I know, he’s going to be more moderate than he seems in order to avoid gridlock, there is a 50/50 Dem/Rep split in congress, etc., etc., etc., but I can’t help it - I am not looking forward to a Bush presidency, mostly because of his poor track record on civil rights issues (gay issues, death penalty, etc.). I’m not saying it’s rational, and maybe it’s just 'cause my guy lost, but I hope in two years the Democrats manage to take back congress. And, although I really don’t wish harm on anyone, should something happen to Bush, I would actually prefer Cheney as president (and, hey, maybe he’d appoint Lieberman as his VP).
And I might add that lately it seems I’ve been running across two kinds of Republicans - the “we’re smug 'cause we won” ones and the “we’re gracious 'cause we won” ones. It’s annoying. (Of course, I’d be the latter if Gore would have won, but that’s neither here nor there. ;))
Just felt like venting a little. I’m a bit down over this whole thing.
Don’t feel bad…you’re not alone.
I thought I had accepted the fact that Bush would most likely win. But I can’t help feeling VERY disappointed.
Kiss the environment goodbye!
In his first official act of sneaky business, he seems to be dangling a possible cabinet position carrot in front of Senator John Breaux (D- Louisiana). If Breaux accepts, Democrats lose the only thing they have left- an evenly split Senate. If Breaux declines, Repubs can say “don’t say we didn’t reach out to you guys” & make the first accusations that Democrats were the first to refuse to reach across the aisle.
Silly boy - you forget how egotistical I am, so if my name isn’t specifically mentioned in a thread, chances are slim I’ll see it, especially if it’s in MPSIMS, as there is so much to read there, and even I don’t have the time for all that. Sorry, pal - but I do love Spike! (Tom Lehrer, too.)
Esprix,
Don’t worry too much. The Senate is evenly split, and there are a few old, sick Republican senators who live in states with a Democratic governor. The margin in the House isn’t large, either, and it’s always easier to stop a bill from passing then to pass it. I know…I’m feeling a vague undefined dread myself…but who knows…it could turn out ok.
I’m trying something new. I’m trying to give Bush the benefit of the doubt. I’m trying to not assume something about Bush because Pat Robertson says it. Alas, it isn’t working.
I have that same sinking pit in my stomach. Replacement Supreme Court Justices come to mind as the most serious issue. I think it will be incumbent upon the moderates and liberals in Congress to work together on this one.
The situation with Senator Breaux, hadn’t heard about that specifically, but haven’t been paying much attention. I understand how it could be viewed cynically, as a stab at altering the balance of the Senate and as an act to look magnanimous. Perhaps he could be doing what he says, and trying to include Democrats that he can work with for their input? Is optimism such a bad thing, even if it is on faith (and not evidence)?
As for the courting analogy, naw. Bush needs to proceed with building his administration. Hell, I didn’t see anything wrong with him beginning negotiations during the ongoing vote situation. I wouldn’t have had any problems with a Democrat who was approached saying “I’ll consider a cabinet position if you’re elected.” That is not a declaration of intent to support the candidate’s success, merely a preparation for possible outcomes.
An interesting choice of phrasing: “His poor track record on civil rights issues (gay issues, death penalty, etc.)”? Maybe his track record is fine, and you just don’t agree with his choices?
Personally, I hope that all Democrats tell Dubya to piss off. Then he would have to appoint all Republicans, and some of them might come from Congress, thus narrowing the Republican majority. Though I suppose he might only consider candidates from states with Republican governors, so that the appointed replacements would also be Republican.
If anything, I’d be happier if Bush were more conservative. It’s not that I agree with conservative principles, but I get the impression that Bush doesn’t really have any deeply held principles. He seems to follow wherever he thinks the votes are.
His death penalty position could be exhibit A. In Texas, for good or bad, a majority of voters favor capital punishment. So for years, Bush okayed every death sentence that crossed his desk. But nationwide, there are many voters who question the morality of capital punishment. And once he was running for national office, Bush started commuting death sentences. If Bush believed in the Texas death penalty system why didn’t he stand by it? Or if he had doubts about the Texas death penalty system, why didn’t he question it before he was running for President? And if he had coincidentally happened to change his mind on the issue at that moment, why didn’t he say so and give his reasons as the Governor of Illinois did?
I think Cheney is going to rewrite the book on being a vice-president. Unlike his predecessors, I see him being very high-profile and having a huge hand in major policy and inter-office decisions…no international funeral delegate here. Didn’t he pretty much take over the transition process? I don’t recall a VP doing that before. I’m a Dem too and I figure if we can muddle through Reagan, Bushie Jr. should be a breeze; the years of the religious right’s strong influence on the GOP seem to have blown away, plus if Bushie Jr. wants another term he knows damn well to leave abortion alone. I figure any guy who can get the Baldwin brothers to relocate to Canada can’t be all bad.
Cute. (And keep in mind I know not all Republicans are what I described, but they do seem to be the ones I’m running into since the SC decision came down.)
I started a thread about that in Great Debates, actually - “Will Bush make the same mistakes Clinton did?”
I dunno, I just heard Gary Bauer(dont know who he is) on tv the other day saying he and his cronies got Bush elected; he’d better come through for them, re: abortion I guess.
Does a president have to be beholden to the “special interests” who got him there, albeit just barely.?
The President can’t do much without Congressional approval. And it’s too even a split to have any extreme issues passed, IMO. Re abortion: I think Congress will pass a “partial birth abortion” ban again and it’s pretty much a given that W. won’t veto it. I think most Americans are okay with that. As far as limiting abortion further, I don’t see it happening, even if a few more conservatives are appointed in the next few years. The liberal Warren Court gave us “Miranda rights” and “fruit of a poisonous tree” exclusions, but neither has been overturned as of yet.
Oh, YEAH, tell it baby! That’s JUST why I voted fer the guy!
I can’t WAIT ‘til January 20th when I can start cuttin’ down all the trees, pouring excrement in the water, blowin’ soot into the air. ‘bout dam’ time, too! Dam’ Clinton didn’t let ANY of that go on while HE was in office.
Thank GOD Republican’s fervently HATE all that nasty clean air, clear water, obscene trees, vile animals… Yeah, baby! Concrete EVERYWHERE! Big giant diesel cars for everybody! It’s a GLORIOUS new day!
Yeah, everyone seems real concerned that Bush is going to target abortion immediately. I don’t see it. I actually don’t see Bush going full throttle on anything the next 4 years. Just doesn’t seem his style. That, and Bush never really voiced an opinion on abortion during the election. His official stance is pro-life, but this issue has been far outweighed with other issues. We might see a ban on partial-birth abortion. What I predict is pulling Planned Parenthood off the government payroll (they made $145 million last year - heard this on NPR).
(And keep in mind I know not all Republicans are what I described, but they do seem to be the ones I’m running into since the SC decision came down.)