Two issues to discuss here today:  the goals, strategy and tenor of President Bush's second term, and the future of the Democratic party.  There seems to be a high level of disagreement on both.

Over the past couple days we've seen and heard many people talk of "unity", "uniting a divided country", and "reaching out."  Senator Kerry, in his concession speech, spoke of the need of President Bush and the Democrats to work together and unite to move the country forward.  In his victory speech, President Bush also spoke directly to Democrats and expressing a strong willingness to work together, to be a President of all the people.  We've also seen numerous Democratic party leaders and media talking heads speaking of how President "must" work with the Democrats and how he cannot assume that he has a mandate in moving forward with a conservative agenda.   Rep. Nancy Pelosi, in a veiled threat, said that the President better work with and consult the Democrats because now the Republicans are "accountable."   There has been a great of talk about the country is so divided, with the implication that President Bush and the Republicans somehow need to placate the losers or face some unspoken punishment.  It's all nonsense!

President Bush WON the election!  And he did it with a substantial majority of voters by modern standards.  He is the first President since his father in 1988 to be elected with over 50% of the vote.  Look at a county-by-county map of the red and blue and you'll see that the President won most counties across the country.  Kerry won in the big cities and that's about it.

So where should President Bush go in pushing his agenda in a second term?  Straight for the meat.  He was elected in great part due to the enormous outpouring of Christian convervative voters and he knows it.  These people overwhelming indicated that "moral values" was the primary reason for their vote.  So what does that translate to in terms of legislation and policy?  It means appointing federal judges and Supreme Court justices that will interpret the Constitution and not impose their liberal viewpoints, creating "rights" that do not exist.  It means strongly supporting a federal Defense of Marriage Act that protects the sanctity of one man - one woman marriage, including an amendment to the Constitution if necessary.  It means revising the federal tax code to eliminate the corporate loopholes that allow companies to continue to avoid taxes through overseas operations.  (He should be supporting either a national sales tax or a flat income tax to replace the entire tax code, but that is unlikely to pass congress).  It means fixing the social security system and allowing workers to invest a part of their social security in the private market.  It means continuing the progress made in public schools with the "No Child Left Behind" act.  It means aggressively going after the terrorists across the globe, no matter where they hide and no matter what must be done to eliminate them.  It means doing something about our leaking borders and stopping illegal immigration.  President Bush should waste no time in moving forward with these goals and plans.  Should he consult with Democratic leaders, seeking their ideas and input?  Of course.  They may have something positive to contribute, and President Bush would be wise to seek their counsel.  However, he should not for a minute delay or alter his agenda in order to seek approval of Democrats.  Nor should he weaken his proposals in deals to prevent filibusters.  He won the election because a majority of Americans believe in him and his ideas and proposals.  We want to see them enacted and enforced.  We expect.  We demand it.  The Democrats lost.  They have to accept that reality.

So where should the Democratic party go from here?  If you listen to the "leaders" of the party and their cronies in the mass media, it will be apparent that there is huge disagreement.  Some, like Jesse Jackson, Howard Dean, and other liberals believe that the party lost because it did not fully embrace the dogma and radicalism of the far left.  If you believe them, Senator Kerry's big mistake was not coming out for immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, not standing up strongly for "gay rights" and because he dared to mention that he believes in God.  On the other hand, you have pragmatists like Bob Beckel who see the party moving too far to the left to appeal to the vast center in America's heartland.  To that wing of the party, it's time to bring God back into the discussion and move the party back to the center where it was for decades before the 60's radicals and left-over hippies took over.  I agree with that position.

The Democrats have suffered terribly in the last 3 elections (2000, 2002, 2004).  They've lost 2 presidential elections, lost more seats in the US Senate and the US House of Representatives, lost more state houses, and governorships.  With a few exceptions, conservative sponsored ballot measures are being enacted across the country.  Why?  To boil it down simply - morals issues and appeasement.  The Democrats have abandoned the vast majority of Americans on these issues (for example, the defense of marriage amendments passing in 11 states by huge margins) in favor of the small special interest groups.  It's a losing proposition for them, and if they don't start taking the moral high ground, they will continue to decline as a major force in American politics.  When it comes to foreign policy and protecting our country against terrorism, the American people will not elect someone to high office who even appears to be surrendering sovereignty or appeasing terrorists or their financial partners such as France and China.  Looking at individual candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton is the obvious front-runner for the 2008 Democrat nomination for President.  The nomination is hers if she wants it.  She cannot win.  She is far too liberal and has far too much baggage to be elected.  As Dick Morris said last night, almost every scandal coming out of the Clinton administration had her hands on it.  She'd be destroyed.  Other potential candidates - Kerry, Edwards, Dean, and the other liberals would fare even worse.  The Democrats can no longer take minority voters - hispanics, blacks, and others, for granted.  They are leaning more and more to the Republican party, primarily based on religious and moral issues, and will no longer give their votes unquestioningly to Democrats.  This is true no just in Presidential contests, but statewide and local elections as well.  No, if the Democrats want to remain a viable party they will need a major reformation.  There are many Democrats who loathe what has happened to their party over the past 30 years, and it is now time for them to do something about it.  If not, the party risks becoming irrelevant.

~~ Right Wing Nut Job ~~

Part 1 -good stuff- I feel strongly about the future of our nation. I have always believed what my father told me about politics, that it is made up of swings of a giant pendulum. Clearly Bill Clinton was TOO whatever he is, and now we have Bush who is TOO whatever he is. I think it is important, and I am sure Bush understands this now, for the president to be focused on his legacy, the second term by design allows the president to think about what he would like to leave behind. John Quincy Adams went back and served MA as a representative in the House after being president but I feel like he will continue to be the only one that does this. Since Bush will never have to run for public office again he should take his republican majority and his presidency and push through the agenda that has always been the republican principles. He needs to reform the tax code; Transparency is the key here. He needs to once and for all find a solution for Social Security. This program is either needed or it is not to support those that do not save for retirement. This gives the people security, (they just do not save for themselves) and makes them much better citizens as a result. So I believe that social security is necessary at some basic level. However the more fair and transparent this system is the better.

part 2 -not so good stuff- I am concerned however that Bush will continue to feed the beast that is preying on our country. The defense department continues to grow with every new war. The justification for these wars is becoming weaker and weaker. The monster that lives in our federal government will have to continually be sated with the blood of young people and the tax money of the rest of us. This is fundamentally wrong. Bush could stand up to this, yet we have become even more fearful of the rest of the world. We cavalierly toss aside Europe’s opinion in favor of our own, (or at least 51% of it) and we charge headlong into continued military dominance of the globe. No one is free when a gun is involved, neither the person holding it or the person who is forced into whatever new definition we have created for the word freedom.

Good analysis

Michael - I too wish that we didn't have to spend billions of dollars on defense every year. But in this world it's either that or start learning how to speak Arabic and praying on a rug.

Yes, we do toss aside opinions of Europeans and other foreigners when it comes to our elections. I would expect them to do the same with the opinions of Americans when it comes to their elections.

As for Social Security reform and Tax reform, it looks like those are going to be two of the top priorities once the new congress is sworn in come January. Let's hope for the best.

Good break down on both your points RW! The Dem's have embraced too much of the far left in their platform, in that, I agree w/Beckel (though not much else).

I could see your point RW, on the domestic issues. But our whole purpose in Iraq is to toss aside the opinions of certain groups. At the point where we admit there is wiggle room here we have to accept the same lens of scrutiny on our policies and leadership that is enforced on other countries. I fully expect us to funtion as a peer in the global community, our self impossed leader status will therefore no longer be dependant on the force that is behind it. We have to lead by example, and that example should start with the willing acceptance of foreign scrutiny. The good news is that we do make some efforts, like allowing global election monitoring in our recent elections...

Michael - our purpose in Iraq was to get rid of Saddam, and at this point is to establish a democracy in the midst of dictatorships and theorcracies.

You speak of the US being a "peer in the global community." I'm not sure what you mean by that? That we are equal in stature, influence and action to Tonga or Bosnia? Our leader status is not self-imposed. It's a fact deriving from our status as the only remaining superpower, our great wealth and abundance of resources, our moral and cultural stability. When a great nation begins subjecting itself to the scrutiny and self-interest of other nations, it begins to lose it's sovereignty and control of it's own future. That must not happen with the US. Should we listen to and consult with our allies? Absolutely! Where there is common ground and common interest there should be cooperation. But appeasement and altered policy based on foreign criticism is unacceptable.

I am not familiar with your rhetoric. It is foreign to me. I don't believe that we are morally superior, I don't understand how you can assume that case is clear. We are economically better off than the rest of the world, but with that comes a greater responsibility. Your idea of leadership is really a protectorate for our continued economic advantage. We should be proponents of freedom, which in no way includes dictating world policy.
I am sorry I am lost... Does our abundance of resources include oil? If it did I don't think we would even be in Iraq. The warm and fuzzy interpretation of US international policy doesn’t seem to reconcile with actual events. If we were so interested in human rights why did we not go to places in the world like Sudan where there is genocide based on ethnic background. Our hypocrisy as a nation is the basis of the foreign criticism. There are plenty of other countries that have taken their temporary power and influence in the world, Portugal, Italy, Spain, France, England. These are our peers now and historically. We need to act with these examples in mind, we are not above the rest of the world dictating how they should live.
India, China, these are our peers in potential. They sit poised to be the next empires of the world, and when they are the superpower, it would be nice for them to live in a world of international law where the global community has learned that you cannot inflict your world view on the rest of the world willy-nilly.
I beg the US to act like a good neighbor, to create a global community, and sometimes that means not getting to have every war when you want it and on your terms. By bypassing every attempt at international standards and law, we become violators of national sovereignty and international law, and is some way the US becomes what they are fighting -- a terrorist.

Great post. I too believe that morality was the main deciding point for many Americans this election.As far as a global govt. I believe..I know it will happen. I just hope that it's not in my lifetime. The book of Revelations speaks of a world govt, and a world religion and makes it plain that it won't be chirstianity. That this global govt. will be ran and controlled by the antichrist. It's there in plain black and white. And I see the world moving closer and closer to that prophecy becoming reality.And am thankful that we have at least four more years where some ideology of what is right and what is wrong will be realized. Have a great day and God bless.

RightWing, do you think Bush/Cheney have a mandate and why? I think they do.