. . . But am I correct in saying that the Democrats also
have a lot of money for
> the campaign, particularly for Congress? It is not
impossible to have a
> result with a Republican president and a Democrat
Congress.
Yes. They're all well-oiled. If I had to bet now, it would
be that the Dems take back the House and Bushie
is president.
> Although a Bush victory would signal lower taxes, the
shift away from
> redneck conservatism would still work through would it
not? There would
> still have to be bargaining about policy.
Bush's acceptance speech was incoherent in the dimension of
policy,
if one maps the language to its real implications. In a
nutshell, he is
going to cut taxes, increase spending (especially for
missile defense)
and not touch the SocSec surplus. Can't be done. In the
dimension
of gov organization, he is going to 'return control of
schools' to locals,
but insist on accountability for their use of Federal
dollars; this is a
non-sequitur. Otherwise we got a lot of poetic celebration
of diversity
and tolerance with no policy correlates. So in a closely
divided
Congress (likely), a Bush presidency looks to be a time of
chaos and inaction not unlike the past six years.
> Given that, the interesting questions are what are the
policies that will
> be contending for attention?
> Presumably that will still be determined by image and
public presentation
> but they might also be determined by the technically
possible, and the
> practically essential. And by what compromises corperate
capitalism has to
> make with (bourgoeis) democracy. Any ideas?
Their main priorities are tax cuts and Soc Sec
privatization; the latter
won't pass, IMO, but we will see some kind of tax cut.
mbs
