After watching Dean's mesmerizing meltdown and Kerry's utterly unpredicted win in Iowa and subsequent domination of the polls, there is little avoiding the budding possibility that Bush might not cake-walk his way into the 2004 election. The notion that a Democrat might be in the oval office in 2005 brings up a number of disturbing questions.
What will happen in Iraq? As every Democratic candidate has promised, will we pull out of Iraq and hand over control to whatever interim Iraqi government is in place at the time, or to a Bosnia-style UN oversight? Or, in a surprise move, will we stay the course?
What will happen to the Global War on Terror (GWOT)? It appears that all the Democratic canditates are planning on returning to a pre-Bush plan of global popularity through UN-sanctioned maneuvers. Presumably the federal money train will shift from military spending to domestic, and we'll get ... what? A balanced budget? More metal detectors in the airports? Anti-missile systems for airplanes? The goodwill and love of our global neighbors.. or at least their forgiveness for our bullying?
Who knows. Who can guess what will happen domestically, with health insurance or with our economic growth?
I have no idea.
Will the Patriot Act be renewed, or will it die, or will it be succeeded by the more ominous Patriot Act II?
Again, no idea. As a right-leaning centrist, I'm constantly confused by the conflicting ideals of both sides of the fence. My only certainty is that in my next political post, I won't go so damn link crazy.
Honestly, I'm with you on that one. I think he would have been a disasterous president - but it would have been damn exciting watching the explosions.
Kerry is like the Christmas Yule log - you just watch it sit there and slowly.. fall... asleep.
Posted by: Matt at February 6, 2004 01:32 PMI still woulda voted for Dean. At least he's excited and human.
Posted by: Dan at February 6, 2004 11:47 AMThere's a good article in The New Yorker this week about the neo-conservative's view/ argument for US imperialism. Also explains why it hasn't worked out as much as they'd hoped - namely the state's power is suppose to be *checked* by the populus in order to give it credibility and keep from sinking into the inevitable darkness of tyranny. (The state being the United States of the World.) Funny, how groups of wise men always seem to think that they will be the exception to this rule... but human beings instincts haven't dulled over yet. The voters can still smell.
Posted by: Denali at February 2, 2004 09:35 PMAs they say in the blogosphere - RTWT
Posted by: Matt at January 29, 2004 02:30 PMEconomic growth? LOL thats a laugh. Most jobs have been lost since bush took office and less jobs have been created. Granted job growth was declining once Clinton left office but at least there were jobs. I sure hope that whoever becomes our new president serously looks into KEEPING jobs in the US and punishes those companies who are doing massive layoffs and outsourcing, but I doubt it.
I really hope 2004 will favor new economic growth
ad less unemployment for us workers who have been out of work for YEARS!
Go 2004!
Posted by: d0g_p00p at January 29, 2004 01:31 PM