What changes in the next four years?

[Ben E Lou]

For at least the last year or so, Dubya has been leading the country and running for re-election at the same time. Clearly some of his decisions and positions have been impacted by the impending election. For the next four years, he has no re-election to worry about for himself, or even for his Veep. We now have four years of a not-so-accountable administration. So, I pose the question, what will his leadership look like? A few observations...

SUPREME COURT
Barring serious illness or death, I doubt that any of the more liberal judges will be replaced. They're well aware that there's a Republican President and Congress. They'll do their best to stick it out through '08. A conservative or two

IRAQ/WAR ON TERROR
I have a feeling that this is where we have the most potential for seeing changes. He's no longer running for re-election, so he has the freedom to acknowledge his mistakes and change course where needed. I'm not sure exactly what changes there will be, but I wouldn't be surprised to see emphasis and direction change in this arena.

GAY MARRIAGE
Does Bush *really* care that much about this, or was it just good campaign strategy to harp on it? I have a feeling that it was the latter, and we won't hear that much about this from the White House for the rest of this administration.

EDUCATION
This is his reputed strength from his time in Texas, but the verdict is still out on No Child Left Behind (although I love the impact it is going to have on the Tucker football team :p). I expect that he'll go to work in this area.

FAIR TAX PLAN
I really wonder about this. I'm hearing more and more about it lately, and Bush himself acknowledged it as "interesting" lately. With a Republican Congress, it seems that it would have a chance. This is precisely the kind of unpopular-at-first-glance initiative that a "lame duck" administration has the freedom to push if it feels that it would be good for the country.

I'll admit that I haven't thought much about this until the last few minutes, and the above were just my first and quick thoughts. I'd love to hear how you think the Bush Administration will change (EDIT:) and how it will stay the same.

[Dutch]

I suspect Bush will do everything in his power to assist Iraq and Afghanistan in stabilizing efforts. With the lack of strong negative anti-American government propaganda in these nations, the effects over the course of 4 years should be noteworthy and positively so.

I suspect the European Allies will be willing to meet us half-way on international issues. Now that the emotional level of being called on their refusal to back UN Resolutions, we will probably work to hide the Oil For Food Scandal if they start working with us again.

The No Child Left Behind will be re-inforced and refunded.

Taxes will stay low to encourage the economy to fully heal itself from the Dot Com Bust.

[JonInMiddleGA]

-- I think you'll see a continuation & expansion of existing policy in the Middle East.
I'd really hate to be in Syria any time in the next four years.
-- I believe we might see a trial balloon go up for another stab at Roe v Wade
-- I believe we'll see an expansion of support for public school alternatives
-- I believe we'll see a real long hard look at major changes in the tax code. Somehow, someway, the overwhelming tax burden has to be relieved from the narrow backs that carry it. That said however, I don't believe a "national sales tax" has a snowball's chance in hell at passing.
-- I believe we'll see legislation rolled through much more smoothly

[BishopMVP]

SUPREME COURT
Barring serious illness or death, I doubt that any of the more liberal judges will be replaced. They're well aware that there's a Republican President and Congress. They'll do their best to stick it out through '08. A conservative or two.While I'm against overturning Roe v. Wade, I'll admit to hoping one of the 4 liberal justices departs just to see which Democratic Senator tries to break Strom Thurmond's filibustering record. I'd also guess Rehnquist retires, and O'Connor either retires or replaces him as Chief Justice. Hopefully they are replaced with more libertarian oriented conservatives rather than social issue conservatives.

[Poli]

--Ardent Enthusiast will get the heck out of the Navy.

[sterlingice]

FAIR TAX PLAN
I really wonder about this. I'm hearing more and more about it lately, and Bush himself acknowledged it as "interesting" lately. With a Republican Congress, it seems that it would have a chance. This is precisely the kind of unpopular-at-first-glance initiative that a "lame duck" administration has the freedom to push if it feels that it would be good for the country.
All this talk about an ownership-based tax system is a bit premature. I saw it mentioned by a couple of fairly safe Republicans in their race for the Senate (such a DeMint) and it really dented their lead. It also seemed very odd for them to bring it up so I wondered if it was really feelers for the Republican party to guage interest. And if that was the case, the verdict is that it's not very popular among some of their core.

SI

[IwasHere]

I am still predicting a June 2005 draft.

[McSweeny]

I am still predicting a June 2005 draft.

that's no big prediction, baseball ALWAYS has it's draft in June :)

[TredWel]

I am still predicting a June 2005 draft.
Care to wager on this?

I rarely poke my head into political discussions, but I can't ignore it when someone says something as wrong as this. People who hold this opinion must be more uninformed than the Democratic caricature of the average Bush voter.

The Pentagon has repeatedly stated that they do not want to work with a conscripted force. They do not want to spend the time and money to train and deploy an unwilling force. They are satisfied with the volunteer force they have now.

And the Republicans allowing this to go through? They are finally in an enviable position, with a re-elected president, majorities in congress, and the Democrats on their heels. To re-enact the draft would be committing political suicide. Not only are the Vietnam-era draft survivors approaching the age where they are the most important voting block, but reinstating the draft would be the best thing the Democrats could do to finally get young people to the polls in droves. The Democrats would be able to run a ticket of Water Cooler/Coffee Table '08 and win handily.

The draft was a scare tactic used by the Democrats in this election that didn't work. Please drop it now.

[Gary Gorski]

The Democrats would be able to run a ticket of Water Cooler/Coffee Table '08 and win handily.



Wasn't that the strategy that just flopped :eek: :p

[JeeberD]

The Democrats would be able to run a ticket of Water Cooler/Coffee Table '08 and win handily.

Is CT related to our own Coffee Warlord???

[Bomber]

Bush has operated as though he had a mandate after 2000, so I expect more of the same and to a larger degree. We're going far far right and it'll be awhile before we come back. Hopefully, the Republicans will run a moderate in 2008, or the Dems will give me someone I actually want to vote for.

[Ksyrup]

I am still predicting a June 2005 draft.
Will that occur before or after Bush rips social security from our grandmothers' fragile hands?

[Bee]

I don't expect much change really. Bush has done things in the first 4 years the way he feels they should be done with little or no regard to public sentiment. I really don't think the fact that we were having an election kept him from doing what he felt was best during that time. That's actually one of the things about him many of his supporters found appealing. Why would anyone expect to see anything drastically different over the next 4 years?

[BishopMVP]

I can't ignore it when someone says something as wrong as this. People who hold this opinion must be more uninformed than the Democratic caricature of the average Bush voter.
...
The draft was a scare tactic used by the Democrats in this election that didn't work. Please drop it now.I read a newspaper article about this the other day. How the candidates denied the need for a draft, but their actions suggested otherwise. And how often has the Official Newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement been wrong? :D

[cthomer5000]

I'm just really hoping the pro-choice justices do not die in the next few years. To me, the thought of Roe v Wade being overturned is downright frightening.

[sterlingice]

I read a newspaper article about this the other day. How the candidates denied the need for a draft, but their actions suggested otherwise. And how often has the Official Newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement been wrong? :D
Now, I know my sarcasm meter is broken with all the political talk lately, but is there such a thing?

SI

[sachmo71]

Care to wager on this?

I rarely poke my head into political discussions, but I can't ignore it when someone says something as wrong as this. People who hold this opinion must be more uninformed than the Democratic caricature of the average Bush voter.

The Pentagon has repeatedly stated that they do not want to work with a conscripted force. They do not want to spend the time and money to train and deploy an unwilling force. They are satisfied with the volunteer force they have now.

And the Republicans allowing this to go through? They are finally in an enviable position, with a re-elected president, majorities in congress, and the Democrats on their heels. To re-enact the draft would be committing political suicide. Not only are the Vietnam-era draft survivors approaching the age where they are the most important voting block, but reinstating the draft would be the best thing the Democrats could do to finally get young people to the polls in droves. The Democrats would be able to run a ticket of Water Cooler/Coffee Table '08 and win handily.

The draft was a scare tactic used by the Democrats in this election that didn't work. Please drop it now.


Tredwel,

I'm with you on a draft if the situation remains as it stands today...not a chance of it happening.

But what happens if casualties mount in Iraq, and/or we become involved in a war with another country or countries who pose and immediate threat to our security, especially as long as we are still committed in Iraq and Afghanistan?

While I realize no one WANTS a draft, is it not realistically possible that there could be an emergency draft within the next few year?

[BishopMVP]

Now, I know my sarcasm meter is broken with all the political talk lately, but is there such a thing?

SIYes. I picked up a copy outside the library the other day. Other articles include: Agreed, Nuclear Proliferation is a Worthy Problem to Solve - Capitalists Bush and Kerry can't solve it; 'Land of the Free' censors Korea (a glowing article about how journalists are falling for propaganda regarding NK); and White Nationalism on the Horizon (about how Pat Buchanon will start leading the white people against immigrants.)

You can't make this stuff up.

[sterlingice]

Well, I'm not surprised. I read Pravda all the time. That gets a 9.5 to 10 on the UIC scale.

SI

[BishopMVP]

While I realize no one WANTS a draft, is it not realistically possible that there could be an emergency draft within the next few year?No, because we don't fight those types of manpower-intensive wars anymore. What most of the troops in Iraq are tied up in is policing/reconstruction work, and if we invaded another country we would just say good luck Iraq, we trained a lot of your guys to do the policing, we're out. If the military did need more troops, first it would also keep troops in combat zones longer, move all troops from other locations (like NK/Kosovo) activate everyone in the National Guard and Individual Ready Reserve, reduce qualifications and increase incentives for enlistment.

