November 05, 2004
Where we are headed
Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |If you listened to all or part of President Bush's press conference on 11/04, it is clear that he feels he has a "mandate" and "the people" are behind him. He intends to charge full speed ahead with his vision: fighting the war on terrorism, spreading peace and democracy in the Middle East; cutting taxes, privatizing Social Security; enforcing No Child Left Behind; and his own peculiar brand of "growing the economy." From the tone of the delivery, I would say that if the first four years were a warm up. He is going to move and move fast - that is clear from the speech.
If the first Bush administration, seemed ruthless, then the second will be even more so. Bush's sense of a blank check and full support for his polices is clear in the following quote from his 11/04 press conference (emphases mine):
In response to question: "Do you feel more free, sir?" And it's one of the wonderful -- it's like earning capital. You asked, do I feel free. Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That's what happened in the -- after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I've earned capital in this election -- and I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on, which is -- you've heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror.
Now that the Republicans control every branch of government, Bush is clear about who he will "reach out to" and work with:
I'll reach out to everyone who shares our goals.
And I am sure he will be as tolerant of dissent as he was in the first term.
As Bush launches his new assault, it is going to keep everyone very busy. Perhaps too busy to follow up on the debacles and crimes of his first term. It is critical that not happen. There are serious questions remaining about the attacks of 9/11/01. There is the torture policy and its implications. There continues to be fights over the USA PATRIOT Act and its siblings. There are the unguarded munitions in Iraq that have fallen into other hands. There are investigations into profiteering. There is the double-speak policy on the environment.
All of this must come out. It is his track record and it frames each new initiative (assault). If people didn't know before the election what was going on and thought all of these issues were simply "rumors" then the truth must be told and made visible. The facts must also be documented. That is part of what attempt to do here at Uncommon Thought, and it is not a job I can do alone. It is a task for all of us. Those who do not (or cannot) monitor all of this, and those who do not want to beleive that such things can happen in America need proof - not just opinion.
There is work enough for everyone.
Other Notable Passages from the 11/04 Press Conference
There is a common ground to be had when it comes to a foreign policy that says the most important objective is to protect the American people and spread freedom and democracy.
I laid out a doctrine, David, that said if you harbor terrorists, you're equally as guilty as the terrorists, and that doctrine was ignored by the Taliban, and we removed the Taliban. And I fully understand some people didn't agree with that decision. But I believe that when the American President speaks, he'd better mean what he says in order to keep the world peaceful. And I believe we have a solemn duty, whether or not people agree with it or not, to protect the American people. And the Taliban and their harboring of al Qaeda represented a direct threat to the American people.And, of course, then the Iraq issue is one that people disagreed with. And there's no need to rehash my case, but I did so, I made the decision I made, in order to protect our country, first and foremost. I will continue to do that as the President. But as I do so, I will reach out to others and explain why I make the decisions I make.
Q Mr. President, as you look at your second term domestic priorities, I wonder if you could talk a little bit about how you see the sequence of action on issues beyond Social Security -- tax reform, education. And if you could expand a little bit for us on the principles that you want to underpin your tax reform proposal -- do you want it to be revenue neutral? What kinds of things do you want to accomplish through that process?
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. I was anticipating this question; that, what is the first thing you're going to do? When it comes it legislation, it just doesn't work that way, particularly when you've laid out a comprehensive agenda. And part of that comprehensive agenda is tax simplification.
The -- first of all, a principle would be revenue neutral. If I'm going to -- if there was a need to raise taxes, I'd say, let's have a tax bill that raises taxes, as opposed to let's simply the tax code and sneak a tax increase on the people. It's just not my style. I don't believe we need to raise taxes. I've said that to the American people. And so the simplification would be the goal.
Now, secondly, that obviously, that it rewards risk and doesn't -- it doesn't have unnecessary penalties in it. But the main thing is that it would be viewed as fair, that it would be a fair system, that it wouldn't be complicated, that there's a -- kind of that loopholes wouldn't be there for special interests, that the code itself be viewed and deemed as a very fair way to encourage people to invest and save and achieve certain fiscal objectives in our country, as well.
One of the interesting debates will be, of course, in the course of simplification, will there be incentives in the code: charitable giving, of course, and mortgage deductions are very important. As governor of Texas, when I -- some time I think I was asked about simplification, I always noted how important it was for certain incentives to be built into the tax code, and that will be an interesting part of the debate.
