Will George Bush have a 2nd term?

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by Ossric
i find it strange that States can alter the voting districts like they did in Texas (or was it in another state?). They rearranged the districts so that the Dems couldn't even win in 1 district. Pretty weird democratic system if you ask me...

Interesting take on an old hot point. The census indicated a number of new seats, so a new map had to be drawn to fit them in. The process of redrawing was turned into a huge show, but it really is nothing more than has been done every ten years since Texas became a state. One difference. Before this year, the Democrats had control of the legislature. This year it was the Republicans. For some reason, the Democrats like it less when it is done over their objections than when they were doing it over Republican objections in years past.

J

PS They did not rearrange the districts so that the Democrats could not win a single district. Where on earth did you get that idea.

 

[Al Zan]

yes Bush will have a 2nd term for the time bring.
or we will have a recall!

 

[Little Raven]

Originally posted by onejayhawk
Interesting take on an old hot point. The census indicated a number of new seats, so a new map had to be drawn to fit them in. The process of redrawing was turned into a huge show, but it really is nothing more than has been done every ten years since Texas became a state. One difference. Before this year, the Democrats had control of the legislature. This year it was the Republicans. For some reason, the Democrats like it less when it is done over their objections than when they were doing it over Republican objections in years past.

I'm really beginning to wonder where you get your facts, OneJayHawk.

By law, the Texas map has to be redrawn every 10 years. It was redrawn in 2000, as required, by the courts, since the legislature wanted nothing to do with it at the time.

Then Delay decided that the map wasn't good enough, so he convinced Perry to hold 3 special sessions, costing the state millions and millions of dollars, to redraw the maps AGAIN. The map that was eventually approved cuts Travis County in 4 different districts, some of which stretch to Houston, in an attempt to cut up liberal strongholds. It is one of the worst examples of gerrymandering in recent history.

Now, the matter will go back to the courts, as the Democrats are suing to keep the map from being implemented. Which will cost the state even MORE money. All because Delay wanted a few more Republicans in congress.

Your "one difference" is completely misleading. There were a number of things that set this redistricting apart from past ones. First of all, this redistristricting was held outside of the timeframe mandated by law. Second, the leader of the Texas senate, Dewhurst, eliminated senate rules that allowed one-third of the senate to prevent a measure from coming to the floor. Democrats never did this to Republicans when they controlled the legislature. And finally, when the issue was put before Texas voters, they overwhelmingly expressed opposition to the redistricting.

If you're going to "tsk tsk" people, at least give them the real story.

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by Little Raven
I'm really beginning to wonder where you get your facts, OneJayHawk.

From the usual sources. Papers, the net, drive time. Where do you get yours?. Bringing up Tom Delay is pure paranoia.

But that is all another thread. We return you to your usual political universe.

J

 

[MrPresident]

Only a stupid or silly man (women are less prone to both in my experience) would make a prediction at this stage. There are too many unknowns, prime among them being who the hell he's opponent is going to be.

 

[The Chosen One]

Actually Bushes tax cuts are probably the key thing that jump started the economy.
Just think about it, in a recession people spend less. lets say since they don't have enough money, they don't buy new cars. so then the auto industry looses money, and what do they do next? they lay off workers, now there's more people without money that cannot buy other goods, the process repeats itself. But if people have money(thru tax cuts) then they are able to buy those goods. So no matter how much you hate Bush, those tax cuts were actually one of if not the most important thing that jump started the economy.

 

[The Yankee]

I would have thought many of the tax cuts went towards paying the rent because of salary cuts and layoffs. I think the spending spurt will end quickly....which isn't good considering the holiday season is rapidly approaching.

But this is another topic for another thread.

I don't know if Bush will have a second term. I hope he doesn't, but then again, we still have that wacky electoral college.

 

[zurichuk]

Originally posted by The Chosen One
Actually Bushes tax cuts are probably the key thing that jump started the economy..

Hmmmm, maybe , maybe not, but the brown stuff has got to hit the wind extractor sooner or later, America is in tremendous debt and the tax cuts don't help, they can either start repaying it, or keep devaluing the dollar as they have been recently, in order to decrease the relative value

I always like this link

USA debt

 

[The Yankee]

Forgetting about national debt, the average American's debt is getting higher and higher. That certainly can put a cramp on spending for consumer goods.

 

[zurichuk]

and alot of Americans own shares and have lost out on the tech crash, it's similar in the UK but not quite as pronounced, also the Fed have been pumping money into the stock market at various times over the last few years preventing more falls, maybe this tactic has worked as the Dow makes it's way back to 10000, but many on a financial BB I frequent believe the worst is yet to come

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

I have only one thing to add to J's gargantuan bit of plastered-together astroturf populism: "And Tyler Too!" I mean, really... "look death in the eye and never flinch"? Yes, that's right folks. He never hesitates - to run away in AF1. Wrapping oneself in the flag hardly equals "gravitas" either... I don't suppose reading off the Teleprompter is adding anything to Bush's "graying statesman" persona. "The situation in Iraq is neither good nor bad as it stands now." Excuse me, that is an out and out falsehood... I posted a thread to move discussion about "how Iraq is doing" to. "Add the highly successful war in Afghanistan..." are you reading off a memo, my GOP operative friend? because the current situation in Afghanistan is that half of their GDP is coming from the sale of opium. That may be a success for the CIA, but I doubt the Afghans are happy about the current state of the "reconstruction" of their country. Afghanistan is more dangerous to the USA now than it ever was under the Taliban - it's becoming unclear which is a bigger breeding ground for terrorists - Afghanistan or our friendly ally Pakistan.... "Quick and decisive invasion of Iraq"... The only "quick decision" was to declare the Mission to have been Accomplished.

"It is huge because 9 Democrats are preaching the message of insecurity". You're kidding! Americans ARE insecure. Homeland Security is a farce, except for the recent invasions of civil rights... The fact is we are breeding MORE terrorists every day, and our own "soft" targets [electricity, anyone???] are woefully underdefended. Practically the only claim Bush has to success in the "Homeland Security" category is "I was President when 9-11 happened". Oops - that's a LIABILITY. Does no-one realize that? Or has the media campaign to paint September 11th as "unavoidable" succeeded so far that the fact that Mr. Bush did not fire ONE SINGLE GOVT OFFICIAL for the MASSIVE oversights that led to this tragedy fails to enrage any of you? Is September 11 so sacred and hallowed and tricked out with tinsel and teary-eyed radio broadcasts that nobody is willing to admit that it was perhaps the biggest FAILURE of the executive branch, OF ALL TIME?

Sorry for the rant... but I expect they'll get more and more frequent as the election nears and certain interested parties try to paint Bush as a populist hero. My take on it is that he has stumbled from one patch-up job to the next. He's proven he can do two things: he can squint bravely, and he can invade a country like nobody's business.

Unfortunately, he can't seem to take care of his own country - much less Afghanistan [which is already a mess] or Iraq [which is quickly descending into disorder]. Well, he can always offer them taxcuts.

 

[bobgote]

I don't like the idea of Bush in for another term. I care little what he does in domestic politics, but am worried about international affairs.

anyway, it all does depend on who he's against. they could be even worse!

anyway, i said no, i hope he doesn't get reelected.

 

[Roundman]

My prediction: the economy will continue with its so called "jobless recovery," hurting the average American. meawhile, Iraq wil continue to cost us lives and insane amounts of money. People will start to connect the dots and say, "Hey, America could use that $87 billion that we just wasted." As a reaction, Bush will use American patriotism to boost his ticket. Therein lies his weakness: the Democrats will pick on Bush's shady, pretty embarassing personal history when it comes to the military. The Dems will either run John Karey, decorated Vietnam vet, or General Clark, early critic against Iraq, to counter Bush's supposed monopoly on Patriotism. The economy will continue to flounder, and Bush will lose in 2004, eerily paralleling the fate of his father in 1992. After all, at one point George Sr. had a 91% approval rating.

