One year from today...

[phillyfan26]

I have only 4 words for the day Bush leaves office:

G-d help us all.......

There's a huge difference between liking Bush and thinking everyone else is inferior.

So, yeah, what Diemen said.

 

[BoMac]

I added a Bush countdown application on my Facebook. There's now 358 days, 9 hours and 56 minutes left!

 

[AchtungBono]

I'm truly sorry that some people just don't understand what this man has done (and is still doing) to keep them all safe and sound.

They seem to forget that there have been no attacks on American soil since 911 and that dozens of potential attacks have been thwarted thanks to the extraordinary measures that the government has taken to detect and flush out terrorists. Not to mention the hundreds of terror suspects who have been captured and detained (including the mastermind of 911 - Khaled Sheikh Mohammed).

One of the greatest achievement of the Bush administration is the removal of Saddam Hussein and his subsequent execution. Hussein was a major threat to my country and I breathed a sigh of relief when I saw him on the gallows - even though, in my opinion, hanging was too good a death for him in comparison to the degradation and torture to which he subjected the Iraqi citizens.

I'm deeply fearful that the next president of the USA will be so "gung ho" and eager to pull out of Iraq, and cancel all the laws that GWB initiated, that all the progress that has been made over the past 7 years will go down the drain.

And I'm speaking from experience........let me give you an example:

In 1982, Israel launched an offensive in Lebanon which turned into the first Lebanese war. This war saw the establishment of the terrorist organization Hezbollah (our greatest enemy to the north). This war was very controversial in it's time and lasted for approximately 3 years. Israeli public opinion demanded an end to the war and to return the troops home.

In 1985, the official war ended and Israel withdrew from Lebanon up till a point near the Israeli border which was called "The security zone". This was established in order to create a buffer zone which would place the northern cities of Israel out of the reach of the Hezbollah katyusha rockets which were fired on them on nearly a daily basis.

In the year 2000, after a change in government (and years of pressure), Israel's new PM Ehud Barak caved in to public pressure and Israel made a very hasty withdrawal from the security zone back to the Israeli border. This withdrawal was made unilaterally with Israel effectively abandoning the area and leaving it to the mercy of the Hezbollah terroriists, with absolutely no provision for defence against them.

The interim period between 2000 and 2006 gave Hezbollah more than enough time to re-arm themselves (with the help of Iran) and to gather more recruits, establishing themselves firmly as the "warlords" of Southern Lebanon - violating that country's sovereignty. Then, in July of 2006, Hezbollah brazenly launched an attack on our border, taking 2 of our soldieris hostage and killing 8 more. Israel had had enough of this constant threat on our border and struck back.

I won't go into the entire history of this war - I'll save that for another thread.
Let's just say that the results of the hasty retreat of 2000 were painfully felt.

I'm very much afraid that the same thing will happen here. The next president will be in a very big hurry to bring the troops back from Iraq and Afghanistan. If that happens, without reaching any kind of agreement with the Iraqi and Afghani governments (especially if Osama Bin Laden isn't captured yet), the U.S.A is leaving itself wide open for another terrorist attack (G-d forbid!!).

George Bush had the courage to fight back and the next American president absolutely MUST continue the war on terror - otherwise all the troops who have been killed and wounded would have given themselves for nothing - and that would be the biggest tragedy of all.

In the end, with G-ds help, ultimately the good guys will win. Al Qaida will be defeated and Bin Laden will go the way of all evil doers - he will be captured and brought to justice.

 

[cobl04]

Just a few questions, because I'm from Australia, and have absolutely no idea how American politics work.

First, on the new race. At the moment, there appears to be about seven different people running for president. The ones I hear about the most are Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, this Mitt Romney and another bloke (John Edwards or something?).
Now I am correct in saying Obama and Clinton are from the same party? The democrats? And the other two are from the Republicans? So how exactly are Obama and Clinton competing against each other? And what are the major differences between Republicans and Democrats?
How did America initially feel about the opportunity of having either a black president or a woman president?
What are 'primaries?' Are they like opinion polls? Or are they the actual voting? Do they count for anything? Do they visit all 50 states?
How come whenever these 'primaries are talked about, only Obama v Clinton is mentioned? Are they only for Democrats?
What happened to (was it John?) Kerry who ran for president in the last election?
What about Al Gore?
And now about George W Bush. From all I've read, seen over the past say three years, the man is probably the most hated man in the world. How the hell did he become President then? Who voted? If he's so incredibly stupid, why did you vote him there in the first place? Has he done anything right? There's just no respect for the man.
Why aren't Bush or Kerry running for president again (okay, Bush wouldn't get in, obviously), but are they not allowed to run again??

If there's anyone who'd like to answer a few, that'd be very much appreciated. And a reply to the above, as well! How do you all know that everything will go swimmingly once Bush leaves office? You can't predict the future.

It's all very confusing when you're in a country where we have about five parties, of which only two can produce our Prime Minister, and the race is between only two men. The man who was just booted out of office, John Howard, was disliked by people across Australia, but was never so abhorred.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Just a few questions, because I'm from Australia, and have absolutely no idea how American politics work.

First, on the new race. At the moment, there appears to be about seven different people running for president. The ones I hear about the most are Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, this Mitt Romney and another bloke (John Edwards or something?). Now I am correct in saying Obama and Clinton are from the same party? The democrats? And the other two are from the Republicans?

The Democratic frontrunners: Obama, Clinton and Edwards
The Republican frontrunners: McCain, Romney and Huckabee (is he still in).
Giuliani just dropped out, and I'm not going to include Paul as being a frontrunner.

So how exactly are Obama and Clinton competing against each other?[...]What are 'primaries?' Are they like opinion polls? Or are they the actual voting? Do they count for anything? Do they visit all 50 states?

Since there is always a number of politicians from both parties that want to run for president, both parties first hold the primaries. Here the presidential candidates of the parties are competing against their opponents in the same party.
Primaries and caucusses are held in all 50 states except Hawaii. There is both proportional and majority representation depending on party and state.
In those primaries and caucusses the voters are going to vote for the candidated they like to run for president. The candidates get appointed delegates from each state according to how they fared, and those will formally vote for them at the respective party's national convention.
The winners of the primaries then compete in the general election.

And what are the major differences between Republicans and Democrats?

In short one could probably say:
The Democrats are generally liberal, left-wing.
The Republicans are generally conservative, right-wing.
How did America initially feel about the opportunity of having either a black president or a woman president?

How come whenever these 'primaries are talked about, only Obama v Clinton is mentioned? Are they only for Democrats?

I don't know about the US, but internationally it is expected that the next president will be a Democrat, so the media is focussing on the Democratic competition. Additionally, Obama and Clinton are currently in a pretty sharp competition, and Edwards is more or less out of the race. Hence, it is more interesting for the international media to focus on Obama and Clinton.

What happened to (was it John?) Kerry who ran for president in the last election?

He lost in the last election in 2004 to Bush, and isn't running again since he won't have a chance, and running for president is pretty expensive in the US.

What about Al Gore?

He ran in 2000 and "lost" to Bush. Now he is focussing on championing climate change awareness and policies and probably not running again.

And now about George W Bush. From all I've read, seen over the past say three years, the man is probably the most hated man in the world. How the hell did he become President then? Who voted? If he's so incredibly stupid, why did you vote him there in the first place? Has he done anything right? There's just no respect for the man.

That's a question a lot in the US, and even more outside are asking for years now, even more so since 2004.

Why aren't Bush or Kerry running for president again (okay, Bush wouldn't get in, obviously), but are they not allowed to run again??

Kerry wouldn't have a chance, but he would be allowed to run again.
In the US every president is only allowed to serve two terms, and Bush finally is completing his second term this year. Hence, he isn't running again.

And a reply to the above, as well! How do you all know that everything will go swimmingly once Bush leaves office? You can't predict the future.

AchtungBono is pretty much sold on Bush, and Stronghold certainly would disagree with you that he can't predict the future.
As far as I know so far every candidate has admitted that a withdrawal from Iraq will take time and no one is going to leave Iraq without making sure to at least having done the best job possible to restore some stability in Iraq.
But some of the Republicans that support Bush so staunchly are pretty much dead set on the view that he is the only one to "get the job done" over there, and that the Democrats will turn it into a disaster (as if this was still possible).

It's all very confusing when you're in a country where we have about five parties, of which only two can produce our Prime Minister, and the race is between only two men.

I agree, it's really a lot different in Australia and Germany and from here the US system really looks like a science of itself.

The man who was just booted out of office, John Howard, was disliked by people across Australia, but was never so abhorred.

Oh yes, I realized that when I was in Australia. He was pretty much kissing Bush's ass all the time, and I think that was some of the rather nice things I heard people saying. But respect for his ability and knowledge certainly was greater.

 

[cobl04]

Thank you very, very much Vincent, for taking the time out, that explains a lot.

Just one or two more...

So the primaries are designed for potential voters to vote for who they would like to run for president, and then whoever wins these primaries is then the respective parties' hope in the national election. Correct?

When was the last time a Republican was in power? And to which party does Bush belong?

Only two terms? So if there's a president who has done a tremendous job, is it a case of "well done, but bad luck you're out?"

And yes, Howard's continual ass-kissing had grated many Australians for months and years on end.

Thanks once again!

 

[UberBeaver]

Thank you very, very much Vincent, for taking the time out, that explains a lot.

Just one or two more... OR THREE.

So the primaries are designed for potential voters to vote for who they would like to run for president, and then whoever wins these primaries is then the respective parties' hope in the national election. Correct? YES.

When was the last time a Republican was in power? And to which party does Bush belong? W IS A REPUBLICAN.

Only two terms? So if there's a president who has done a tremendous job, is it a case of "well done, but bad luck you're out?" YEP.

My answers in caps.

 

[cobl04]

Cheers Beav!

 

[yolland]

Primaries and caucusses are held in all 50 states except Hawaii.

No, Hawai'i has a caucus. All states have either a primary or a caucus. Washington DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands also have primaries. Only the Northern Marianas Islands (where maycocksean lives, unfortunately for him where elections are concerned) don't get to vote.

 

[Axver]

How come the Northern Marianas get left out?

I did notice that there is some Democrats Aboard that sends a number of delegates (if memory serves correctly, 11?).

 

[deep]

my guess is that delegates to party conventions is tied to

delegates or representation in the U S House of Representatives

Current territories

A territory, under U.S. law, is a distinct, often largely self-governed jurisdiction inhabited by U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals that for constitutional, historical, or political reasons, is not an actual state. Under the United States Constitution only states are granted voting representation in both chambers of the Congress.

Currently, three U.S. territories are represented by non-voting Delegates: American Samoa, Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands. There is an effort underway to likewise grant to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands a non-voting Delegate. In the case of Northern Mariana Islands, when the debate became more intense in the late 1970s, the House was a little reluctant to grant a non-voting delegate due to the territory's relatively small population of about 15,000 (1970 population). However, today the total population is about 80,801 (House Committee Report 109-110, Committee on Resources, Northern Mariana Islands Delegate Act). Looming in the background is the "one man, one vote" case law which places pressure on Congress and state legislatures to keep the population of federal Congressional Districts roughly equal.

Washington D.C.

The District of Columbia, otherwise known as Washington, D.C., the capital city of the United States, is technically a federal district — not a territory, commonwealth or insular area — but, for purposes of representation in the House, is nevertheless entitled to a non-voting Delegate.

Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico, a U.S. Commonwealth, is represented by a non-voting "Resident Commissioner" who holds a status similar to that of a Delegate within the House, but who serves a four year term. The Resident Commissioner is the only individual elected to the House who has a four year term — all remaining non-voting Delegates and all regularly voting traditional Representatives serve a term consisting of only two years.

 

[maycocksean]

my guess is that delegates to party conventions is tied to

delegates or representation in the U S House of Representatives

Yes, I think that's right. One of the results of the current bill under consideration that would federalize our immigration is that we would get a non-voting delegate.

 

[Vincent Vega]

No, Hawai'i has a caucus. All states have either a primary or a caucus. Washington DC, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands also have primaries. Only the Northern Marianas Islands (where maycocksean lives, unfortunately for him where elections are concerned) don't get to vote.

Oh, ok, I've read somewhere that they are doing some special kind of election that lasts about a week or so.

 

[yolland]

^ Yeah, Hawai'i's Republican caucus (though not its Democratic caucus) takes place over several days; it's the only one like that. I asked an in-law of mine who lives there why that is, and his explanation was, "Well, there aren't too many Republicans in Hawai'i, so they have to do everything on island time to make sure enough people show up to make it worth their while." ( 'Island time,' referring to Hawai'ians' famously lax attitude towards adhering to any sort of schedule.) He's not a Republican, so I'd take that with a grain of salt, but it's the only explanation I've been able to come across for it.

You did a very nice job explaining all the other aspects though, much better than most Americans would. I don't teach American politics, but every election year I still get lots of students asking, "What's a caucus?" "What do those delegate counts mean?" etc., etc. I know they all learned this stuff at some point back in high school, but because it only happens once every four years (we have primaries for state and local positions too, but few people vote in them) and because the setups are fairly complicated and vary from one state to the next, it's the sort of thing most people get pretty fuzzy on the details of.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Thank you.

Repetition really works, and reading so much about the election over the past few weeks helps a lot to learn about that system.
We did have the US political system in very short once in school, but in between two elections much gets forgotten again.
It's really confusing that not only each state has different rules, but also do they have between the two parties, and then there are caucusses and primaries. I've now got the basics about the caucus, and know about super-delegates which I've never heard before; and found rather a bit funny like in a game where the one suddenly pulls out his special trump, but well. And of course that there is closed and open primaries etc I've learned once.

When it comes to elections in the US the media here always has to include those boxes that explain the primaries and the election process in very short so people know that this is not yet about the actual president.

 

[susanp6]

What a great day it will be!

 

[Carek1230]

A year from now it'll all be over for the Bush's, sweep them all under the rug. G-d forbid any more of them show up in the Oval Office in the future.

 

[Infinity]

I have only 4 words for the day Bush leaves office:

G-d help us all.......

You know, there are many people out there who support the neo-conservative agenda yet still admit that Bush is not that great of a leader. You are just on another level of insanity.

 

[Infinity]

Re: Re: One year from today...

I'm sure Al Quaida is counting too and just waiting for the day the new administration is sworn in and the war on terror officially comes to a halt.

I actually agree with you on this one. If we elect someone who is against policing the world, and the terrorist finally leaves office, the war on him (and other terrorists in his administration) will eventually come to an end, given that U.S. policy changes.

Good point.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Re: Re: Re: One year from today...

I actually agree with you on this one. If we elect someone who is against policing the world, and the terrorist finally leaves office, the war on him (and other terrorists in his administration) will eventually come to an end, given that U.S. policy changes.

Good point.

Yes, Islamic Terrorism began with GWB and it has nothing at all to do with expansionist religious belief or political opportunism by such fundamentalists, if left alone they will just keep to themselves and peacefully coexist with secular progressive elements in the world.

What did America do to provoke the Barbary Pirates?

 

[fly so high!]

A year! Why so LOOOOOOONG!!

No wonder you guys don't vote....you bloody forget to

 

[Infinity]

Re: Re: Re: Re: One year from today...

Yes, Islamic Terrorism began with GWB and it has nothing at all to do with expansionist religious belief or political opportunism by such fundamentalists, if left alone they will just keep to themselves and peacefully coexist with secular progressive elements in the world.

What did America do to provoke the Barbary Pirates?

Oh he was talking about Islamic Terrorism? He had said the War on Terror so I was referring to the terrorist activities of the Bush Administration over the last 5 years.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yes, and your response implied that it is US foreign policy that is the sole driving force behind it, that if America was more isolationist then Islamic terrorism would cease because it is supposedly retaliatory.

But then countries like Spain do remove forces from crusader wars and bomb plots continue to be pursued. Countries get threatened over freedoms wholly independent of GWB or the USA (MoToons). At what point does violence cease to be the fault of the victim, sure Americans may deserve everything they get but a lowly Dutch filmmaker? A consular official from a cartoon exporting nation? The palaeocon isolationist streak is an arguable case, but I don't think it is a panacea for a religious belief that the world is divided into a House of Islam and the rest a House of War.

And again what would you have done against the Barbary Pirates? The question seems fitting as it matches a time when America was much more like Ron Pauls platform.

 

[anitram]

I am already really enjoying this period of utter irrelevance for Bush. I love how anytime I turn on the news, his smug, smirking face is no longer there. I love how nobody talks about him anymore. I love how there is a sense of hope that maybe, just maybe the ills he's done may be undone sooner than 3 generations from now. I love the change in discourse, the change in tone, and the change in feeling towards the US abroad that is palpable. It is like when you emerge from a long illness, and every day you get stronger, little by little.

What a feeling.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Just wait until McCain and Clinton are the nominees

 

[anitram]

Haven't you heard?

Hope dies last.

 

[Axver]

Just wait until McCain and Clinton are the nominees

Yeah. I don't know about you, but I've noticed here that a lot of more positive attitudes towards the US are dependent on there being a President Obama at the end of January 2009.

 

[A_Wanderer]

That was the joke, even though the policy differences may be meaningless.

 

[Axver]

That was the joke, even though the policy differences may be meaningless.

I don't think many people at all see the policy differences (or lack thereof). They just see the possibility of a Clinton dynasty and recoil.

Though it'll be even worse if McCain is not the Republican candidate. Romney or Huckabee would sure earn some ill will. The US's international standing was lucky Obama won Iowa, because if it had been Clinton, a lot more would've been made about Huckabee taking it for the Republicans. Though I'm sure Family First were out popping non-alcoholic champagne.

 

[yolland]

Huckabee won't be the nom. He'll probably win a few more states in the South and Midwest, but that's it.