The W
Views: 101438969
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
19.12.14 0919
The W - Current Events & Politics - What will 4 more years change?
This thread has 4 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 6.17
Pages: 1
(954 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (19 total)
sonicslapshot
Linguica








Since: 26.7.04
From: Sheboygan, WI

Since last post: 3364 days
Last activity: 3345 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.13
OK, Bush is back for a second term. Will theeconomy change? Will there be any gay rights or affirmative action? Will Roe v.Wade and Brown v. the Board be looked at by newly minted Supreme Court justices. All political biased aside, what will change or the next 4 years? And even before Grimis starts, the country is not is better shape now than it was 4 years ago. With the elction over, it is not about ideology, it is about results and change. The voting showed the chasm between North and South, will this be healed?



Internet Bravery can be cured, just ask me how
Promote this thread!
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1326 days
Last activity: 1123 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
It's really kind of a ridiculous question. Who the hell knows. That's four years from now.

It's not like anybody was planning on dealing with a massive terrorist attack right after the last election...



MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 14 hours
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.14
Not that much will change. Bush will get to appoint the chief justice - I say he goes O'Connor, although she might quit soon too. I actually think Stevens (god bless his soul) will hang on for another 4 years. There won't be any huge major supreme court decisions, like overturning Roe v. Wade.

Domestically, spending and the deficit keep increasing, Bush manages to get through some more targeted tax cuts, but nothing big, and manages to make permenant the more popular of his tax cuts, but the Senate manages to hold off the others. More giveways to big business and his buddies everywhere you look. Economy stays about the way it is - sluggish, but not too bad.

Internationally, I'll be honest - I have absolutely no idea.

I do predict that the shady, secretive nature of the Bush administration starts to catch up with him though. Either the Press gets some balls, or (hopefully) the Dems get control of one or both houses of congress in 2006 and start some investigations. Either way, I'm predicting the unconvering of one or more major scandels for Bush's second term that he'll have to fight off the whole rest of his term.

Every since I've been posting, I've predicted "Bush again and has a disasterous second term." We'll see if the second part of my prediction comes true.



Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe.
-
Euripides


redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 536 days
Last activity: 536 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.95
    Originally posted by MoeGates
    I do predict that the shady, secretive nature of the Bush administration starts to catch up with him though. Either the Press gets some balls, or (hopefully) the Dems get control of one or both houses of congress in 2006 and start some investigations. Either way, I'm predicting the unconvering of one or more major scandels for Bush's second term that he'll have to fight off the whole rest of his term.

    Every since I've been posting, I've predicted "Bush again and has a disasterous second term." We'll see if the second part of my prediction comes true.







Pre-election, I could have seen the Democrats at least having the Senate and perhaps having the House close after '06. However, I can't see them grabbing 6 Senate seats and flipping 16 House seats (especially without redistricting happening again for another decade) without one of those once a generation 'Throw the Bums Out' movements. Bush is in a position that the last 3 second term Presidents who had problems weren't in: Both Houses of Congress are of the same party as the President. Nixon never had it, Clinton didn't have it after 2 years, and Reagan never had the House and didn't have the Senate in his last 2 years. If the Republicans survive '06 midterms, Bush is untouchable.
For Chief Justice, I think Bush might go against the grain a bit and make the new Justice Chief Justice. That way, only 1 confirmation hearing is necessary, and if Reagan had done it in '86, Bork probably gets through and is Chief Justice. Lost the Senate after he made Rehnquist Chief and before Bork could get confirmed, and he never was able to get Bork home.
Brown vs. Board is never going away. As for Roe vs. Wade, they could ban abortion entirely tomorrow or keep it legal from now through the end of time and I wouldn't lose a second of sleep. However, as far as law goes I think Roe is weak and would rather have something more concrete in place.
Internationally: Who knows. Reagan became more concilatory towards the Soviets in his 2nd term. When Arafat dies, that potentially could provide an opportunity involving Israel and the Palestinians. Maybe the House of Saud collapses and they all end up hanging from a tree. Perhaps India and Pakistan decide to play 'Who Can Land Their Nuke First' with each other.



