Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

From 9/04, Repub analysts show their brilliant prediction skills

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-02-06 04:20 PM
Original message
From 9/04, Repub analysts show their brilliant prediction skills
Edited on Fri Jun-02-06 04:20 PM by BurtWorm
Looking forward to a hypothetical second term for Bush:


The analysts:

Mickey Edwards is a lecturer at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University. He was a Republican member of Congress from Oklahoma from 1977-93 and is former chairman of the Republican Policy Committee and of the American Conservative Union.

Nancy Sinnott Dwight was executive director of the National Republican Congressional Committee from 1980-83 and was a guest lecturer at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Their analysis:


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.dwight.html
...

If the president were now rolling to the easy victory many predicted after the attacks of September 11, 2001, he likely would see his reelection as a validation of the conservative policies of his first term. Instead, this man, who has always taken pride in seeing himself as a kind, caring, and decent leader who worked easily with political opponents as governor of Texas, has found himself the target of deep and widespread anger. Thus, caught in the controversy of his decisions over war and taxes, President Bush will enter a second term viewing his reelection as a second chance, something voters denied his father in 1992, rather than a mandate for a socially conservative and singularly aggressive agenda.

President Bush's second-chance presidency will be his opportunity to shape his legacy through a mixture of optimism, vision, values, and opportunity. The man who campaigned for office as a "uniter, not a divider" is almost certain to make outreach--to domestic opponents and foreign critics alike--the modus operandi of term two. While he is unlikely to shift dramatically from his conviction that threats to national security must be met head on, the last half of 2004 included efforts at personal diplomacy that are vaguely reminiscent of his father's attempts at coalition building prior to the first Gulf War. As the war in Iraq began to drag on, with U.S. casualties mounting and costs rising rapidly, Bush met repeatedly with world leaders to seek greater international participation in the reconstruction of the country and urged the United Nations to take a bigger role than it had yet been willing to assume. Notably absent from those meetings--even meetings with his counterparts in France and Germany--was the kind of muscular and almost bullying rhetoric the president had used during the buildup to the war. In Iraq itself, the United States took a backstage role, at least publicly, letting Iraqis become the public face of both the rebuilding effort and the campaign to destroy the Iraqi rebels trying to disrupt the transition to a democratic government. If one trait marked the president's behavior during the latter months of 2004, it was a decidedly uncharacteristic restraint, far more reminiscent of his father's style than of the style he himself had displayed at the war's outset. That, rather than the foreign-policy attitude his critics had condemned as arrogance, will likely mark a second term.

On the domestic front, Bush will reclaim the unrealized goals of his first four years--and in this will succeed where his father did not. President George H.W. Bush put forth comprehensive programs for a host of domestic issues--plans to reform our education and health-care systems and programs to inspire citizens to public service. The Gulf War diverted his attention (sound familiar?) and afterwards, his advisors persuaded him to put his preferred agenda on hold until after his presumed reelection. The current President Bush came into office determined not to repeat the sad history of his father's administration, but his domestic goals, too, got lost in the consuming fires of combat. Given a second chance, President Bush will demonstrate that compassionate conservatism has substance. He will commit his administration to inventive systemic reforms that in a true "take responsibility for yourself" Republican way, address education, tax policy, health care, and retirement.

President Bush's father had made education reform a prime goal of his presidency. "No Child Left Behind," this president's education initiative, was reminiscent of proposals that had been put forth by George H. W. Bush. And both plans met the same fate. With foreign policy dominating his presidency, George H.W. Bush saw his education goals fail to make it into policy. With the new war in Iraq eating up huge chunks of the federal treasury, this president's ambitious education programs have been forced to get by on far too few dollars. Reforming the country's school system would have been the centerpiece of the father's second term; it will be the centerpiece of his son's next four years.

...