BTW, to those who think that the Libertarians wil become the next major American party, keep dreaming. Its just not going to happen; they don't have a broad enough electorate appeal. Democrats dislike their backwards, welfare-hating, pro-19th century state's rights attitudes; Conservatives hate their laissez-faire social policies. The best that the Libertarians will ever do is maybe win a Governorship and a handful of Congressional seats. Face it, we're stuck with our two-party system for the foreseeable future, unless there is some Constitutional change that gives us proportional representation and a Parliament (which just isn't going to happen, as it would require us to scrap our beloved Constitution).

 

[JollyRoger]

Mission Accomplished in the war on terrorism?

- "Central Front" on war on terrorism (according to Bush), is now Iraq

- Bin Laden - still wanted - dead or alive (though posse shifted to new "Central Front")

- Homeland Security is Tom Delay's toy for tracking down "treasonous" Democrats

- Despite Constitutional reservations about the PATRIOT Act, PATRIOT II and the VICTORY Act (can you say Narcoterrorists anyone?) are still in the works.

Mission Accomplished in Iraq?

- Where's the WMD? (Hussein's sons being armed with bags of pretzels doesn't count).

- Where's Hussein?

- What are the odds that something better to US interests than Saddam will emerge (Is a Fundamendalist state any better than a secular dictatorship?)

- Has diplomacy improved to have someone other than the grandchildren of American taxpayers pay Halliburton for its rebuilding work?

- Has the ratio improved from a dead soldier a day?

Mission Acomplished on the economy?

- What are the odds that Bush's current term ends with a record deficit?

- What are the odds that Bush's current term ends with a record net job loss?

- What are the odds that the above two accomplishments are even simultaneously possible without having a complete screw-up in office? (Gentelman's C's at Harvard are not all they're cracked up to be).

Of course, my fear is that Bush will spin his way to re-election. So those of you that vote for him - don't blame me when Hillary takes charge in 2008.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
I have only one thing to add to J's gargantuan bit of plastered-together astroturf populism: "And Tyler Too!"

Don't compare Bush to William Henry Harrison. Supporters of both will be insulted by the comment.

 

[Archer 007]

Originally posted by onejayhawk
Point of definition. In spite of similarities of the words, Liberal and Libertarian are functional opposite. Generally speaking Liberals in the US are in favor of political activism, ie getting the government more involved in life. Examples of this are welfare entitlements, which is state support for the poor and infirm, environmental controls, the attempted national healthcare plan, etc. Liberals have always been supported by Labor Unions and lately racial, sexual, and gender minorities, and trial lawyers.

Libertarians are the ones that think that the only thing government is good for is making trouble. Some acknowledge defense as a legitimate governmental concern, but some refuse to go that far. To these people the only good governmental office is one that has been permanently closed.
j

First, liberal has a different defention in European political philosophy.

Second, why does everyone see Libertarianism as a right-wing philospohy? The Republicans are anti-abortion, pro-big military, and pro-drug legalization. Does that scream "small government'?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

There has been only one true "small government" president, and that was Thomas Jefferson... for every other President, claims to trim the fat have merely been political ploys. So I find the use of a "small/large govt" dichotomy to separate Democrats and Republicans ridiculous.

EDIT: I might have expected Seleucus to jump in... on Harrison's side Let me guess, you're an ardent Jackson supporter as well? What about Mr. Cabot Lodge, what do you think of him?

 

[Norlamand]

I expect, and hope, that he will be re-elected. The alternatives are unthinkable. Well maybe if W decided to bow out and Rummy were to run I would vote twice! But you have to be registered as a Democrat to do that.......

 

[Sarevok]

im not american, but id really like to see him go.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

The poll results are pretty dramatic so far: Very little support for Bush at all apparently, either at home or abroad. Looks like Bush can kiss goodbye the much coveted CFC vote!