[andy m]

what changes in the next four years? we all die horribly in a global nuclear war.

[TredWel]

While I realize no one WANTS a draft, is it not realistically possible that there could be an emergency draft within the next few year?
Just checked some numbers. Right now, there are between 130,000-140,000 deployed troops. The Army alone numbers 475,000 strong, and the entire US military is estimated to have 1,370,000 people in it. While I recognize that not all of these people are battle-fit, we're still going to have to have our fingers in a lot of pies to stretch our resources thin enough to make selective service a reasonable option.

Not to mention the fact that, if the draft were to be reinstated tomorrow, we would have drafted soldiers on the battlefield in over two years. Training takes too long in the modern military to waste it on people who don't want to use it.

[Ksyrup]

People say the democrat party is in a crisis now, and they're right. But the the republican party will have a crisis of its own in four years. Moderate "reality-based" republicans will struggle against the neo-cons for the party's soul. If the neo-cons prevail, it will be another election of cynical gay-bashing, gun-loving, bible-thumping nonsense. If the moderates prevail, the "values" issues so central to this election will recede and a grim "reality" will dominate.Here's the thing, though - all I've heard from liberals during this campaign is that the "neocons" and religious right have taken over the party. That was this election, that Bush won. Obviously, the party still got a fair amount of "moderate" votes.

I consider myself a moderate Republican, and I'm not happy with some of Bush's fiscal policies, but compared to what the Democrats have to offer - and more importantly, not just the specific candidate, but the general makeup of who is in that party and who would be setting policy, filling out the cabinet, etc. - I was content with voting for Bush, because I value his leadership abilities and some of the party's core conservative values (which are unfortunately being buried right now). So, my point is that I was able to look past some of those other issues because there is common ground elsewhere. I share very little common ground with Democrats, except maybe on certain social issues. But social issues are far, far down my list of concerns, which is precisely why the religious right doesn't bother me. Yet. We are able to peacefully co-exist.

[BucDawg40]

what changes in the next four years? we all die horribly in a global nuclear war.

No, the middle east will die horribly in a a nuclear war. We'll just die a painfully slow death in the aftermath.

It won't be so bad, though. I'll be sitting on my roof with a (legal) assault rifle, a bong, some great herb, and a huge jug of moonshine basking in last rays of sunlight to penetrate the cloud cover before mankind's long sleep begins. Any motherfucker who comes near me will take two in the dome. Good times!

[sachmo71]

No, because we don't fight those types of manpower-intensive wars anymore. What most of the troops in Iraq are tied up in is policing/reconstruction work, and if we invaded another country we would just say good luck Iraq, we trained a lot of your guys to do the policing, we're out. If the military did need more troops, first it would also keep troops in combat zones longer, move all troops from other locations (like NK/Kosovo) activate everyone in the National Guard and Individual Ready Reserve, reduce qualifications and increase incentives for enlistment.


If we fought North Korea, it would be pretty manpower intensive. Also, I don't think anything short of a direct invasion of the US will get Bush to pull the troops out of Iraq. Either that or a much higher casualty rate.

Tredwel,

Where does the figure of two years come from for training draftees? Is that how long basic training and AIT are? I was thinking more like six months? Just to clarify, I'm not in the military, nor have I served, so I'm only going on what I've gathered from other sources.

I'd also like to glance at the site where you saw those numbers of deployed troops. Thanks.

[Honolulu Blue]

What will change in the next four years depends on what happens next overseas. I see these ossible foreign flashpoints in the next 4 years: Israel vs. Palestine, Israel vs. the Middle East, the World vs. bin Turkey and al-Quixote, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, India vs. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, North vs. South Korea, China vs. Taiwan, Venezuela, the U.S. vs. the UN. This is not, of course, an exhaustive list.

[Easy Mac]

Well, according to exit polls, I doubt there's much reason for anything to change in regards to moral issues, at least based on the population's opinions.

55% of America believe abortion should be at least mostly legal... although I don't understand the difference between mostly legal and mostly illegal... isn't that the same? I could see a few more restrictions trying to pop up, but I can't see a full blown ban without major problems for the Republicans.

62% of America thinks there should be some sort of legal recognition of gay unions. (Personally, leave marriage to the church and unions to the government. If the government unionizes everyone, then people can go to churches and get it church officialled as a marriage.) In the meantime, you may see local legislation that attempts to give gay partners similar rights to married couples without calling them married. I think both sides would oppose this, but if they're smart, they'll drop it, because neither side will get what they want.

I think gun control will get a little more lax, the death penalty will get a little more prominent, and the steroid issue won't be mentioned at another SOTU

[Arles]

- Clarence Thomas will replace Reinquist in the leadership role. Bush will announce a social conservative (prob a latino) to replace Reinquist on the court.

- Bush will put a lot of political capital in this idea of privatizing social security, thereby providing a chance that we won't need 70% tax rates or a massive decrease in benefits in social security over the next 20 years to pay for it.

- The US will launch massive assaults into Fallujah and Ramadi, pushing the remaining insurgents into the west. This paves the way for elections to occur in January, in a similar manner that happened in Afghanistan.

- No military action will be needed in Iran, Syria, North Korea or the Sudan. With a major base and footprint in Iraq, much of the middle east will be less of a terrorist wild card than it has been. But it will still be a place that needs monitoring.

- The economy will continue to have stable growth, with maybe a few pockets of DOW drops around the way based on daily events in Iraq and seasonal earnings issues.

- Bush will push hard for vouchers in more urban areas.

- The death of Arafat will allow the first meaningful advances in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict in over two decades.

- The court appointees (esp Supreme court) will not be as conservative as much of the republican base will prefer, but will still be conservative enough not to be activist legistators from the bench.

- The democrats will pickup 1-2 senate seats in 2006, and 4-5 House seats using scare tactics on how the right wing will put in more judges that will make abortion illegal.

- The democratic party will continue to be hijaked by George Soros and Moveon.org. They will have some good social conservative presidential candidates, but will end up nominating Hillary to run in 2008 because of a high left-wing turnout in the primaries.

[TredWel]

Tredwel,

Where does the figure of two years come from for training draftees? Is that how long basic training and AIT are? I was thinking more like six months? Just to clarify, I'm not in the military, nor have I served, so I'm only going on what I've gathered from other sources.

I'd also like to glance at the site where you saw those numbers of deployed troops. Thanks.
When in doubt, check Snopes. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp)

As for the number of deployed soldiers, I did a quick google search, and came up with this recent BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3973779.stm).

[Crapshoot]

Here's the thing, though - all I've heard from liberals during this campaign is that the "neocons" and religious right have taken over the party. That was this election, that Bush won. Obviously, the party still got a fair amount of "moderate" votes.

I consider myself a moderate Republican, and I'm not happy with some of Bush's fiscal policies, but compared to what the Democrats have to offer - and more importantly, not just the specific candidate, but the general makeup of who is in that party and who would be setting policy, filling out the cabinet, etc. - I was content with voting for Bush, because I value his leadership abilities and some of the party's core conservative values (which are unfortunately being buried right now). So, my point is that I was able to look past some of those other issues because there is common ground elsewhere. I share very little common ground with Democrats, except maybe on certain social issues. But social issues are far, far down my list of concerns, which is precisely why the religious right doesn't bother me. Yet. We are able to peacefully co-exist.

K, Im a Rockefeller Republican similar to you, but the social issues really bother me. I dont think that writing discrimination into the constitution is inconsequential, and that's what I percieve the gay marriage act as being- I also find the intermingling of state and church (I support vouchers btw, even if they take kids to pariochal schools- parents choice) including giving money to faith based programs to be troubling. Gay Marriage is important to me because the biggest appeal of the Republican Party to me always was the support for the individual, and the rights of the individual - I see DOMA as striking at the very core of that belief, and it bothers me to no end. I know for a fact I would have voted Bush without hesitation 4 years ago- what he promised to be seemed exactly what American needed- and it scares me how different the vision then and now is.

I guess Il pose this to you (JIMGA answered this very well in an old thread on the subject, and Im tempted to go find his response)- do you believe that the conservative values, the individualistic values that the "Rockerfeller Republicans" espouse and that are buried now by your own account will make a comeback within the current republican party ? will Badarik and the Libertarians emerge as a Nader like alternative to those of us who feel this way ?


Sidenote: I believe I called Badarik getting more national votes than Nader- only 100,000 short- dammnit.

[sachmo71]

When in doubt, check Snopes. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp)

As for the number of deployed soldiers, I did a quick google search, and came up with this recent BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3973779.stm).


Thanks. I'll see if I can find some more info on the troop levels, but the Snopes article was interesting. I ♥ Snopes!

[Jesse_Ewiak]

Short hits...

Supreme Court - Short of a death, I don't think any of the liberal judges step down. Bush will still get two appointments though, but judging by past history (Souter), one will go rogue and be more 'liberal' than previously thought.

Gay Marriage - This will be a SC case, I just have no clue what will happen.

Iraq - This is his war now. If things don't get better, that will be his legacy.

Abortion - I think some sort of late-term (post six months) ban will go through. But, I'm pretty sure Roe v. Wade won't be struck down, as that will guarantee a decent portion of 'Security Mom's' go back to the DNC.

Social Security - Again, full privitization won't happen. Some sort of 'savings account' will be opened to much fanfare, but little use.