Could the next President be even scarier?

[zonmoy]

http://www.macleans.ca/world/usa/article.jsp?content=200701031_16428_16428&page=1

As part of her job at an influential national security think tank, Julianne Smith brings politicians and senior policy-makers from all over Europe to Washington for candid closed-door meetings with the policy advisers to the candidates vying to replace President George W. Bush. The Europeans usually arrive eager to discuss the coming era that some are dubbing "AB" — "After Bush." That is the highly anticipated period beginning on Jan. 20, 2009, in which a newly sworn-in American president, chastened by the troubles in Iraq and by the scorn of allies who say the Bush White House flouted international law, will turn his or her back on the militaristic and unilateralist ways of the preceding seven years, contritely embrace multilateral institutions and international treaties, bring home U.S. troops, and perhaps even rename the "war on terror" as something other than a "war."
But by the time the meetings end — be they with advisers to Democrats like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, or Republicans such as Rudolph Giuliani and Mitt Romney — the visitors usually have the same reaction, says Smith, the director of the Europe Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The response is usually a little bit of shock and awe and disappointment. They say, 'What do you mean? We thought this would be a new era!' "
Continued Below


Poll after poll shows that the vast majority of Americans are sick of the Iraq war, while many worry that through its counter-terrorism policies, the U.S. has squandered the goodwill it once enjoyed abroad. When the current presidential season began in earnest a year ago, it was widely expected that the aspirants to the White House would be campaigning against the swaggering foreign policy associated with Bush. But precisely the opposite has happened. To the great surprise of the Europeans, and to many Americans, the leading presidential candidates are talking just as tough as the current occupant of the White House — and some even tougher

[Just-plain-Kathy]

1. Our next president (D) or (R) will be a corporate hawk bushie. And a friend of Rupert Murdoch.

I can't see having an honest election after the last two stolen presidential elections, especially since nothing has changed since then. ...I think that’s why Gores not running. He knows the fix is in.

[Prophet 451]

6. No fix is needed

The political system is set up in such a way as to ensure that only those with access to vast scads of money (either their own or others) can get elected. That acts to ensure that the mainstream candidates from both parties are various flavours of corporatist. Washington has become a culture of wealth-worship, the exceptions (i.e. Kucinich) end up getting marginalised and dismissed as "kooky" (which Dennis is but not in a bad way).

[Kashka-Kat]

2. We were d*mn lucky last time that Bush was so incompetent that even the Neocons gave up on him - we

may not be so lucky next time.

[mwb970]

3. Only if it's Giuliani.

An authoritarian, dishonest martinet with terrible judgment, advised by lunatics. How much worse can it get?

[zonmoy]

4. the sad thing is that with the candidates that actually have a chance.

the best we can hope for is a pause in the march to fascism if even that. the ones that might reverse it are either not running because they know the game is fixed or stand little to no chance of winning.

[Locrian]

5. i agree 100%

Its sad but true. Right now we still have an illusion of "hope" with the election coming up. I fear that when the dust settles, if will be obvious to even the 29% that the game is over.

[zonmoy]

7. perhaps we should get started putting the signs every ten feet on the border.

"abandon all hope ye who enter here"