come down on the side of Palestine.

What type of scenarios do you have in mind when you say this?

I've never been a believer in the threat and power of the so-called Arab Street. Crisis have come and gone with predictions of a boiling over of the Arab Street never happening. However, to the extent that we have Arab allies (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt) I'm sure there is some sensitivity to the wishes of their despots that we not continuously test the notion of the volatile Arab Street, and an attempt to ram a settlement, perceived as clearly pro-Israel, down the Palestinians throats just might bring the myth to life.

I really have no specific scenarios in mind, and I doubt the Administration did either. They simply knew that now was not the time to do anything that might a) Churn up Arab resentment or b) Lose American Jewish votes.

Quote:

1) A second term US President can focus on the situation with less concern for domestic politics

There is a little known maxim in politics to the effect that Israel can only be pressured by a second termer. I'm not sure how true that is, or whether it will make a difference now.

I think the maxim will now be tested

Quote:

3) Arafat is on death's door and the world will soon be clean of him. Symbolically, and through his own devices, he has been a major obstacle to peace. The Israelis have always gagged at the prospective of having to deal with him (and rightly so) and Bush has made no secret of his negative feelings for the man. From what I can see, his death is unlikely to result in a new and greater wave of violence born of the Palestinian people. Without him in the picture there is at least the possibility of a good faith Palestinian engagement

My concern is that any eventual settlement will likely not have any rallying signature of approval that Arafat could bring to the table.

A point well taken, however if one believes (as I do) that there would never be a settlement that Arafat might approve, it becomes somewhat moot.

He is viewed by many as the embodiment of the Palestinian struggle for statehood and I had held out hope that he would play a symbolic role in the end of said struggle.

I'm still pondering the impact his death would have these days, at present I don't expect much of a ripple.

My sense is that Arafat's legend in the minds of the Palestinians has been well tarnished, and he is no longer the George Washington he once was. Ironically, his greatest service to peace in the Middle East may be the lingering nature of his death. When he finally gives up the ghost it may be somewhat anti-climatic, and less likely to fuel new bursts of popular disruption and violence.

Quote:

4) Tony Blair has, thus far, really received very little in return for his stalwart support of the Bush Administration. A strong and perceptively fair American effort to resolve the matter is likely to be his reward.

To be perfectly honest I'm not sure if a reward for him is a concern for this administration.

I think it is. Support by England counters, in large measure, opposition by France and Germany. If England should turn on us, I think it would have quite a large impact on the thinking of Americans. France thumbing its nose at us is expected, and Germany has anything but a long history of being our friend, but most Americans almost take it for granted that England will side with us, and if they do not, it will make a lot of people think. Even the bull headed diplomats of the Bush administration appreciate the importance of support from English speaking nations.

Quote:

BTW - The US should favor Israel in this matter. They are our ally and they are the only democratic nation in the region. The favor should not be so great as to make resolution impossible, but it should manifest itself in certain ways.

The US clearly does favor Israel. I think historically the balance of our favor is slightly off but far less than most (and by this I mean MOST) people think.

What do you think? Do you think the US should favor Israel more, less or the same as we do now?

I think it should be about the same as it is right now. Endorsing Palestinian statehood was a dramatic policy shift for which the Bush Administration gets scant credit. Instead it took heat because it shared the Israeli view (and the correct view) that negotiations with Arafat would never result in peace, and refused to pressure the Israelis into further fruitless talks with him. I feel certain that if Abu Mazen had been able to free the PLO from Arafat's clutches, the US would have applied pressure on Israel to negotiate with him. If a moderate emerges in post-Arafat Palestine, the pressure will be applied.

Quote:

Look at the margins of victory for the State constituional ammendments this election. This is no where as devisive an issue as some would contend.
It is also an issue that is very important to the Religious Right. When 60-70% of the American people are in favor of establishing, legally, that marriage is between a man and woman, and only a man and woman, Bush isn't going to have to spend any of his political capital to push for something in which he personally believes.

IMO, it depends on how he pushes and precisely what he pushes. A constitutional amendment would require a lot of political capital.

More subtle and more reversible measures might not.

Perhaps, but if Oregon passed a resolution calling for an amendment to its constitution, I think the same would happen in any other state with the possible, but unlikely exception, of California. Remember that in 2002, more people in Nevada voted for the decriminalization of pot than for the legalization of same sex marriages. Despite what the voices of Liberal America might pronounce, this is not an issue that divides along party lines. Democrats in Washington who are faced with re-election in 2006, might not want to risk their return to congress on a constituency that is, after all, rather inconsequential.

"As to the religious electorate never voting democrat, that's a tad silly as they used to fall mainly in the democrat camp, as did the south."

The GOP base, including those of religious faith, has nowhere to go that is even close to their value judgments.

And a third party in this country has a very long way to go to have any hope of having a lasting effect on either of the current major parties.

I've never been a believer in the threat and power of the so-called Arab Street. Crisis have come and gone with predictions of a boiling over of the Arab Street never happening. However, to the extent that we have Arab allies (Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt) I'm sure there is some sensitivity to the wishes of their despots that we not continuously test the notion of the volatile Arab Street, and an attempt to ram a settlement, perceived as clearly pro-Israel, down the Palestinians throats just might bring the myth to life.

I think it is. Support by England counters, in large measure, opposition by France and Germany. If England should turn on us, I think it would have quite a large impact on the thinking of Americans. France thumbing its nose at us is expected, and Germany has anything but a long history of being our friend, but most Americans almost take it for granted that England will side with us, and if they do not, it will make a lot of people think. Even the bull headed diplomats of the Bush administration appreciate the importance of support from English speaking nations.

I think it should be about the same as it is right now. Endorsing Palestinian statehood was a dramatic policy shift for which the Bush Administration gets scant credit. Instead it took heat because it shared the Israeli view (and the correct view) that negotiations with Arafat would never result in peace, and refused to pressure the Israelis into further fruitless talks with him. I feel certain that if Abu Mazen had been able to free the PLO from Arafat's clutches, the US would have applied pressure on Israel to negotiate with him. If a moderate emerges in post-Arafat Palestine, the pressure will be applied.

Democrats in Washington who are faced with re-election in 2006, might not want to risk their return to congress on a constituency that is, after all, rather inconsequential.

Quote:

There could be any number of reasons that Ms. Hutchinson replied as she did. She also made the comment just days (hours even) before the election that she was quite confident of a Bush victory. I'm on record with similar feelings. There's always room for "worry", though.

Why advance this pawn? The Republicans built an unprecedented war chest, organized a formidable ground game, and then went all out through to the last minutes because...they weren't at all worried they might get beat? Polling uniformly showed a 20 point lead?

blatham wrote:

Why not assume her words meant exactly what they appear to mean.

oh, no. that would be much too simple

blatham wrote:

The election was going to be close and the winner unassured.

does this mean that ms. hutchinson actually was worried before she was unworried about the election?

it's disingenuous to feign the incomprehensibility of one side's playing in the word game and then defend and disseminate the meaning of equally contradictory remarks from one you support.

dtom leans back in his chair envisioning a roaring fireplace, a good brandy, and distractedly rubs the suede patches on his imaginary tweed jacket. with all the pomp of a yale professor, he wonders if what he just pontificated was sound; or just sounded good...

They won't leave the GOP because of one Republican.