Congratulations to the Republicans, and a question

[boatin]

Big night (day) of victories. Control of House/Senate/Court. Hard fought races, clear winners. Congrats are in order. As others have said, now it's time to get to work.

Which leads me to my question. Throughout this campaign, there was much back and forth about the economy: 'Bush's fault, Clinton's fault'. I'm sure everyone was tired of it, but it muddied the waters in a way that shouldn't be an issue in 4 years.

Now that control is solid for at least 2 years, longer for the courts, and perhaps 4 years in Congress, will the Republican leadership take responsibility for what happens in the next 4 years?

More relevently perhaps, will those that voted Bush do the same on this board? The question is obviously moot if things go well. But if things go poorly, there aren't that many scapegoats. Will we see admissions if things go poorly?

I'll throw this down: if things go very well for the US in the next 4 years, I'll admit I voted poorly and was wrong about the direction the country was going in.

There won't be a single moment, of course, where everything will become clear. But for now, I'll work hard to keep my sniping (that's verbal) to a minimum, work to be constructive, and keep congratulating the winners!

[irateplatypus]

thanks for the gracious congrats... i admire the class you displayed in your post.

our 4 year election cycle sometimes makes it unclear who or what is responsible for how things go in our country. 8 years is a much better frame of time to gauge the success or failure of a certain policy. if things are markedly better or worse at the end of his second term... i think it's fair to hold Bush's Presidential leadership responsible.

however, i think that the degree of responsibility varies by issue. it's tough to hold any President completely accountable for the economy given the structure of our government and the preponderance of external factors. however, the war on terror and success in iraq has clearly been delivered to Bush's hands. that will be his legacy, our country has placed its trust in his convictions.

[DDDDave]

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

thanks for the gracious congrats... i admire the class you displayed in your post.

our 4 year election cycle sometimes makes it unclear who or what is responsible for how things go in our country. 8 years is a much better frame of time to gauge the success or failure of a certain policy. if things are markedly better or worse at the end of his second term... i think it's fair to hold Bush's Presidential leadership responsible.

however, i think that the degree of responsibility varies by issue. it's tough to hold any President completely accountable for the economy given the structure of our government and the preponderance of external factors. however, the war on terror and success in iraq has clearly been delivered to Bush's hands. that will be his legacy, our country has placed its trust in his convictions.

Very well said. No one person or party is ever responsible for the direction of this country. There are to many intricacies involved. After all, everything that is put into law has been debated, re-debated, cajoled, massaged and then voted upon by both parties.

I will agree, and think the majority of all Americans do also, that the war in Iraq is Bush's baby and will determine his legacy, good or bad.

[tecoyah]

........This is the Right Direction............

If we can all follow this lead.....communicate and work together, perhaps a better America is in our Future. Let us all try to keep this spirit alive.

Thanks Guys

[billege]

Well, I think the Christians that've been voted into office will surely take responsibility when Roe v Wade is overturned. Mr. Bush will own that one, no doubt, and I imagine he will be proud of it. The whole separation of church and state "thing" shouldn't stop any republican from continuing to integrate the two, and yes, I'm sure they'll be vocal about it. From what I understand from talking to Bush supporters, it won't matter if that's good or bad, because all they're worried about is a man who sitcks to what he believes in, regardless of the actual course chosen.

Every Bush supporter I've spoken to has been emotional, less than rational in thier reasoning, and dissmissive of mistakes made by thier party. I don't expect the actual party to behave differently. It's going to be an ugly four years. I guess it will be interesting to see what America was like in the later 60's, but this time by living through a divided society, rather than a history book.

I expect to continue to hear Bush supporters gloat, and I expect Bush to continue to be Bush. Should things be different, I'd be suprised.
If you expect the American public to start shaking hands and talking about how to move the country foreward, I'm sorry for you. When, exactly, has the populace shown that behavior? Pretty much never.

The election was very, very, close. This is not a nation that kinda disagrees on a few unimportant points. This is a nation who is strongly opposed to itself.

I'd like to see Iraq turn out the way Bush says it will. I don't think so, but I'd like to hope so. I'd like to see Bush realize that four hundred billion dollar deficits are not good, but I don't think that'll change. I expect Mr. Cheney to deny saying something, and then be shown a video clip of him saying what he just denied. None of that is going to change.
It's easy to get on a horse about being gracious about winning or losing, but we're not talking about losing a cupcake selling contest.

[rukkyg]

Seems 3.5 million more people bought the cupcakes with a cross and a gun stuck in it than the ones that cost a lot less. The cupcake makers made out like bandits.

[aliali]

It is right to hold any administration who has held office for 8 years to account. You just have to be reasonable about it. The pres. cannot control the economy and can't stop it from cycling up and down, but the policies do have an impact. Also, an 8 year time period is much better to assess foreign policy and military conflicts.

Weird thing is, I don't think the rep. nominee in 08 will have much to do with this administration. I can't recall any election where neither nominee was an instrumental part of the past admin. If the reps. nominate some governor out there, we probably won't spend all that much time arguing about the Bush years.

[scout]

Originally Posted by rukkyg

Seems 3.5 million more people bought the cupcakes with a cross and a gun stuck in it than the ones that cost a lot less. The cupcake makers made out like bandits.

Someday soon maybe the Democrats will figure out that people don't want immoralality and gun control force fed to the masses. People want things more middle of the road. On the flip side, if the GOP attempts to force feed to much morality then things will likely swing the other way next election. No matter who wins, both cupcake makers "make out like bandits".

[hannukah harry]

Originally Posted by scout

Someday soon maybe the Democrats will figure out that people don't want immoralality and gun control force fed to the masses. People want things more middle of the road. On the flip side, if the GOP attempts to force feed to much morality then things will likely swing the other way next election. No matter who wins, both cupcake makers "make out like bandits".

i hate you all... you've made me crave cupcakes!

[nofnway]

Originally Posted by boatin

There won't be a single moment, of course, where everything will become clear. But for now, I'll work hard to keep my sniping (that's verbal) to a minimum, work to be constructive, and keep congratulating the winners!

This is the most cogent and intelligent thing I think I have read in a post in a long time.

Clear, courteous and poignant, now thats a refreshing
flavor

[boatin]

Well, i'm not sure my post was all that. But I appreciate the kind words. My comment is on this thought:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

however, i think that the degree of responsibility varies by issue. it's tough to hold any President completely accountable for the economy given the structure of our government and the preponderance of external factors.

While I agree with this thought - not sure how one could disagree with it - it feels like the beginning of a hedge to me. Can I clarify the question?

What is it that we can hold this administration responsible for in the next 4 years? Certainly, as you point out, Iraq/terror issues are inextricably linked to Bush. But what else? Social security, Medicare, balanced budget, govornment waste?

Is it fair to say that if all that gets done is democracy in Iraq and continued low terror threats, that that is NOT enough? Or will that make people happy? For me, I will need more. Particularly to offset the continued degradation of environmental issues (that I'm strangely confident will continue).

I'm just trying to imagine the best case scenario for this administration, so I can get behind it. Nice victory speech by Bush, btw. I hope he can stand up to the less gracious members of his party who want to ramrod rather than unite.

[Locobot]

Bush make mistakes? Unpossible. Bush was unable to name a single mistake he had made in the debates. I don't see any reason to believe this will change in the next four years. The conservative ethic of personal responsibility apparently doesn't extend to their leaders.

[Seer666]

Originally Posted by scout

Someday soon maybe the Democrats will figure out that people don't want immoralality and gun control force fed to the masses. People want things more middle of the road. On the flip side, if the GOP attempts to force feed to much morality then things will likely swing the other way next election. No matter who wins, both cupcake makers "make out like bandits".

This is one thing here I can't really understand. How is the desire to let people live there own lives without others pushing their views on them "immoralality"? most democrats are christian, and as up standing as you can be and still be in politics. It just seems that they, in my eyes, seem to be getting monkey stopped because they are trying to do the christian thing and let people be. I don't know. Maybe I'm just missing something.

[maypo]

posted bu aliali
The pres. cannot control the economy and can't stop it from cycling up and down, but the policies do have an impact

Ouch, we're not willing to hold him responsible with massive tax cuts accompanied by massive spending. Really? I'm afraid the last four years have made me a little honeymoon shy. It sounds like an excuse already built in, I already hold him responsible for the disaster I see coming, economists have been discussing our negative income(growing deficit), thirty percent annualy was the figure I seem to remember from Paul Krugman ,Princeton economist and New York Times writer(the left wing press to Republicans) Our situation is similar to a third world country at this point according to Krugman,he used Argentina as an example. The fantasy that rising income will erase the deficit was suggested by Bush in a speech today (110404) which sounds eerily like Saint Reagan's voodoo economics, discredited by virtually every real economist while Reagan was in office, but fortunately, the current administration doesn't even seem to rely on economists.

[Warf Rat]

Originally Posted by boatin

Big night (day) of victories. Control of House/Senate/Court. Hard fought races, clear winners. Congrats are in order. As others have said, now it's time to get to work.

I love this post. Thanks

So lets go !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[boatin]

Originally Posted by Warf Rat

I love this post. Thanks

So lets go !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Once again: I appreciate the sentiment, but would you care to answer the question?

What needs to happen in the next 4 years for you to know that America has made the right choice? For that matter, what could happen in the next four years to make you feel America made the wrong choice?

Surely there are things on each side of that. I'm curious what they are for you.

[alansmithee]

Originally Posted by boatin

Big night (day) of victories. Control of House/Senate/Court. Hard fought races, clear winners. Congrats are in order. As others have said, now it's time to get to work.

Which leads me to my question. Throughout this campaign, there was much back and forth about the economy: 'Bush's fault, Clinton's fault'. I'm sure everyone was tired of it, but it muddied the waters in a way that shouldn't be an issue in 4 years.

Now that control is solid for at least 2 years, longer for the courts, and perhaps 4 years in Congress, will the Republican leadership take responsibility for what happens in the next 4 years?

More relevently perhaps, will those that voted Bush do the same on this board? The question is obviously moot if things go well. But if things go poorly, there aren't that many scapegoats. Will we see admissions if things go poorly?

I'll throw this down: if things go very well for the US in the next 4 years, I'll admit I voted poorly and was wrong about the direction the country was going in.

There won't be a single moment, of course, where everything will become clear. But for now, I'll work hard to keep my sniping (that's verbal) to a minimum, work to be constructive, and keep congratulating the winners!

First things first-I personally wish more people on both sides had this kind of attitude on this election, and other elections in general. Most people don't seem to take a lnng-term view. I'm sure that the day after the election, most people got up, went to work or school, and proceeded about the day for the most part the same as they did on Nov. 1st. I have yet to hear of people being tied down and beaten with sacks of Bibles .

Now as for your question, I doubt that the Republican leadership would take the blame for any problems that occur. That is one of their strengths (and weaknesses). Actually, that was one of the reasons I liked Bush, he seemingly always thought he was doing the right thing. He wouldn't admit to making mistakes in the debate, and I personally like that. Now, I hope privately he does realise where things during his administration have gone wrong and take actions to correct them. But I perfer if they do keep that private, and keep up a unified front. Now if the administration is really blind to it's mistakes, then there is a big problem, but I personally don't see that as the case.

And as for admitting if I was personally wrong about Bush, I will have no problem about doing that. And I do have criteria for what would be an unsuccessful second term (mainly the state of the economy). I actually didn't like Bush much at all until late 2003. I didn't vote for him in 2000 (I supported McCain). What gradually made me look at him different was mainly the attacks of the left. They seemed to take alot of delight in hating him and what most people felt he believed in. And I found alot of those things I didn't find that bad, and started following what the administration did alot more closely. The seeming irrationality of the left's attacks drove me away. And the final straw was when Kerry was nominated. I might have voted Liberman or Dean even then, but that wasn't who was chosen.

I really think that Bush was the better choice, and I believe he will prove it. But I personally will admit if I'm wrong.

[quicksteal]

Originally Posted by boatin

Once again: I appreciate the sentiment, but would you care to answer the question?

What needs to happen in the next 4 years for you to know that America has made the right choice? For that matter, what could happen in the next four years to make you feel America made the wrong choice?

Surely there are things on each side of that. I'm curious what they are for you.

From someone who voted for Bush, my idea of a successful next 4 years:

1. Progress of a disengagement plan from Iraq
2. Steady job growth (around 150-200 thousand/month--this would be just above the estimated average supply jobs to young people coming into the workforce)
3. A serious reduction in the federal deficit (by the way, this would be partly accomplished by an increase in tax revenue due to GDP growth, and there's nothing "voodoo" about it)
4. Solutions to the nuclear threats of Iran and N. Korea (probably wishful thinking)

My idea of an unsuccessful next 4 years:

1. No end in sight in Iraq. That's pretty much it. If we can't get the job done by then, it's time to cut and run.

[hannukah harry]

Originally Posted by quicksteal

From someone who voted for Bush, my idea of a successful next 4 years:

4. Solutions to the nuclear threats of Iran and N. Korea (probably wishful thinking)

looks like that one's almost halfway there, and we're not even involved...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...iran_nuclear_5

Preliminary Pact Reached on Iran Nukes

57 minutes ago

Add to My Yahoo! Top Stories - AP

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran - Hoping to avoid a U.N. showdown, Iran and the European Union (news - web sites)'s three big powers reached a preliminary agreement over Tehran's nuclear program, Iran's chief negotiator said Sunday.


Meanwhile, lawmakers in Iran's conservative-dominated parliament pushed for a bill banning the production of nuclear weapons in a gesture of building more international trust.

The preliminary agreement worked out in Paris with Britain, France and Germany could be finalized in the next few days, chief Iranian negotiator Hossein Mousavian told state-run Iranian television from the French capital, where talks wrapped up Saturday.

If approved, the deal would be a major breakthrough after months of threats and negotiations and could spare Iran from being taken before the U.N. Security Council, where the United States has warned it would seek to impose economic sanctions unless Tehran gives up all uranium enrichment activities, a technology that can produce nuclear fuel or atomic weapons.

Diplomats in Austria familiar with the talks outcome declined to discuss details. "One or two points remain outstanding, and they hope to resolve those outstanding points by Wednesday," one diplomat in Austria told The Associated Press.

In proposals to Iran last month, Britain, Germany and France offered a trade deal and peaceful nuclear technology — including a light-water research reactor — if Iran pledged to indefinitely suspend uranium enrichment and related activities such as reprocessing uranium and building centrifuges used to enrich it.

Europe and Washington fear Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons, but Tehran denies such claims, saying its atomic program has peaceful aims, including energy production.

"We had 22 hours of negotiations ... They were very difficult and complicated negotiations but we reached a preliminary agreement at the expert level," Mousavian said. He said the four countries must now ask their governments to approve the accord.

The preliminary agreement appeared to mark a dramatic breakthrough, since Iranian officials have resisted indefinite or long-term suspension of nuclear enrichment, a process that Iran is permitted to pursue under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which Tehran has signed.

While not being in breach of the treaty, Iran is under heavy international pressure to drop such plans as a good faith gesture.

"If this is approved by all four parties, we will witness an important change in Iran's relations with Europe and much of the international community in (the) not-too-distant future," Mousavian said without elaborating on the agreement.

The Europeans had warned Iran that they will back Washington's threat to refer the Islamic republic to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions unless it gives up all uranium enrichment activities before a Nov. 25 meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna.

Tehran suspended uranium enrichment last year but has refused to stop other related activities such as reprocessing uranium or building centrifuges, insisting its program is intended purely for the production of fuel for nuclear power generation.

Meanwhile, lawmakers "are collecting support for a draft bill banning the production of nuclear weapons," legislator Mohmoud Mohammadi told The Associated Press.

Mohammadi, a former Foreign Ministry spokesman, said the bill could be presented to the parliament next week, adding that the draft was prompted by a religious verdict by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Khamenei, who has the final say on all state matters, has said that production, stockpiling and using nuclear weapons was un-Islamic and against human interests.

"Ayatollah Khamenei's verdict is clear," Mohammadi said. "So why not make the production of nuclear weapons illegal under Iranian law?"

[fibber]

As someone who voted for a third party candidate, I'm really put off by the "Right Choice, Wrong Choice" stuff.

In the past I would most often vote republican, but I've felt they've lost sight of their small government roots, as this is a big selling point for me, if not the biggest, I rarely give them the nod anymore.

I just couldn't bring myself to vote Kerry/Edwards for 2 reasons. They still scare me off with the size and number of government programs they want, and I never could find any solidity in their platform beyond: They're not Bush and They had "Plans" although admittedly I didn't really bust my ass to search one out.

Which brings me to the crux of why I generally punch myself in the face before I talk politics in that:

1. We didn't vote right or wrong, we voted. The outcome is what it is. The majority of the people who voted, voted for Dubbya and the good ole' EC matched it for once. The record turnout of voters was the best thing to come out of this whole kick in the sack.

2. The infallable tone, that everyone, both sides, me included, takes when it comes time to try and discuss politics.
prej·u·dice: Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.

And before someone snappy chimes in with "My suspicion is not Irrational" lemme stop you 'cause it is. That guy sitting next to you at the bar might support abortion, but he doesn't murder babies. The other guy that thinks we're doing the right thing in Iraq, but he doesn't think any diety came to Bush in a dream and told him to babtise the infidels. I usually bum a smoke 2 or 3 times a week from 2 guys where I work, one a stiff shirt, Mr. Red, and one a cool black shirt, Mr. Blue. They're worried about the same shit. They may think the fix is a bit different, but I would hope that the fact that their concerns are the same would be more important than that their opinions are different. Facts are right and wrong, not opinions. btw neither of them thinks their party has it all right. bonus points.

People want to feel they're included, they matter, and that they're right.
Religion did a fabu job of filling those voids for folks for a long time.
Somehow politics snuck up on us, bit us in the ass and became the new religions. People use terms to describe those who disagree with them like we have our own mini-jihad here in the states.

The zealotry has increased to the point of absurdity. We should tread carefully 'lest we convince people that they either have to believe one way or the other, or not count at all.

Sorry for the rant, maybe the politics forum isn't the best place to knock talking politcs, if not, please have some mod blast this post into smithereens. Doubly sorry for the spelling.
-fibber