Posted on 11/08/2004 6:46:38 AM PST by areafiftyone
p>WASHINGTON (AP) -- Odd things can happen when presidents no longer have to worry about re-election. George W. Bush embarks on another four years in the White House unleashed from election concerns for the first time in his presidency, raising questions about what he will do with the freedom of a second term.
Past presidents have often reached big in their second term, with some accomplishments that build on earlier ones and others that can appear to contradict them. Regardless, with their eyes trained away from the voting booth and toward the history books, many have taken the chance to gamble.
Take President Reagan, who made fighting communism the hallmark of his presidency and famously proclaimed the Soviet Union the "evil empire" two years into his first term. But in his second term, Reagan seized on the ascension of Mikhail Gorbachev to power and - despite rhetoric that remained fiercely hawkish - became friends with the Soviet leader and worked with him to steer their nations away from nuclear confrontation.
By the end of his presidency, Reagan had signed a treaty with Gorbachev eliminating the entire class of medium-range nuclear-tipped missiles. The combination of toughness and conciliation helped end the Cold War.
Or take President Clinton, the Democrat elected in 1992 after embracing his party's centrist movement. But it took him until the first State of the Union speech of his second term to utter one of the most famous quotes of his presidency - that "the era of big government is over" - and to tackle the historic welfare reform legislation that dismayed many in the left wing of his party.
Possibilities for a second-term Bush exist in part because of circumstances, and in part because of the agenda he has already set.
Either way, there's no disputing at least two things: He'll have lots of extra time now that he no longer has to devote time to raising money and campaigning for re-election. It also won't be long before attention will turn to the 2008 presidential contest and he'll be considered a lame duck.
White House political adviser Karl Rove said Bush in his second term "absolutely" would push for a constitutional amendment that says marriage consists only of the union of a man and a woman.
Bush believes states can deal with the issue of civil unions between gay people, an arrangement that if enacted would grant same-sex partners most or all the rights available to married couples, Rove said Sunday.
In foreign policy, one obvious opportunity is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as Bush's second term collides with changes in the region. Israel has taken steps to withdraw from Gaza after nearly 40 years of occupation.
With Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat hospitalized and gravely ill, the man seen by Washington as an untrustworthy peace partner may be sidelined.
Those developments could give Bush a chance to risk trying to make peace, and White House aides have already begun signaling they see an opening.
Observers also see a legacy-building opportunity in Bush's proposal to increase Social Security's long-term solvency by partially privatizing it. "He could really make his mark there," said Lee Edwards, an analyst of presidential decision-making at the conservative Heritage Foundation.
But to be successful on both those difficult fronts, Bush might have to curb the my-way-or-the-highway approach that has dominated his relations with Democrats in Congress and international allies, two groups whose help he will likely need.
"He's got political capital," said Princeton political scientist Fred Greenstein. "He'll have even more if he does some reaching out."
Greenstein suggested Bush may decided to do just that - fulfilling a promise he has made in the days since his successful re-election - by nominating "some kind of uniting figure" for any Supreme Court vacancy, instead of a conservative who would spark a bitter Senate confirmation fight.
However, experts noted there's been little indication from Bush that he plans to be anything other than the mostly unbending conservative of his first term. Since Election Day, he has promised to earn the trust of Democrats and talked of bipartisanship. But so far, that has mostly meant inviting Democrats to support his proposals and leaving them behind if they decline.
And in recent days, Bush has appeared, if anything, more emboldened than ever, political experts and presidential historians said. When asked to name his most immediate priorities, he raised an issue that is one of the most divisive flashpoints between the two parties - capping medical malpractice lawsuit awards.
"He talks the talk of conciliation, but he walks the walk of the solid conservative," said Allan J. Lichtman, a presidential historian at American University. "I see no sign the president is going to modify his approach."
The phrase you don't hear Dims using is "let's rally behind this president". I would contend that it is more their responsibility to rally behind this president and work with him since he was elected by the majority, than it is for him to reach out to them.
Flat out lie, perpetuating the myth of Clinton's centrism:
"Or take President Clinton, the Democrat elected in 1992 after embracing his party's centrist movement. But it took him until the first State of the Union speech of his second term to utter one of the most famous quotes of his presidency - that "the era of big government is over" - and to tackle the historic welfare reform legislation that dismayed many in the left wing of his party."
In fact, Clinton DID campaign on welfare REFORM, but that meant reform as in re-creating it. When he had control of Congress, he did nothing. In his first term, however, he lost control of Congress, and the Republicans took over. They sent him several reform bills, which he vetoed. Facing growing frustration by the voters, Democrats in Congress sent him the message, "Don't destroy what's left of the party!" by signing on to a Republican bill which passed with 90 votes in the Senate, easily enough to override a veto. Only then did Clinton sign on.
But this was still 1995. By 1996, Clinton was campaigning in what are now called "blue states," pledging to reform the reform. His liberal supporters understood that to mean that the government's teat was swollen once again.
I agree, but after listening to the concession speeches by Edwards and Kerry... Don't count on it. Both speeches were loaded with justifications to resist supporting the President.
The concession speeches weren't a call for unity, but were a call to arms on national television.
ping
I hereby predict that the world's in for quite a ride over the next 4 years. The liberals will gnash their teeth so much that all they will have left is bloody stumps.
Mr. President, GO FOR IT!!!
LONG PAST TIME TO SCRAP THE MARXIST, FREEDOM-ROBBING INCOME TAX AND IRS AND REPLACE THEM WITH THE FAIR-TAX.
VISIT http://www.salestax.org AND http://www.fairtax.org FOR DETAILS!
I agree. But we must not get too cocky in the next 4 years. We must be prepared for 2008 and keep our back covered. The Dems will be waiting with daggers to get us back in 2008.
You are so correct!!!!!!!!!!!
We have to make sure Spector does not!
Clinton signed a meaningfull "Welfare Reform Bill" because Dick Morris told him he would not win the election if he vetoed it again. His idea of welfare reform was simply a scam of more govenment spending and maintaining the failed qovenment programs initiated by LBJ.
NOTE**
Progressives' want democracy(the source of socialism), Regressives' want regress to a Republican form of government... Democracy is the disease that brings socialism(i.e. like in literally EVERY democracy on earth)... there are NO acceptions.. America is half way between a republican system and a democractic system.. thats just WRONG.. The American federal gov't has bullied the States long enough... We have a Congress and separate court system(Supremes) ACTING like they were a Parliament.. <<- like the more primitive forms of gov't in URP.... thats the source of the polarization among Americans.. But MOST Americans haveing no freepin idea of the difference between the two are fodder to this Coup D'Etat in process.. Parliaments work in democracys but in America parliaments attack "human rights". More democracy existed that had any "rights". Because "human rights" come from God, not some wazzo government.. The "Bill of Rights" was given by God to Americans not our government. Governments can ONLY allow and give privledges not actual "human rights".. The governemnts in URP and Canada ONLY allow privledges to the citizens there are NO "rights" of any kind, inalienable or otherwise...
THATS WHY: Democracy is the road to socialism. Karl Marx
Democracy is indispensable to socialism. The goal of socialism is communism. V.I. Lenin
The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism.- Karl Marx
and make nascar a year round sport
Screw the dems, he doesn't have to reach out, he has to increase the base and educate the empty heads.
Continue as you are Mr. President. Work for the good of this country and not all the bad stuff that people are trying to stuff down our throats. I will continue to pray for this good man.
By the time he leaves office, there will be peace (sort of) between Israel and Palestine, the Iraqis will be well on their way to democracy, most of the middle east will be in transit to a more democratic life, tort reform will have passed helping to stop the bleeding caused by trial lawyers, the terrorists will be in full retreat, and we will be safer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.