Do not look for Donald Rumsfeld or John Ashcroft to dominate a second Bush presidency as they have the first. Do not look for President Bush to hurl more flowers (such as the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage) at the feet of those who proclaim themselves to be spokesmen for American conservatives. Having found the voters willing to let him try again, George W. Bush will respond with a presidency that will make him more popular when it ends than when it began.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-02-06 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. My, weren't they wistful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-02-06 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. Grover Norquist's predictions are pretty amusing.
Edited on Fri Jun-02-06 04:43 PM by BurtWorm
He basically gets a hard on imagining a one-party state (because he believes that one party will make the state weak). :spray:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.norquist.html

The modern Democratic Party cannot survive the reelection of President George W. Bush and another four years of Republican control of both Congress and the White House.

No brag. Just fact.

The modern Democratic Party is the party of government. Its growth is the health of the state--and vice versa. Over time, all the party's building blocks are dependent on continuous support and reinforcement by the power of the central government. Trial lawyer money is now a major part of the Democratic Party, but it is wholly dependent on legislators and courts maintaining the present tort laws that allow lawyers to interject themselves into any and all contracts and relationships.

...


Other shifts in national policy will also occur. Abroad, four more years under President Bush will move America and the world towards greater free trade, spreading prosperity throughout the world and bringing more countries into the trading systems that require property rights and rule of law, draining the swamps that breed radicalism and terror. At home, a second Bush administration will permanently abolish the death tax, which not only threatens to confiscate up to half of your parents' lifetime earnings, but also leads to the creation of Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations that inevitably are taken over by liberal bureaucrats. And a steady increase in the number of honest gun owners will continue to reduce street crime and make America safer. We now have 38 states with “shall issue” concealed carry laws, and Bush just signed a law to allow all cops and retired cops to carry their guns across state lines. Over the next four years, Congress will bring such sanity to Washington, D.C., and expand the number of Americans who can carry across state lines. Less crime means fewer prison guards and parole officers, shrinking the government workforce which tends to be 10 percent more Democrat and less Republican. Solving problems without hiring a lot of government workers is a virtuous cycle.

...


Four more years of President Bush will also accelerate one of the most important demographic changes in America over the past 20 years: the number of Americans who own stock. In 1980, only 20 percent of adults owned stocks in mutual funds, 40lks, IRAs and direct contribution pensions. Today, that number is over 60 percent and growing. Bush wants to create Retirement Savings Accounts to allow every American to sock away up to $5,000 for retirement tax-free; similarly, the president has proposed Lifetime Savings Accounts allowing Americans to save $7,500 for education, housing, or health costs during their working lives. Every American who owns his own mutual fund is decreasingly susceptible to the siren call of class warfare. (How did Dick Gephardt do this primary season?) According to pollster Scott Rasmussen, if you own $5000 in stock you are 18 percent less likely to be a Democrat and more likely to be a Republican. Every demographic group, including race, gender, age, and income, becomes more Republican with stock ownership. Four more years of more and bigger individual retirement accounts, heath savings accounts, RSAs, and LSAs means four more years of more Republicans and fewer Democrats.

Last, a Bush-Cheney victory in November will create the conditions for a constructive contest among leading Republican governors and senators for the presidential nomination in 2008. Dick Cheney's heart troubles mean that he will retire with Bush in 2009. Usually the sitting vice president is the natural enemy of all ambitious politicians of his party, but now all Republicans want a Bush-Cheney victory in 2004, so they can run for an open presidential ticket in 2008. The Democrats face the opposite dilemma: Every ambitious Democrat hopes Kerry-Edwards fails, so that the presidency will open for her (or him) in 2008 rather than in 2012, 2016, or 2020. A Bush-Cheney win will lead to Republican governors from Colorado, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York to compete to be the most Reaganite governor--a positive result no matter who wins. And a Bush-Cheney win in 2004 will leave Terry McAuliffe and Bill and Hillary in complete and unchallenged control of the Democratic Party at least through 2008. This is good for the Republicans, if not the republic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC