Also, the simple fact is that the only Congresscritters who have made a move in that direction for the past decade have been Democrats (and what passes for party discipline among Democrats will be against them voting for it in the future – they aren’t interested in providing the GOP with any political cover for such an albatross).
The only clear, unambiguous campaign promise I can recall Bush making in this campaign is that there will be no draft. The political cost of breaking that promise would be too high.
Wouldn’t it?
Please tell me it would! :eek:
Remember, the folks who say there won’t be a draft under this administration are also the ones who said we’d be greeted as liberators.
What political cost is there for a second-term lame duck President?
Show things getting worse in Iraq, make some announcements about the growing risk that it’ll fall to “Islamic Extremists,” get some CongressCritters to whine about how they don’t want a draft but circumstances have pushed them into a corner…
For W , no
He is not up for re-election in 08
For the RNC as a whole , it would really depend on the circumstances , something like the Korean war , or Iraq you would not need draftees , WW3 or a multi theatre war , emmmmmmmm yeah, then you could make a good case for it
I dont see the draft coming back any time soon, on the other hand , selectively drafting doctors and IT workers , yeah definite possible to cover shortages , if they appear.
Declan
Bush will put an emphasis on government programs that encourage growth in the industries and regions that are over-represented by his consituency.
Likewise he will encourage the decline or collapse of Democrat-weighted industries.
So expect war with Syria or Iran. It is all about creating a favourable demographic map of the US. Less of them, more of us.
Why ? These same problems you pointed out were well known 4 years ago… and Bush created a record deficit nonetheless. He has given away even more corporate tax breaks. So tax revenues won’t go up much.
There is no reason to beleive he will “have to control spending”. No re-election and probably a democrat might be the next president. Why not let future presidents pay the bill ? With a strongly dominated congress… do you really expect much opposition from Congress ?
Its more deficit for sure...The people here who are saying that we’re going to be invading Iran within a few weeks or that Bush is going to make catastrophic cuts to social programs or that abortion will be outlawed or (insert completely unrealistic claim here) show a basic ignorance of how Washington, D.C., works.
As someone mentioned above, it’s not like we elected a king on Tuesday. Bush is merely the president. To make any of these extreme policy decisions reality would involve having Congress enact them. The President can’t simply wave his magic wand and cut spending or outlaw abortion or invade Iran.
And while Congress is slightly more conservative now than it was on November 1, that does not mean it will simply give the President a blank check. Have any of you been watching Congress over the last four years? Did you see how impossible it was to get relatively innocuous tort reform legislation through? In fact, this proposal, which had some bi-partisan support, was quite effectively stymied. If a popular bill like this can’t get through, how do you think other, more controversial legislation will fare?
Furthermore, the Republicans controlling Congress have never shown in inclination to decrease spending. People have been predicting draconian social service cuts since Bush came into office. In fact, spending on those programs has only increased. There will be no social service cuts this term.
As for oulawing abortion, I assume that people are thinking that it would take a Supreme Court decision to do that. However, even if the Supreme Court overtruned Roe v. Wade, that would merely leave the decision in the hands of the states. And, of course, Roe v. Wade will not be overturned. Even if Bush gets to appoint 4 Supreme Court justices, there is no way this decision will be overturned. As soon as that happens, the Republican Party is a minority party for decades. Furthermore, Democrats will filibuster any Supreme Court nominee with any hint of a pro-life philosophy. Look at what they’ve done to other lower court nominees. Do you think they’ll just roll over for the Supreme Court?
Invading Iran simply won’t happen. As almost-Senator Pete Coors noted, if the vote were taken today on whether or not to go into Iraq, many votes would be different. No Senator or Representative is going to support going into Iran when we are bogged down in Iraq.
All in all, I find this breathless assertions that Bush will somehow ruin the country during his second term hilarious. Hell, Bush has done a lot that liberals should like – he’s increased funding for education and medical research, signed campaign finance reform, inserted the federal government even more into education policy, enacted a new Medicare entitlement, taken millions of low income workers off the tax rolls, etc. I see the second Bush term as more of the same in those areas. Besides tax cuts, Bush has not enacted any conservative legislation. I don’t know why his second term would be different.
Ashcroft is resigning as Attorney General.
There will soon be an open place on the Supreme Court.
I fear the worst.
Do you agree that Bush is now stronger than he was in 2000 ? Do you agree that there are less reasons for Bush to act “nice” ? Congress didn’t stop him from a spending spree last time… no reason they should do it now.
Conservative legislation certainly is hard to pass I agree… we know that. With his new found legitimacy though he can hurt any politician that opposes him to openly… that might not be enough to pass some nifty religious based laws… but there are more chances than in his first term. Or do you think he is less able to do it in his second term ? No matter how small a chance… it bigger now.
Oh God, no!!! Even Bush can’t be that crazy, can he?
CNN said Ashcroft was thinking of resigning for “health reasons.” If that’s true, Bush wouldn’t want him on the SC, he’d want somebody healthy, who would last longer.
Excellent post Renob, it would be great if all of the depressed left-wingers on this board would read it and settle down. Besides Iraq, the Bush administration hasn’t really done much to change anything.
There isn’t any way to prove it, but I think Iran would be far more belligerent right now if Iraq hadn’t been invaded. The ball is in their court, of course, and their “Death to America!” chant when passing their resolution to enrich more uranium doesn’t make me feel better. 
_