Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [MLUG][Politics] State of the Union

[Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On 1/31/06, Vern Green <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> On 1/31/06, Jonathan King <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> > administration* come out and say they think that what Bush did here
> > was legal.  What we do know is that there will be court cases here,
> > and that, on the face of it, I think the administration faces an
> > uphill battle here.
> >
> Well, it may very well turn out that what he did was illegal. it might
> very well lead to an impeachment if that is the case.

Not a chance of that unless:

1) The GOP loses Congress and
2) Bush's own popularity stays way down.

The two events are not independent, of course.  But even if Democrats
did spectacularly well in the midterms (and that's hardly a sure
thing), Bush would have to be wildly unpopular to be impeached.  I
don't see anybody in a hurry to re-live the Clinton impeachment
fiasco.

> > > Bush has a war on science going on, but it looks like he is putting a
> > > lot of money in Science.
> >
> > Not really.  Actions speak louder than words.  Two years ago, the NSF
> > had a net CUT in funding.  This year, the NIH was flat at best.  Those
> > are the two largest non-defense research budgets out there.  We really
> > can't count on proposals made in the state of the uniion, since so
> > much happens between the talk and the actual bills.  (Note: this is
> > not a slam on Bush; this has always been the case.  Clinton, Bush 1,
> > Reagan, Carter...lots of words in the SOTU, not so much actual action
> > in the end.  This is just the way these things go.)
>
> You are correct, there are a number of things that effect his ability
> to do anything. Of course a lot of the ideas are likely never to be
> introduced,

Which is striking, since the GOP controls all 3 branches of
government.  Seriously, there is no excuse not to introduce all of it,
unless it is manifestly clear parts or all of it are not going to
pass.

> then of course there is the other side of the political
> isle that have a vested interest in not allowing him to do anything
> that makes the republicans look good.

Of course, this is not news.  Look back at what the GOP managed to do
in the minority in 1993 and 1994; to be honest, it was waay more
effective than the Democrats have ever been as the opposition.

> That is standard operating
> procedure as well and the 2006 elections will drive home a very
> specific mandate.

Not really.  Mid-term elections sometimes lead to changes in control
of congress, but they rarely lead to the sweeping changes you see with
a new presidential administration.  1994 is an interesting case; the
GOP gained a lot seats and suddenly had a lot of power, and the
specific mandate was...unclear.  They didn't defeat Clinton in 1996,
and they lost seats in the succeeding elections.

> If the republicans gain additional seats, that
> should send a very strong message to the democrats that America is
> rejecting their ideas, or lack thereof.

That's less than clear.  The way congressional districts are drawn
these days, there are more highly safe seats than ever before.  (With
the exception of the re-drawing of Texas; that might not have been a
great long-term idea if the 2004 results are a guide.)  Seats that
change hands have always been more likely when reps and senators
retire.  If Ike Skelton retired tomorrow, it's pretty much a mortal
lock he would be replaced by a Republican, but this wouldn't be a
rejection of the Democratic party, but merely an affirmation that
Skelton was already essentially a Republican.

> > Wow, wait I just thought I heard Bush was
> > > terrible on science, sounds like he has a lot of things in mind for
> > > science and what he would like to see.
> >
> > The big problem for me was the few words he said about actual biology.
> >  To me, it sounded like he was against the use of transgenic animal
> > models of disease.  I don't really think the meant to sound that way,
> > but if he did, and if laws are passed that accord with what he said,
> > there's actually a good chance that something I'll be doing next week
> > would make me a criminal.  I continue to be disappointed in the
> > current administration's approach to science.  Bush's dad had his
> > idiosyncracies, but the policies were, on the whole, rather better.
> >
> Well, this is something Mike and I are arguing over. Unless he does
> something by executive power, I doubt there will be any laws passed
> that effect what you are doing.

So why in the world would you just say stuff like this?  There is a
reason, which is to communicate with elements of your political base. 
But that's not science policy.

> > > I especially like what he said about alternative fuels. I sure hope
> > > the democrats in congress will let those plans go through.
> >
> > Obviously, I heap scorn on any Democrat who opposes nuclear power.
> > But we've been researching plans to make ethanol cost effective for
> > years.  Interestingly, the one, proven, and obvious way to do this is
> > precisely what Bush (and, to be fair, the Democrats we currently have)
> > would not ever propose: jacking up the tax rates on fossil fuels.
> > Technology is nice, but reducing demand is much easier, especially in
> > our current situation.
>
> I am firmly of the belief that it does not have to be done like that.

So in other words, you don't believe that prices are essentially the
best way to affect supply and demand.  Fascinating.

[snip]

> > ps--Tim Kaine seems to be a nice guy and an okay speaker, but I can't
> > say I'm inspired by his response.
> >
> I think he came out a little condescending, but overall I think he
> came off better than Joe Biden's response did. I am really
> disappointed with Biden lately, I always felt that I could support him
> for president, but his involvment in the recent confirmation hearings
> really bothered me.

Biden is, was, and always will be scum.  If he were the presidential
candidate, I would have to vote for somebody else.  Unless he were
running against Rick Santorum.  Then I'd probably flee the country.

> Additionally, CBS had an interesting poll. 68% of the people
> participating in the poll said that Bush would not be able to attain
> his goals, I wonder if that is more of a testiment on his leadership,
> or a testiment to the division in congress?

It's probably more a testament to the fact that his popularity is
hovering around 40%.

jking

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion