posted
I said it before the election and I'll say it again now: A Bush victory in the election is the worst thing that could happen to the conservative agenda. It's a double problem for the Republicans:
On the one hand, the Republican party is going to be increasingly associated with Bush neoconservativism. The fiscal conservatives and moderates are going to be pushed out by those claiming the evangelicals and war-hawks have won this election. Americans are going to start thinking of Republicans in terms of the principles Bush supports - and that's a dangerous thing for them.
Then, on the other side of the coin, Republicans will be unable now to escape the consequences of Bush's mistakes so far. If Iraq goes sour, or Al Qaeda attacks again, or the deficit damages the economy then all fingers are going to point squarely to the Republicans. And it's difficult to imagine how some pretty bad things would not result from the path we've chosen so far.
To make matters worse, about half the population is already galvanized and ready to pounce on any mistake Bush makes. There's no reason to think they'll suddenly start being more accepting of Bush during his second term. And now that Dean and Kerry have crystalized the argument against his policies, it should be much easier for Democrats to pin mistakes onto those policies. Kerry and Edwards, who are still senators, will remain in a position to lead opposition.
All in all, my rather early prediction would be big defeats for the Republicans either in '06 or '08 depending on just how things progress - and those defeats might result in rather permanent shifts in the electorate.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even as a Bush supporter, I think Democrats will probably win next go-round (in 2008) and I also think now that Hillary will run in that election
posted
Ugh. You know, one of the best arguments in favor of voting Kerry this year was to avoid Hillary Clinton in 2008 Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In 2000 I said "Ya know the economy is tanking and whoever wins the next election is going to take the blame for it."
Last month I said "Whichever party wins this election will win in 2008 because the economy is coming back and they will get credit." This is, of course, baring surprises.
I just hope the republicans put up a fiscal conservative next time...
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Farmgirl, why do you think that Hillary Clinton will be running? I definitely don't think that she'll run for the presidency at all in '08, and if she were to I don't think she'd make it past the primaries; she's too polarizing of a figure, and will continue to be so for some time. The only people I hear talking about a Hillary run are conservatives, honestly. I think that it would suit the Republicans very well, were Hillary to run, and my impression from listening to those conservatives I know in real life talking about this is that they are utterly delighted at the prospect, although when asked directly they claim to be horrified at the thought.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The fiscal conservatives and moderates are going to be pushed out by those claiming the evangelicals and war-hawks have won this election.
Not if they start to see the big picture, at least as far as the fiscal conservatives go. Once they realize that Bush's plan is to run up a huge deficit in order to bankrupt Social Security and Medicare, they'll love him. Once they are out from under the burden of having to pay taxes for those two programs, they'll realize that Bush was good for the fiscal conservatives in the long run. It'll suck in the short term, but long term, it will be good for them.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt that that is his plan, and if it were, I seriously doubt it could ever work. A massive deficit damages much more of the government than social security.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's just a gut feeling, Noemon, based on many different things I have read. But I could always be proved wrong.
But 2008 would be the prime time for her to do it if she plans to do it. No incumbent -- two new people from each party, etc. I guess it depends on who the Republicans pick to run on their ticket.
posted
"A massive deficit damages much more of the government than social security."
This is a price that I believe "starve the beast" supporters are willing to pay. Damaging the government is not exactly something they're afraid to do.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, let me put it this way: There's no reason to think the solution to the debt will eventually be to cut social security. It seems just as likely, if not more so, that the solution will be to massively raise taxes to support our interest payments.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We are a Democracy of sorts. If you cut Social Security and Medicare in an aging Democracy, for any reason, even if its out of money, you get a lot of people unwilling to vote for you.
Taxing the few rich and corporations to death might be a more politically advantageous move. If that is his game, its a mighty dangerous game.
I think his game is more of the standard political game of Check Kiting. As long as he can gain the political benefits of lowering taxes to wealthy donors and improving the military in a time of crisis, the costs are for others to worry about in some far distant administration.
That is why his previous tax cut was a scam. He passed it throught he fiscal conservatives by showing how it would be inexpensive, due to its limited time limit. Now he will go to make it permanent, and as such, bankrupt the country even more.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If you cut Social Security and Medicare in an aging Democracy, for any reason, even if its out of money, you get a lot of people unwilling to vote for you."
Nope. What you do is, when it comes time, say, "My predecessors irresponsibly bloated the government, and we simply can't afford to support these programs. We just can't. For the good of America, I'm asking all of you to tighten your belts and sacrifice a little so we can stay afloat."
And then everyone thinks you're brave and heroic for saying what needed to be said and doing what needed to be done.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The truth is strong in this thread. And after eight years of Bush, it will be far too late to save those social programs.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I cannot claim to be excited about a second term for its own sake, but I do think there is a real chance of either or both parties disintegrating in the near to mid future, with new ones rising more along libertarian-authoritarian lines. That is certainly my hope.
posted
As a 100% democrat, Tres, I think I disagree with your claim.
Last election, when there was a hype about Bush having rigged, or stolen the election, the democrats were infuriated with the republicans. This year, much as I hate to admit it, Bush won fair and square... by 4,000,000 or something votes. The democrats can't by any means be as angry as they were last year, with the republicans, because in the conservative mind, Bush deserved to win this, after they saw what he did the past four years. Ok, so liberals disagree, but they're in the minority, and this is how elections have always worked. Bush actually got MORE votes this time than he did last time, after all that democrats view as heinous misjudgements on his part.
(edit: I'm not saying the republicans may not suffer a major defeat next election, I'm just saying that they're not going to get chewed out for this nearly as badly as they were last time.)
posted
Any fool can see that "starve the beast" is not a viable economic philosophy for any reason, ever. I find it amusing how many people are willing to entertain the notion that Bush and the "neocons" are absolute fools.
Why has Bush run up the deficit? For the same reason that every recent president has run up the deficit except the one with the internet boom fueling the economy: Because the deficit is a vague kind of non-threat while the benefits from spending money on all of the programs are felt directly. If you can have your cake and eat it too why wouldn't you?
quote:Then, on the other side of the coin, Republicans will be unable now to escape the consequences of Bush's mistakes so far. If Iraq goes sour, or Al Qaeda attacks again, or the deficit damages the economy then all fingers are going to point squarely to the Republicans. And it's difficult to imagine how some pretty bad things would not result from the path we've chosen so far.
And what, if the Democrats won there would have been no finger pointing when this stuff happened?
The only thing which would have kept Kerry from running up deficits every bit as high as Bush is a Republican congress determined to thwart him. You simply can't have all of the programs Kerry was planning without running huge deficits.
If Kerry had been elected and Al Queda attacked you know the finger pointing, galvanization etc you cite is every bit as strong in the other direction.
The pre-emptive attack on Iraq was indeed a divisive decision. However, if Democracy can be established in Iraq then it will be a tremendous triumph for both the war on terror and future foreign policies. Democracies are poison to the cult of personality and demagoguery which is vital to the success of islamic fundamentalism. Iraq was and is the best hope in the Middle East for a strong democracy with a powerful middle class. If the experiment in Iraq succeeds its backward neighbors cannot long resist the drive for reformation which will ensue. Syria, Iran etc. will be forced to reform or face revolution.
Bush will not pursue anything nearly as ambitious as Iraq in his second term. The United States armed forces are already overcommitted. The "reinstate the draft" scare tactic is ridiculous. The draft could not possibly reinforce the active troops for at least one to two years. There is more to soldiering than a uniform, and training takes time. Look at Vietnam or even better, WW2. The units which were drafted were not available for combat deployment for one or two years or even more. Not to mention the fact that a draft would be so hugely unpopular that any fool who instituted it for any reason other than a direct massive attack on the US or her allies would guarantee the victory to his political opponents.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is clear that Bush's first term left the Republican party stronger, why would you expect it to get weaker with four more years?
The Christian Condervatives are not the fringe of the Republican party, they are the core.
Bush has spent a huge amount. I will give you that, we have to get that under control. But it has never been fatal in the past, and I expect it not to be in the future. The dollar only exists because the govt does, so it is improbable that those we owe will seek to forclose.
In four years Iraq will be the greatest achievment by America in 50 years.
However to those who do not expect another "Iraq Level Engagement" I point to Iran which is in serious need of an whoopin.
posted
On the contrary, Bean Counter, I fully expect a disaster for the Republican party due to Bush's irresponsibility. We are going to be blamed for the collapse of Iraq, at a bare minimum, and probably for a number of other financial disasters. In fact, that is one of the reasons I finally came to support Kerry--to save the Republican party from disaster by having him take the blame for bad Democratic policies.
My new strategy? Do everything I can to trigger disaster for the Republicans myself. Because the war in Iraq has not a thing to do with "Christian values", and any connection it might have to democracy has been mangled by Dubya's incompetence. To the extent that this election was decided by Christian Rightist like myself, it is because they have been bamboozled. The Republican party cares nothing for us except as a source of votes--bait and switch, bait and switch.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is clear that Bush's first term left the Republican party stronger, why would you expect it to get weaker with four more years?
The Christian Condervatives are not the fringe of the Republican party, they are the core.
I disagree... Bush's first term actually weakened the Republican party. It picked them up a couple seats here and there in national races in the short run, but it shifted the party in a way that makes it vulnerable to collapse. The Chistian Conservatives were never the core of the Republican party until the Bush administration made them so - prior to that they were just one of several groups the Republicans catered to. Making them the centerpiece of the party strongly alienates moderates, but that hasn't materialized yet because the war on terror still galvanized that group to stand with Bush. If things begin to fall apart in that war, moderates are going to run out of the party because it has become too extreme.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xap, I'm a little puzzled. Except for Bush's faith-based rhetoric and some opposition to gay marriage, I do not see that he has done much of anything for me as a Christian. Maybe I'm missing something, but obviously I don't know what it is. Enlighten me?
And adam--yes, absolutely. Which is exactly what scares me.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