Certain issues come quicker than others in the course of a legislative session, and that depends upon whether or not those issues have been
debated. I think of, for example, the legal issue -- the legal reform issues, they have been -- medical liability reform had been debated and got thwarted a couple of times in one body in particular on Capitol Hill. And so the groundwork has been laid for some legislation that I've been talking about. On an issue like tax reform it's going to -- tax simplification, it's going to take a lot of legwork to get something ready for a legislative package. I fully understand that. And Social Security reform will require some additional legwork, although the Moynihan Commission has laid the groundwork for what I think is a very good place to start the debate.
The education issue is one that could move pretty quickly because there has been a lot of discussion about education. It's an issue that the members are used to debating and discussing. And so I think -- all issues are important. And the timing of issues as they reach it through committee and floor really depend upon whether or not some work has already been on those issues.
Posted by rowan at November 5, 2004 08:56 AM | TrackBack | Printable Version | [eMail this article!] |We now are comming to the realization that we need to inject grass roots efforts with some real fire power.
Identify the organizatins that we want to push and what we want to inject them with. Then we will assign everyone a job and a mentor to or (coach) to assist themin pushing. I know from personal experiense and watching the people who post here that noone is going to do anything with out someone to push them EVERYDAY!!!
Let's assume that a 51-48 percent victory is not a mandate. When was the last time a Democratic Presidential candidate got 51% or more of the popular vote? Yup, that's right. Lyndon Johnson, 1964.
It's nice to know that over the last 36 years, as the Democrats have tried to re-make the country in their own "progressive" image, they've never once had a mandate.
Posted by: Bushrod Washington at November 5, 2004 05:56 PMDear Democrats,
While you think about how to do better next time, please stay true to your core values and feelings. Don't restrain your anger; part of your problem in this election was that you didn't put it out there enough. If other Americans understood how truly mad you are it would make more of an impression.
You need to try harder to make them see that you're smarter and better than your opponents. Unleash your indignation and express your outrage and they will start to get your superiority to the religious fanatics, racists and homophobes who oppose you. You've got to make the point over and over that these people are intolerant stupid hicks while you are smart, good and wise.
Face it, you're just not getting your message across. You run mild, polite candidates who can't or won't let it all hang out. If everyone understood, really understood, your anger, intelligence and moral superiority, well, things would have turned out differently.
Posted by: Bushrod's Bro at November 5, 2004 06:11 PMI can hardly wait, we need to all become Karl Rove! Fight, kick, bite, scratch, do anything to win, winning is the only thing that counts! Kill, become more racist, sexist, use the gay issue to mobilize the vote, to hell with peoples feelings. WE GOTTA WIN! I wanna kill, I wanna Kill I wanna Kill...FDR was a commie !
Posted by: Bill at November 6, 2004 09:08 AMI'm just glad to find out that there isn't just one Bushrod out there! Yippee, a 'bro.'
And, lucky us, we have a general letter to set us all straight!
"Unleash your indignation and express your outrage and they will start to get your superiority to the religious fanatics, racists and homophobes who oppose you. You've got to make the point over and over that these people are intolerant stupid hicks while you are smart, good and wise."--What swill. Historically, it really would be best if the "parties" that lose to corrupt, dishonest, self-serving regimes just kept their indignation and outrage to themselves. Haven't we learned that by now? No sense in alienating the interior that has their hand on the pulse of moral values ... what's the matter with the rest of us, spewing peace and conservation and equal opportunities and acceptable living standards. Our message is just NOT getting across!
We're not getting our message across? If one accepts the flawed voting that occurred, nearly half the country voted against the current President, and you're coming on here gloating and arrogant? The portion that heartily voted AGAINST the incumbant occupy pretty important commercial regions, and yes, are the more demographically educated. No apologies from me about being informed and skeptical.
Oh, and Bushrod, you're going to quote some kind of final vote number, when there never was a final tally? When hundreds of thousands of absentee ballots nationwide weren't even counted?
Hmmm. Some hostility, I see. I had intended to just ignore the belittling dialogue here, but I can't help but wonder what these fire starters are trying to achieve. This is a site for those of us opposed to some of the neo/right wing agendas. Not for those who just want to stir up trouble. We all need a safe place to go to vent our views openly, and gather ideas so we can go out and use them. Not one of us intends to just click keys on a computer and not actually seek ways to make a difference. Take a look at Rowan's exposure of voting fraud on the next blog. Here we have an opportunity to act.
Fire starters make it difficult to keep our goals in mind because their arguments appear to just provoke emotion and therefore do not inform. They also do not usually make any logical sense. A counter argument is fine, but at least sound educated and leave insulting or demeaning remarks out of it. If the goal is to educate and inform, that's great. Leave links to reputable resources that prove your point. Hot headed BS gives us nothing to work with.
