Art Green raises the hope that this election can be a powerful opportunity to accomplish great things. Unfortunately though, the adminstration's record belies this hope. Yet, it is not an unreasonable hope. President Bush is a good person, and having broken old curses, may be able to step away from old policies and embrace the needed changes that can transform the world, and make this 21st century not feel like a bad rerun of the past.

Wow, 4 years of being the President, a national disaster to rally people to him, a war we didn't need so he can be a "war time" President and George Bush picked up a MASSIVE 3% of the vote increase over his last election. Perhaps its because many people think that starting a war for reasons that turn out to be false is a BAD thing for a President. Glad to hear you are fine with that. When are you joining the armed forces so you can fight in our next OPTIONAL war?

I think the President will use the next four years to reach across the aisle to get things done. I wouldn't be surprised to see John Kerry and George Bush working together on legislation.

Now, the President has a great opportunity to re-affirm the morals of this country.

So scary. The president's job is not to be the moral leader of the country. He is the political leader of the country. His personal morals are NOT the nation's morals. His job description does not include shoving his personal moral code [read: RELIGION] down our throats, laws, and government programs.

I think the President will use the next four years to reach across the aisle to get things done.

Oh brrrrother. He hasn't done that in the past four years. Why would he start now?

Cheney used the "m" word today: mandate. It's clear that there will be no "reconciliation" or uniting. Only a strict, conservative agenda awaits us.

bhw - Does our country have a moral leader? And if not, why not?

I'm not trying to be a smart ass here, I'm asking a serious question.

Is morality such a bad thing? and if it's not, don't we need a moral compass?

The moral leader should not be the president. The president should be able to look at his own personal views and accept them as that: personal. They should not be codified into the laws of our country, not to mention our Constitution.

Bush's code comes directly from his religion. I'm VERY uncomfortable with someone's religion becoming my law.

To answer your other questions: morality is not a bad thing. But we don't need our political leader, our head of state, deciding the moral code for the country. Not his job.

And I certainly don't need a politician to provide my moral compass. No thanks.

He has the opportunity to appoint Supreme Court judges that will defend the rights of the unborn.

Wouldn't these be *activist* judges, particularly since the unborn have no rights, according to our Constitution?

Since you have no franchise, not being an emancipated person, and obviously a typical example of USAian high school students, I only have one question for you:

Is is difficult to walk around with your underpants pulled up to your shoulder blades?

Arty, one word:

I-R-A-Q.

Let's talk again in six months.

i'm looking forward to the Good Weather Amendment to the constitution.

sorta like the balanced budget amendment, but with precipitation.

"This Presidency is defined by 9/11. Not for the attack itself, but for" telling America to go shopping as his first response. He did improve for a while by going in Afghanistan, but abandoned that because, from Bob Woodward's "Bush at War":

pp. 82-83: [9/15/01] "Another risk they faced was getting bogged down in Afghanistan, the nemesis of the British in the 19th century and the Soviets in the 20th. Rice was wondering whether it might be the same for the United States in the 21st

"Her fears were shared by others, which led to a different discussion: Should they think about launching military action elsewhere as an insurance policy in case things in Afghanistan went bad? ...

" Rice asked whether they could envision a successful campaign beyond Afghanistan, which put Iraq back on the table."

aa and Art, I deeply hope you are right about cooperation rather than confrontation - I hope Bush is a gracious winner

The possibilities are endless in these next four years.

Yeah, but recent history doesn't promise much; second termers always seem to get mired in scandal and litigation. And there's no shortage of fodder for lawsuits in this president's actions so far.

But, maybe this guy really is different. I too would like to see his policies taken to their logical conclusion, and quickly enough so as not to leave too big a scar on the rest of the planet.

O.k., now THIS is the silliest post I've ever seen.

Anyone who would suggest that Bush has been or has any grain of potential for being one of our greatest presidents is (a) utterly ignorant of history and (b) completely detached from reality.

Bush is a terrible president, perhaps one of the worst in history, perhaps not. He's obviously not the very worst--Andrew Jackson gets my vote there--but even if he is twice as good in his second term, he'll barely achieve mediocrity.

For God's sake, Art, join the reality-based community, will ya?

Winston, why are you so aghast at someone's interpretation of reality? Interpretation is not fact, there really isn't any refuting it - so many seem utterly offended that others don't view the world the same way they do, as if their view is the only possibly logical one

I hope Bush is a gracious winner

He was not 4 years ago, so he will not be now. Why should he be? The country just validated that he didn't have to be in order to get re-elected. Now that re-election isn't in the picture, it's going to be an ultra-conservative agenda right down the pike.

because he no longer feels threatened and he has history to account to

The history he's interested in making seems to be in creating a socially conservative country in its laws and social programs. He has not shown one ounce of interest in a moderate ageanda, not one.

Now, for people who would say "those were tax cuts for the rich,": Small businesses got a tax cut. The rich got a tax cut. The middle class got a tax cut. The lower class got a tax cut. Everyone who pays taxes got a tax cut.

More deep thoughts?

Winston, don't blow a gasket. Art Green claims to be 17, but I'm going to guess he's 14 at most. He would have learned some things he obviously doesn't know in high school.

Yes, it appears Eric Olsen has taken to hanging around junior high schools recruiting children to post at Blogcritics.

George Bush is not a good person. He is a killer of his own people with his policies on pollution. He is a killer of Iraqis with his "war of liberation". Good people do not kill others, particularly not more than 100,000 innocents.

The average tax cut for the lower 20% of income earners was $27. In the same time frame, their costs for food, shelter and energy have gone up orders of magnitude more.

96% of small businesses make less than $200,000 a year - the tax cuts for the majority might be as much as $647.

No wonder Bush got re-elected.

They also got the child tax credit and marriage penalty was either gotten rid of or reduced.

As for the numbers of how much the bottom 20% got, it's proportional to the amount of taxes they pay.

If you go to a restaurant with three friends, and the richest guy there pays 75% of the tab, the second guy about 20% and then the poorest about 5%. The waiter comes out and says that they are giving some of the money back to thank the three for their business.

If you were the guy paying the 75% of the tag, would you think it was fair that the guy that paid only 5% and the guy that paid 20% of the tab got 75% of the rebate back?

Art, the argument from the left isn't so much about proportioning the tax cut equally. The left is saying that the tax cut does NOT keep up with the cost of inflation for the poor. So when conservatives go on about Bush's tax cut, the left says 'what tax cut?'

By your logic I could keep the 75% rebate, give you one nickel and go on about how good it was that I gave you a break. So hang onto that nickel because the cost of the dinner just went up 4 bucks.

And don't forget the tip.

The basic issue on the tax is that it was sold as a boost for the economy.

For that to have an even remote chance to work, the tax cut has to be spent. If it had been given to those at the lower end of the scale, they would have spent it, out of necessity.

Instead, the bulk went to the rich, who invested it and created jobs - in China and India. (Check my site for details.)

I love that book title:

"WE WILL PREVAIL!"

--but I think it sounds better in the original German.

And Arty, for future reference,

"Thank God we got four more years!" should be "Gott Mit Uns!"


You're Velcome!

Got mittens?

It could be a long, cold winter.