The Ottoman Empire is coming. The Ottoman Empire is coming. Hide the couches.
Crimedog
Boerewors








Since: 28.3.02
From: Ohio

Since last post: 2767 days
Last activity: 2757 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.20
    Originally posted by sonicslapshot
    OK, Bush is back for a second term. Will theeconomy change? Will there be any gay rights or affirmative action? Will Roe v.Wade and Brown v. the Board be looked at by newly minted Supreme Court justices. All political biased aside, what will change or the next 4 years? And even before Grimis starts, the country is not is better shape now than it was 4 years ago. With the elction over, it is not about ideology, it is about results and change. The voting showed the chasm between North and South, will this be healed?


The economy is slowly starting to swing back the right way. I think that will continue, because we're finally starting to see the effects of the dot-com crash and the accounting scandals dissipate. Plus, in the long term, economies love wars, so we've got that going for us, right?
Also, companies are being much more forthright about proper accounting principles and such, which is a much better basis than "spend spend spend and hide it all away," so hopefully we won't have to go through another triple whammy of Global Crossing/Enron/WorldCom.

What in the high holy hell makes you think that Brown v. Board of Education will EVER be touched? There would be riots in the streets if anybody tried to challenge the idea of integrated schools.

As for Roe v. Wade, that's a more intriguing question, because the original ruling was fundamentally flawed. The court did not decide a point of law; it legislated. I don't know that anybody would have the stones to go after it, but if someone did, they'd probably have a good chance of getting it overturned and getting the issue thrown to the state legislatures, which is where it belongs.

The voting didn't really show a chasm between North and South; it showed a chasm between ultra-liberal and moderate/conservative. The South in particular and rural areas in general are growing far faster than cities, so the population is slowly expanding into more conservative areas. If you look at the election results, the only places Kerry dominated were the West Coast and New England. Those are really the only two areas of the country that are still ultra-liberal.

So, basically, I think the economy is going to keep improving, but social issues won't change a lot. The conservatives are in power, but they know that there are some things _ like affirmative action _ that they can't touch because moderates support them. The Republicans have taken over the moderate voting group, and would like to keep it that way, so they'll play ball.
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 3 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.67
You wanted the best, you got... Out of Context Quote of the Week.

"...others say my mom sucked 3,000 dicks." (Nag)


I'm not sure how, but the religious wing of the Republicans will hang themselves. And because they're so closely affiliated with the administration, it'll take down any chances of keeping the White House red in 2008. The worst thing that could happen to them did: they got their way. There's clearly not enough of a mandate (sure, he got the majority of the vote, but 51% is essentially a draw) for him to cash out his political capital, which he will on more ideologically-driven issues than last term.



DEAN's Nuggets of Wisdom:

"I don't want him to die. I just want him to NEED my PEE." (as seen here)
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3090 days
Last activity: 304 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    Originally posted by MoeGates
    Not that much will change. Bush will get to appoint the chief justice - I say he goes O'Connor, although she might quit soon too. I actually think Stevens (god bless his soul) will hang on for another 4 years. There won't be any huge major supreme court decisions, like overturning Roe v. Wade.


I disagree strongly. I certainly hope that Stevens hangs in there, but all the tools are in place for filling Supreme vacancies with young conservobots, more so than ever before. Rehnquist will be replaced soon, for obvious health and age reasons, and if one more vacancy after that opens up, all bets are off. Roe will go, as a bone to the evangelicals who won Bush his second term, and Griswold vs. Connecticut (the contraception case) is drawing hard stares from the hard right after that.

The religious Republicans _know_ that as lopsided as Congress is now, it would take an absolutely monstrous wave of outrage to turn Congress Democratic in 2006. If they get their judicial appointments through in droves, _all_ the tools of power will be theirs for a generation. Be ready for them to use those tools.




Dubya v2.0. We're ALL living in Bumfuck, Alabama now.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2887 days
Last activity: 2729 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
    Originally posted by drjayphd
    I'm not sure how, but the religious wing of the Republicans will hang themselves. And because they're so closely affiliated with the administration, it'll take down any chances of keeping the White House red in 2008. The worst thing that could happen to them did: they got their way. There's clearly not enough of a mandate (sure, he got the majority of the vote, but 51% is essentially a draw) for him to cash out his political capital, which he will on more ideologically-driven issues than last term.


It seems to me this is a purely partisan kind of thinking. If Kerry won, I think I'd be hearing a different rhetoric, something along the lines of the nation demanding change.

Clinton never got 51% of the popular vote. Was he supposed to sort of sit there and do nothing? The party in power is, well, in power. There aren't degrees of office-holding. Bush isn't 51% president; he's the President, period.

As for the coming evangelical revolution, I'll believe it when I see it. And I don't expect to see it. Even if evangelical voters put Bush over the edge, there are people who voted GOP for other reasons. I'm pretty sure Grimis and I voted for the same candidate, and I'm pretty sure neither of us did so in order to bring about theocratic rule in America.



"You know what I'm happiest for? I'm happiest for Bill Buckner, Calvin Schiraldi, Bob Stanley, Johnny Pesky, Ted Williams, all of the Red Sox that played before us will now be remembered for the great players and great people they were instead of all the other crap."
Curt Schilling
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3090 days
Last activity: 304 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    I'm pretty sure Grimis and I voted for the same candidate, and I'm pretty sure neither of us did so in order to bring about theocratic rule in America.


What you voted for and what they want to do may well be two different things.

Time will tell.




Dubya v2.0. We're ALL living in Bumfuck, Alabama now.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1326 days
Last activity: 1123 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
    Originally posted by vsp
    What you voted for and what they want to do may well be two different things.
But that happens with any candidate. All of the anti-war folks voted for Kerry, but he was going to continue the war.

Incidentally, I think that the President will moderate on a few things. But I am fully expecting flat tax legislation too...



MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 14 hours
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.14
You aren't seriously expecting flat tax legislation, are you? Grover Norquist or Steve Forbes didn't get elected, and remember, Bush's main selling point on the tax cuts were the 10% bracket, the fact he took more people off the tax roles, and the varous middle-class goodies he through in there. All of these would be a direct contrast to any kind of flat tax. I expect more of the same "give the middle-class a buck and my buddies a million" kind of proposals.

One thing I do predict you'll get more and more of - GOP infighting. They're already starting to get plagued with the same problem that affected the Dems for so long - the various constituencies going after each other - as they move further toward majority party status the Dems once had. You saw the beginnings of it in the Pennsylvania Senate race, and start to expect a lot more. Reagan's 11th commandment will go right out the window very soon.



Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe.
-
Euripides


messenoir
Summer sausage








Since: 20.2.02
From: Columbia, MO

Since last post: 602 days
Last activity: 469 days
AIM:  
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.89
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by vsp
      What you voted for and what they want to do may well be two different things.
    But that happens with any candidate. All of the anti-war folks voted for Kerry, but he was going to continue the war.

    Incidentally, I think that the President will moderate on a few things. But I am fully expecting flat tax legislation too...


A lot of anti-war people didn't vote for Kerry, including me. I wrote in Kucinich.

This is one of the odd things to me. All I've heard is how Kerry got mostly anyone but Bush votes, yet I know a whole lot of Republicans who didn't like Bush (especially on fiscal conservatism), but voted for him anyway.

A whole bunch of progressives either voted for Nader, did write ins, or didn't cast any vote for the President.

But what do you think the President is going to moderate on? If he becomes culturally moderate, he risks alienating the Christian right. If he becomes more fiscally moderate, he risks alienating the fiscally conservative even more, to the point they might not vote for him.
vsp
Andouille








Since: 3.1.02
From: Philly

Since last post: 3090 days
Last activity: 304 days
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    Originally posted by messenoir
    But what do you think the President is going to moderate on? If he becomes culturally moderate, he risks alienating the Christian right. If he becomes more fiscally moderate, he risks alienating the fiscally conservative even more, to the point they might not vote for him.


But when are they ever going to have an opportunity to vote for him again?

(Reparse that as "vote for his agenda in the midterm elections," p'raps, but with the size of the Congressional majority, Bush knows that he can afford to be aggressive through his second term. He'll keep his base unless he blatantly converts to Satanism during a State of the Union address.)





Dubya v2.0. We're ALL living in Bumfuck, Alabama now.
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 13 hours
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.50
A couple of quick predictions for the next 4 years:

1) Flat tax will never happen. Too many of the GOP's big money people get off too easy thanks to the tax code being so labyrnthine. You might see something in the House start on it, but it'll never get any major backing.

2) Roe v. Wade will be overturned by 2008, and yes, I do think Griswold will be next. They have the power to do so, and this is the thing that the right has waited 30 yrs for. If Bush doesn't give them Roe, they will go into the posture they went into in 1992 where they just sit on their hands in protest of feeling abandoned by the GOP.

3) Watch, mark my words...Chief Justice Clarence Thomas. Think about it. I really can't see Bush trying to slide a new person in as Chief. Obviously none of the left leaning justices will get the job. So now you're left with basically a choice between Thomas and Scalia, and I can't envision Scalia getting it just because he talks too much. Only guy left...America's most prominent Long Dong Silver fan.

4) The GOP will add another Senate seat or 2 in '06 and a few more House seats. We will still be at war with someone, who knows who at this point. The advantage of a war with no defined goal, endpoint, or exit plan is that you are always on war footing, and every election would be "Changing horses midstream." For the Dems, things will keep getting worse before they get better.

5) Social Security privatization and health care issues will be the nagging thorns in the second term. Over the next few years, as the GOP ticks things off the social con checklist, they will lose some of the passion-inducing issues, and more attention will focus on some of these more domestic/economic issues. I could see SocSec being the equivalent to Clinton's Health Care Plan in terms of damaging him.



The hell with the witty cartoon. They won, there's really nothing worth laughing about right now. There is only the prospect of endless war and endless death.
bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 855 days
Last activity: 2 days
#15 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.10
    Originally posted by spf
    A couple of quick predictions for the next 4 years:
    1) Flat tax will never happen. Too many of the GOP's big money people get off too easy thanks to the tax code being so labyrnthine. You might see something in the House start on it, but it'll never get any major backing.

Agreed, with the modification that too many big money people in each party get off easy due to the amazing complexity of the tax code.

    Originally posted by spf
    2) Roe v. Wade will be overturned by 2008, and yes, I do think Griswold will be next. They have the power to do so, and this is the thing that the right has waited 30 yrs for. If Bush doesn't give them Roe, they will go into the posture they went into in 1992 where they just sit on their hands in protest of feeling abandoned by the GOP.

No way. Roe will be partially overturned to extend protection to post-viability babies but there will still be a limited right to an abortion. Yes, I know that Roe allegedly covers post-viability abortions but it has been pretty consistently read that the health exception trumps the post-viability reasoning. I also suspect that part of the decision will allow for increased state regulation of abortions. Will the religious conservatives sit on their hands again? No, they'll be a lot noisier this time because they learned from 92.
Griswold won't be touched. I'm sure that there are some on the extreme right who would like to see the end of Griswold, but that's not part of the mainstream conservative position. Personally, I'd chalk this one up to paranoia.

    Originally posted by spf
    3) Watch, mark my words...Chief Justice Clarence Thomas. Think about it. I really can't see Bush trying to slide a new person in as Chief. Obviously none of the left leaning justices will get the job. So now you're left with basically a choice between Thomas and Scalia, and I can't envision Scalia getting it just because he talks too much. Only guy left...America's most prominent Long Dong Silver fan.

Again, no way. If Rehnquist retires or passes away, his replacement on the court will also be the new Chief Justice simply because that's one less confirmation hearing to be filibustered by the Democrats. If Bush were to try to elevate either Thomas or Scalia, they would have to go through a confirmation hearing and would assuredly be filibustered, assuming that Arlen Specter would even call a hearing in the Judiciary Committee for either of them.