For those of us looking for information and seeking ways to participate, we have options to responding to the firestarters. We can simply ignore them. Or if we really want to educate, instead of sinking to their level, use proving resources and neutral language.
I really like this website. I would hate to see it go down in flames because some fire starting individuals successfully achieve their agenda. I refuse to allow them that kind of success. If we all refuse to engage in their trickery, we will be the winners.
Posted by: Shawna at November 6, 2004 12:36 PMSATIRE ! SATIRE ! I thought it was obvious !
Posted by: Bill at November 6, 2004 01:26 PMShawna,
"We all need a safe place to go to vent our views openly, and gather ideas so we can go out and use them."
By "safe," do you mean free from opposing viewpoints? If so, it's not as safe around here as it used to be.
Bushrod & Bro: At the risk of being presumptious, I think what Shwana is trying to say is that some, namely you and your pretend 'Bro are generally not looking for discourse, instead your comments end up in a discursive right wing dialogue, your only hope is to have a regular on this website tell you to fuck off and die, then you can say see "Those whining liberals, they can't take what they dish out". The other problem is this is a website and it is difficult to go back and forth.
"Your truth is not my truth,
My truth is not yours"
Bruce Lee
The other day you stated you would be our resource, yeah right !
I said it before I will say it again, Rowan has censored two people, one for extemely obnoxious behavior, disrespectful, etc, the most recent for similar insensitive comments. While most of us I believe are seeking Peace, do not confuse us or at least me as a pacifist. I just fight hard to not become what I am fighting against, which is at times more difficult than others, but if I win by being an asshole then I have to remain an asshole to govern other people who are similar assholes. Yes I do know how to swear...
Let's cease and desist shall we? This is a highly emotional time and there is no need to engage in baiting. Bushrod and your "Bro," if you feel the need to vent your frustration, go find a forum with others who share your views. Differing opinions is one thing, baiting is something else entirely.
Neither the people who form the UTJ community, nor liberals and the left in general are likely to go on an intimidation, violence path. Such a path is fundamentally against the principles of "liberals" in general.
So we aren't going there.
My suggestion is that people refuse to be baited. Just don't respond. If folks want to engage in dialog that is fine.
If the baiting continues, I will have to use editorial discretion.
Posted by: rowan at November 6, 2004 05:05 PMRowan & regular posters: Please accept my apologies for foul language, it is unwarranted, and unnecessary I will continue to express my opinion without the benefit of four letter words. This has been a tough week and I just don't feel like "just getting along" Again, I apologize !
Posted by: Bill at November 6, 2004 05:36 PMBeleive me. I have felt like cussing as well.
Posted by: rowan at November 6, 2004 05:53 PMRowan,
You are simply defining "baiting" in a manner that will allow you to ban me. I have not baited anyone. Yes, I have dared to utter my opinion on occasion, but I think it is rather insulting to be told that my opinion is "baiting" simply because you don't agree with it.
If you doubt the violence, watch this clip. And please don't tell me that linking to a clip that makes democrats look bad is ipso facto "baiting." You point out Republican flaws. I'm here to point out that your house is not exactly in order either. That's how we balance our perspectives.
Bushrod,
I am not saying that there are no people who see themselves as "liberal," "left," or "democrat" are violent or act violently in certain circumstances. That would be an insane claim. However, as a matter of philosophy, the "movement" does not engage in violence, and neither do those who regularly frequent this site support or engage in violence. In fact, I outright condemned that in Track 'em Down and Kill 'em on 10/30/04.
Because that is the case, and you have been around long enough to know that is the case, your remarks are both specious and inflammatory.
Neither, I or any regular on this site have labeled republicans or the right in general as engaging in physical violence.
Posted by: rowan at November 6, 2004 06:30 PM
"And please don't tell me that linking to a clip that makes democrats look bad is ipso facto "baiting." You point out Republican flaws. I'm here to point out that your house is not exactly in order either."
Couple points of clarification.
One. My impression is that most people here consider the Democratic party only as a potentially useful vehicle for political action, if that. I don't know that anyone considers it a trustworthy, uncorrupt organization deserving of loyalty, as the word "house" implies.
Two. In this context, 'baiting' means something similar to 'trolling', i.e. I and some others suspect, based on the style of your posts, that your intention is not to convince anyone of your position, but rather to get into a brawl. I don't even know if you believe all the things you say. This makes argument seem futile.
-Daniel.
Posted by: -Daniel. at November 7, 2004 03:51 PMTo track this topic without leaving a comment enter your email address: