] On the WOT:
]
] Iraq will slowly become an Islamic fundamentalist state. The
] U.S. will be largely out of there within a year and on to
] Pakistan. We'll get Bin Laden, but Islamic Fundamentalism will
] continue to fester and will rear it's head again in a decade
] or so. Bush will be seen as having won the WoT in the short
] term.

I disagree. Iraq will become a fundamentalist state, but it will remain in state of civil war for quite some time. You have 2 Islamic sects, the minority one repressed the majority one for decades. Sunni's don't want free or fair elections, because they will not have enough representitives to prevent rather nasty laws against them from being passed. I'm talking Jews in 1930's Germany style laws. The only hope for the Sunni's is to have the ratio of people in the gov't representing them be disproportional to their % of the population. But the Shiits are not going to let them having anything close to power again. Listen very closely: Popular elections, with the number of representatives for different ethic/religous group being proportional to actual populations of those groups will not happen. There is too much hostility between the groups, and we are stupid if we think 2 years has cured it.

None of this even mentions the Kurds, which have basically had their own country for the last decade or so, and aren't really liked by anyone. They sure as hell are not going to disarm and follow the laws being passed in Baghdad. They will resist, with lethal force.

Bush is kind of screwed on Iraq. The only way Iraq will be able to have any type of stable peace in the near term (next decade) is a) A new dictator, or extremely pro-Shiite anti-Sunni government. It will not be anything close to the "island of democrasy" Bush promised. b) A large, non-Iraqi military force staying there basically locking down the country, and enforcing the will of the government composed of equal Shiites and Sunnis (and maybe Kurds, but most likely not). It can't be an Iraqi force, because the Iraqi government would use to against the Sunnis and/or Kurds. The problem for Bush is, thanks to his extreme foreign policy, Non-Iraqi basically means US, unless Bush manages to get a multinational force from different Arab countries instead (he won't).

He pulls out, Iraq collapses, into something maybe slightly than Saddam's government, and Bush has to explain what our sons and daughters were dying for. He stays, and our troops will continue to be killed off one by one, because the people will not view the government as a legitiment representation of the people (because it isn't).

Decius wrote:
] It appears that Bush has won. It appears that the Republicans
] have control of the House and Senate. This is a complete
] victory for the Reds.
]
] I offer the following predictions:

Interesting stuff, and I agree with quite a bit.

On a related note, I'm curious what your predictions are on staff? Or rather, not your predictions, but what would your recommendations be? Given that Bush is going to be President for the next four years, who would you *like* to see him appoint to various cabinet/advisory posts? For example, speaking for myself, I'd like to see Powell stay, I'd like to see Rice stay. I want Ashcroft gone. I wouldn't miss Rumsfeld. But then again, I'm not sure who I'd most like to see in those posts instead.

What's your opinion?

Elonka wrote:
] On a related note, I'm curious what your predictions are on
] staff?

I don't really expect him to make significant changes. One of my fears is that he'd let Powell go. I think that Powell is a forces that anchors this administration to reality, and I think it would be bad if he left, but I wouldn't be suprised if they replaced him for that exact reason. Other then that I don't have any predictions. If Bush was unwilling to fire Rumsfeld in the face of Abu Gharib, when the Economist ran "Resign, Rumsfeld" in bold on their cover, he isn't going to fire him now. I think Ashcroft is doing exactly what they want him to do. I think they are very happy with him and back him 100%. I think they are happy with Rice. You're going to see some more reorganization around CIA and DHS, but they are happy with Ridge.

Decius wrote:
] Elonka wrote:
] ] On a related note, I'm curious what your predictions are on
] ] staff?
]
] I don't really expect him to make significant changes. One of
] my fears is that he'd let Powell go. I think that Powell is a
] forces that anchors this administration to reality, and I
] think it would be bad if he left, but I wouldn't be suprised
] if they replaced him for that exact reason. Other then that I
] don't have any predictions. If Bush was unwilling to fire
] Rumsfeld in the face of Abu Gharib, when the Economist ran
] "Resign, Rumsfeld" in bold on their cover, he isn't going to
] fire him now. I think Ashcroft is doing exactly what they want
] him to do. I think they are very happy with him and back him
] 100%. I think they are happy with Rice. You're going to see
] some more reorganization around CIA and DHS, but they are
] happy with Ridge.

Yes, but if he *did* get rid of Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft, who would you most like to see in those posts? Are there moderate names that come to your mind, who you think would be good choices?

Elonka wrote:
] Yes, but if he *did* get rid of Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft, who
] would you most like to see in those posts? Are there moderate
] names that come to your mind, who you think would be good
] choices?

I honestly don't know enough about this to have an answer. Who are the hot shot federal attorneys? Who is making waves at State or the Pentagon or the strategic think tanks? Knowing these answers would be instructive in that it would allow you think think about who is likely to be running things 4-8-12 years from now, but I don't even know where to start.

Decius wrote:
] Elonka wrote:
] ] Yes, but if he *did* get rid of Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft, who
] ] would you most like to see in those posts? Are there
] moderate
] ] names that come to your mind, who you think would be good
] ] choices?
]
] I honestly don't know enough about this to have an answer. Who
] are the hot shot federal attorneys? Who is making waves at
] State or the Pentagon or the strategic think tanks? Knowing
] these answers would be instructive in that it would allow you
] think think about who is likely to be running things 4-8-12
] years from now, but I don't even know where to start.

Don't forget about the possibility of Bush having the power to appoint two Supreme Court justices over the course of the next 4 years. Renquist is most certainly out and control of the Supreme Court would seriously affect what ammendments are passed. I've even heard on NPR that Bush is specifically looking at younger candidates for the position i.e. trying to wring the most out of the lifetime appointment aspect. The Judicial and Executive branches showdown would be a losing proposition for the American public if they wound up in bed together.

janelane wrote:
] Decius wrote:
] ] Elonka wrote:
] ] ] Yes, but if he *did* get rid of Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft,
] who
] ] ] would you most like to see in those posts? Are there
] ] moderate
] ] ] names that come to your mind, who you think would be good
] ] ] choices?
] ]
] ] I honestly don't know enough about this to have an answer.
] Who
] ] are the hot shot federal attorneys? Who is making waves at
] ] State or the Pentagon or the strategic think tanks? Knowing
] ] these answers would be instructive in that it would allow
] you
] ] think think about who is likely to be running things 4-8-12
] ] years from now, but I don't even know where to start.
]
] Don't forget about the possibility of Bush having the power to
] appoint two Supreme Court justices over the course of the next
] 4 years. Renquist is most certainly out and control of the
] Supreme Court would seriously affect what ammendments are
] passed. I've even heard on NPR that Bush is specifically
] looking at younger candidates for the position i.e. trying to
] wring the most out of the lifetime appointment aspect. The
] Judicial and Executive branches showdown would be a losing
] proposition for the American public if they wound up in bed
] together.

I think you'll see something along the following lines. Powell quits in the next six months. He may be replaced at State by Condi or W may go out and choose someone else who fits the mold of his "mandate" better. Rumsfeld may choose to step aside (he certainly won't be fired, but he might decide he likes fishing) and if so, he's replaced by Paul Wolfowitz. Those are the two big positions in the cabinet.

The court is a much, much uglier question. You aren't looking at two justices likely gone, you're much more likely looking at four, possibly five. Rehnquist may not survive to the end of the year, and there will be a nominee likely in the spring. One likely choice would be Alberto Gonzalez, but I expect to see a long list of nominees of like mind to Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Maybe the guy the Alabama State court censured and kicked off over the Ten Comandments flap. Other justices likely to retire (more likely expire) include O'Connor, Stevens and Ginsberg. Kennedy is also no spring chicken, and could end up on that list as well. Every Bush appointee will be AT LEAST as "conservative" as Rehnquist.

The nominees will also be in their late 40's to mid to late 50's ensuring that they would have long tenures on the court.

I put "conservative" in quotes, because that's how they'll be described. The reality is, they will be heavily reactionary, and very activist, rolling back anything they can get near from the second half of the 20th century. Likely victims of a new court would be Roe v Wade, and Miranda. Things that I do not expact to be overturned, but nibbled at would include things like Brown v Board of Education and Furman v Georgia.

That's a short list anyway. I expect reality to be much worse.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
] One likely choice would be Alberto Gonzalez, but I expect to
] see a long list of nominees of like mind to Clarence Thomas
] and Antonin Scalia.

Like Clarence Thomas, the guy who wrote a detailed review of the history of anonymous speech in the defense of the right to anonymous political pamphletting?

Like Antonin Scalia, who joined with Stevens in writing the only opinion offered in the Hamdi case which was a complete rebuke of the government's position that it can hold citizens without trial and the courts position that it can create a "guilty until proven innocent" standard out of thin air?

] I put "conservative" in quotes, because that's how they'll be
] described. The reality is, they will be heavily reactionary,
] and very activist, rolling back anything they can get near
] from the second half of the 20th century. Likely victims of a
] new court would be Roe v Wade, and Miranda.

That doesn't sound like Thomas or Scalia to me.

Frankly, I hope we get people like Thomas or Scalia. That will be fine. I'm worried we'll get something much, much different.

Decius wrote:
] Elonka wrote:
] ] Yes, but if he *did* get rid of Rumsfeld, and Ashcroft, who
] ] would you most like to see in those posts? Are there
] moderate
] ] names that come to your mind, who you think would be good
] ] choices?
]
] I honestly don't know enough about this to have an answer. Who
] are the hot shot federal attorneys? Who is making waves at
] State or the Pentagon or the strategic think tanks? Knowing
] these answers would be instructive in that it would allow you
] think think about who is likely to be running things 4-8-12
] years from now, but I don't even know where to start.

The two people who I think we should be most concerned is
the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and Chairman of the
Federal Reserve. These two positions wield a huge amount
of influence over our nation. I think next on the list is who
is going to be the National Intelligence Director. I just hope
it is not someone like Ashcroft or we are more doomed.

The Washington Beltway rumors is that Ridge is unhappy as he
doesn't seem to have that much power. Being the front man
who has to go on TV and tell everyone to change their safety
level from Blue to Yellow isn't feeling the love.

Dr. Rice and John Snow does a fine job. Though I always
thought Dr. Rice would have been more effective as
Sec. of Education. Im sure she knows how to bend the
Presidents ear when she needs it.

Your right about the anchors, Powell, Rumsfeld and Chaney
run the show, everyone else follows. Rove gives the thumbs up
and the President puts the big W at the bottom of the executive
order.

I think more eyes are all on the Supreme Court as to who is
going to be replaced. Names are already floating around
Washington. I am sure W likes Theodore Olson but he is
about as old as the judges on the bench.

Decius wrote:
] It appears that Bush has won. It appears that the Republicans
] have control of the House and Senate. This is a complete
] victory for the Reds.
]
] I offer the following predictions:
]
] On the WOT:
]
] Iraq will slowly become an Islamic fundamentalist state. The
] U.S. will be largely out of there within a year and on to
] Pakistan. We'll get Bin Laden, but Islamic Fundamentalism will
] continue to fester and will rear it's head again in a decade
] or so. Bush will be seen as having won the WoT in the short
] term. You'll feel safe. You'll focus on domestic issues in the
] next election.
]
] Domestic:
]
] The economy will improve considerably as the security concerns
] wane. The social security nightmare looms. You will see safety
] valves that allow wealthy people to protect their savings from
] the coming cataclysm. If you are smart you will save as much
] as you can over the coming years.
]
] You'll see some barking about a flat tax. I don't think it
] will actually happen in this session. They are setting the
] stage for 2008.
]
] You'll get faster internet access, from freed RBOCs. You'll
] see hydrogen infrastructure appear in the odd place like
] electric car chargers are today.
]
] The health care situation will continue to deteriorate. I do
] not take the Republican's proposals on this matter seriously.
] I'm not saying they won't make a serious proposal. This issue
] is impacting our international competitiveness. I'm saying
] they haven't made a serious proposal yet.
]
] I predict that you will see an amendment to the U.S.
] Constitution passed within a year. I believe that several
] amendments will be passed within 4 years.
]
] Early:
] Gay Marriage
] Flag Desecration
]
] Later on:
] Abortion Ban
] Public (Read as Government) Display of Religious Iconography
] Prayer in School
]
] Maybe:
] Victim's Rights (Which is a misnomer. Read as "Plaintiff
] Right's" in MOST contexts. FYI this is the only one on the
] list that is bi-partisan. I say maybe because it has logical
] flaws you could fly a plane through, and it doesn't have
] widespread grassroots support.)
]
] You will see federal legislation passed in the next four years
] which contains a passage which says that its Constitutionality
] cannot be challenged in a Court. That law will be declared
] Unconstitutional by a Court. This will set the stage for what
] I would call the "big one." Once all of these amendments have
] been passed the amendment machine will be geared up to make
] significant changes to the way that government works. That
] change will entail limiting the power of the Courts as a check
] upon... [ Read More (0.1k in body) ]

Vile wrote:
] What are you? One of those gay groups out there?

Yes, Vile, I'm a "gay group." This whole time I've been pretending to be one person, but actually I'm a large number of lesbian women who are attempting to trick people into following our ideas about government. Our strategy is to turn a large percentage of the population gay and to force churches across the land to hold gay marriages. Once we're done with that, we'll require all Americans to have gay sex. Then, our victory will be complete.

Decius wrote:
] Vile wrote:
] ] What are you? One of those gay groups out there?
]
] Yes, Vile, I'm a "gay group." This whole time I've been
] pretending to be one person, but actually I'm a large number
] of lesbian women who are attempting to trick people into
] following our ideas about government. Our strategy is to turn
] a large percentage of the population gay and to force churches
] across the land to hold gay marriages. Once we're done with
] that, we'll require all Americans to have gay sex. Then, our
] victory will be complete.

That wasn't me, Tom. Last night I let George H.W. Bush use my account. While I support his right to question whether or not you are "one of those gay groups out there," it would be unfair to ascribe said quote to myself. Sorry for the confusion, but you must give credit where due.