Actually, I agree with RC re: Iran and said previously that I think something will happen in Iran before the end of the year. I'm fearful that if we (the “West”) don’t do something then the Israelis will, possibly within months if not weeks.
But consider, the Iranians already have the capacity to send ballistic missiles to all of Europe and Russia and will probably extend that range (via polar trajectory) to include the U.S. by the end of the decade. So for now this should be a problem for Europe more than it should be a problem for us.
Likewise, NK has tested a missile that will reach all of it neighbors and Hawaii and will probably extend the range to include the west coast of the U.S. within a few years.
Do you think these countries; Europe, Russia and Asian neighbors of NK, have no role to play in deterring Iran and NK from their present courses?
Do you support direct military action against either of these countries? If you don’t then our only option is to wait
It’s safe to assume that NK already has nukes; it’s also safe to assume that any military action against NK will result in a nuclear response against SK at the very least. It’s hard to play “brinkmanship” when your opponent is a certified nutter. So what do we do?
Probably we leave NK isolated and hope for an economic collapse while pressuring China, Russia, Japan and SK to take more responsibility for their neighborhood. Other than military action there’s not much else we can do. We’ve already demonstrated via Carter and Clinton that economic incentives (i.e. economic blackmail) don’t work, the NK simple ignore their promises and do what ever they want to. NK desperately wants the U.S. to enter into unilateral discussion and the U.S. is insisting that China, SK, Japan and Russia get involved.
Iran is a tougher nut to crack, but since we have a strong military presence on three of its borders we have some leverage in making it behave for the present.
”Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we will see the constitution amended at least once but probably twice” What, exactly will the amendments be? I’m curious. I’m not aware of any current issues that rise to the level of national sentiment required to drive an effort to amend the Constitution.
It’s not an easy task to amend the Constitution. There are essentially two ways to amend it; one has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment.
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. Passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. So I don’t believe that even one, much less two, amendment will come in the next four years.
”a reversal of Roe V Wade” Not even remotely probable with the current Supreme Court, but will probably change within the next 20 years. As I mentioned earlier, the U.S. is growing more conservative and the courts will eventually reflect that trend. More and more polls show a majority of Americans are against or favor restrictions on abortion. Go online and do some research, from Zogby to Gallup to the LA Times to Fox to the Center For American Women and Politics, all polls reflect growing opposition to “abortion on demand.”
I would like to see Roe V. Wade changed to allow individual states to determine their stance on the law.
Something to consider, Roe V. Wade probably contributed to the loss of your candidate.
About.com lists the number of abortions in the U.S. each year starting in 1973, "based on assumptions by the Alan Guttmacher Institute." If we add up the numbers from 1975-86, we come up with approximately 17.5 million missing eligible voters between 18 and 29 years old. Exit polls found that voters this age who
were born went for Kerry over Bush, 54% to 45%, while Bush had a majority in all other age groups. If it's true that women who have abortions tend to be more liberal than those who don't, then the unborn 18- to 29-year-olds likely would have favored the Democrat even more heavily.
Prayer in public school Unlike abortion, I don’t see this changing, I do see more private schools and increases in school vouchers and I think the District of Columbia is where this battle will be fought. An overwhelming majority of blacks in D.C. want vouchers or better access to private school. Congress has been blocking those attempts (shameful when you consider that no Congress person’s children attend school there) and that battle will come to a head in the next few years.
”a further polarization of wealth” this is only a bad thing if the wealthy group is static, that’s not so. Studies of America’s poorest class, immigrants, all show significant accumulation of wealth over a 20 years period.
BEA records show increasing wealth across the board for all Americans every year since 1947.
”a furtherance of the partisan rift” Only until the Democratic party re-invents itself and moves back to the center of American politics. The party of the McGovernites needs to become the party of the Obamaites, sadly, I think the Clinton will continue to “own” the party until one of them dies. While I believe Hillary and Bill are essentially centrists, they are rapidly becoming the “poor” Kennedys of this century and tend to suck the oxygen away from other capable leaders, but that’s just an opinion so don’t challenge me on it, I can’t really defend it via anything other than “gut feel”
”a furtherance of the rift between the religious right and everyone else” Or maybe “everyone else’ will become more religious? And the ‘religious right” didn’t elect Bush this time. Bush's popular-vote total, more than 58 million, is the most
ever for a presidential candidate, and is an improvement of at least eight million over his 2000 vote total.
That means that if Karl Rove got his four million Evangelical Christians, Bush brought in at least an additional four million new voters or Gore voters. So if Bush infers a popular madate he has good reason to do so
This shift may reflect "9/11 Republicans," Americans who used to vote Democratic but cannot abide the party's weakness on national security.
”increasing discrimination toward anyone of mid east dissent or of Muslim faith” Sadly, I’m afraid you are right. But you yourself would get concerned if you saw 5- 10 dark complected middle eastern looking young males walk into your children’s school. It’s a sad sign of the times and I think it will last for some time.
”a continuation of tenuous economic stability.” if by “tenuous” you mean the economy will grow at a higher rate than Clinton bragged about when he ran for reelection in 1996 then “tenuous” is good enough for me.
GDP growth of 2 – 3.5% is a good sustainable number, especially coming after the recession Bush inherited and 9/11.
Like Shapley commented early, this “lousy” economy has me hopping 10 hours a day and my company’s annual business topped $2 Bil in revenues last year for the first time. Since we warehouse and move other companies’ products that's a good sign to me that the economy is beginning to boom again.
)