Personally, as I've said before, I don't see a new justice surviving a confirmation hearing any time in the next few years unless the GOP picks up 5 more seats in the midterms to produce a filibuster proof majority. Quite frankly, I really think we'll have an 8 or even a 7 person court for quite some time. Roe is such a divisive issue that no nominee will be suitable if they have a clear position on Roe and there's simply no way that a nominee would be allowed out of the Judiciary Committee without having voiced a position on Roe. Given that, we'll have nominees, but we won't have any confirmations.

Tim




People who say they don't "play politics" merely play politics badly. -- David Drake
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 536 days
Last activity: 536 days
#16 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.95
    Originally posted by spf
    3) Watch, mark my words...Chief Justice Clarence Thomas. Think about it. I really can't see Bush trying to slide a new person in as Chief. Obviously none of the left leaning justices will get the job. So now you're left with basically a choice between Thomas and Scalia, and I can't envision Scalia getting it just because he talks too much. Only guy left...America's most prominent Long Dong Silver fan.

    4) The GOP will add another Senate seat or 2 in '06 and a few more House seats.






Of the current Justices, I completely agree that Thomas makes the most sense. However, I still think going through 2 confirmation hearings and having Anita Hill dragged out of mothballs is, to quote the previous President Bush, not prudent.
And, since the near dead Republican Senators are either dead or retired now, it's time to see what happens to the Bobby Byrd and Tedward Kennedy seats. Byrd will be closing in on his 89th birthday right before election day, so whether he runs again in '06 has to be a question mark, and with Bush carrying the state twice, the seat has to at least look to be in play. As for Tedward, he will be 74 going on 153 by the time his seat comes up in '06. If Mitt Romney can remain a popular Governor in Mass., it is not out of the realm of possibilty he tries to finish the job he almost accomplished in '94 and knock Kennedy out. It would be a long-shot, but if it hits, the Republican Party would really feel momentum going into '08 and the Democrats would really have to start wondering what could go wrong next.



The Ottoman Empire is coming. The Ottoman Empire is coming. Hide the couches.
MoeGates
Andouille








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 19 hours
Last activity: 14 hours
#17 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.14
I think either O'Connor or Kennedy should get confirmed unanimously. In fact, in a sop to the Dems, he might eve apoint one of the liberals Chief. Remember, the Chief justice is mostly just a ceremonius position - you don't get an extra vote or anything.



Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe.
-
Euripides


bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 855 days
Last activity: 2 days
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.10
I'm not sure O'Connor could get confirmed again, let alone confirmed unanimously. Her recent performance as a justice has seemingly been more about her than about the law or the cases at hand. It's not a coincidence that, in the past two terms, she's been on the winning side in every 5-4 case except Blakely (supct.law.cornell.edu:8080). I think Justice Stevens is generally wrong on most every social issue facing the court, but I have more respect for him than I do for O'Connor because he at least has the courage of his convictions while O'Connor apparently doesn't have any convictions.

There's no way that Bush would appoint anyone but a conservative Justice to the position of Chief Justice. While the position of Chief Justice is in part a ceremonial one, it is more than just a ceremonial position. One of the most important roles of the Chief Justice is the assigning of who writes the majority opinion in a case if the CJ is in the majority. Given what we know of the ideological and philosophical differences of the Justices, that power becomes extremely important in controversial cases. There's no doubt than an opinion authored by Justice Scalia would be very different from an opinion authored by Justice Kennedy even if Scalia and Kennedy were on the same side in a case.

Tim



People who say they don't "play politics" merely play politics badly. -- David Drake
spf
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 13 hours
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.50
Well, apparently we might not have to wait long to see if I'm correct in my guess on Thomas, according to Drudge Bush considering Thomas for CJ (drudgereport.com)



The hell with the witty cartoon. They won, there's really nothing worth laughing about right now. There is only the prospect of endless war and endless death.
Thread rated: 6.17
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: The Yankees are coming!
Next thread: Electronic voting machine overcompensates for Bush in OH
Previous thread: Newsweek Post-Election Issue
(954 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The only way a third party could ever really come to power and be successful would be, frankly, with a charismatic and dynamic figure at it's head.
- GodEatGod, A new low for Republicans (2009)
The W - Current Events & Politics - What will 4 more years change?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.139 seconds.