| |
|
|
| |
|
         
|
Fact Files U.S. Presidential Election 2004
Contents Preface
1.
Elections: Glossary
Preface U.S. Presidential election 2004 was contested on two key issues. One is economy, i.e., “economic growth, jobs, the overall condition of U.S. fiscal policy”. The second is security, i.e., security against “terrorism” in the background of terrorist attacks on Twin Towers and the Pentagon in the U.S. mainland and U.S. military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The election 2004 was a close contest between Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Senator John F. Kerry. The American nation was almost equally divided between the Republican and Democratic candidates. Although Presidential debates gave edge to Kerry, Bush presented himself as a more effective leader to fight the threat of terrorism. Bush and Kerry clashed over wisdom of Iraq invasion, but more Americans trusted Bush for doing a better job in handling the war on terror. Besides, Bush had the advantage of being a sitting President. The swing states, such as Ohio and Florida, were inundated by “political advertisements” and the twenty electoral votes of Ohio decided the final outcome. Nearly 120 million Americans voted, i.e., about 60 per cent of eligible voters. Bush won 286 electoral votes winning in 31 states. Kerry won in 19 states and Washington D.C. with 252 electoral votes. Overall Bush won 51 per cent popular votes against Kerry’s 48 per cent. “President Bush’s decisive margin of victory makes this the first presidential election since 1988 in which the winner received a majority of the popular vote,” said Andrew Card, Bush’s chief of staff, on November 3. “And in this election, President Bush received more votes than any presidential candidate in our country’s history.”[1]
Islamabad Noor ul Haq December 2004 [1] <http://usinfo.state.gov//dhr/Archive/2004/Nov/03-311949.html>
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, cannot long retain it
Abraham Lincoln |
Initially radical and supportive of voting and civil rights for blacks, the Republicans were slowly forced to moderate their position to maintain their electoral dominance enabling Republican candidates to win five out of seven presidential elections between 1868 and 1892.
By the late 1880s the rise of industry and corporations transformed America and Republicanism was transformed with it, as industrial and business interests began to dominate the party.
The party also became associated with Protestantism and groups who felt threatened by the new waves of immigration, from Ireland, Italy and then later from Eastern Europe.
In 1912 the rise of the Progressive Party, led by former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, split the Republican vote.
The party was sent crashing into third place in terms of electoral college votes, helping Woodrow Wilson regain the White House for the Democrats.
As Progressivism's fire dimmed the Republicans reunited along a pro-business line, leading to a renewed hold on the White House from 1920 until 1932.
The shock of the Great Depression and the failure of President Hoover to come to terms with the problems it brought opened the way for the Democratic "New Deal" under Franklin D Roosevelt.
Prior to World War II isolationism tended to dominate the Republican view of America's role in the world.
But in the post-war landscape anti-communism took an increasingly prominent role and the selection of the moderate and popular General Eisenhower led to an eight-year hold on the White House from 1952-1960.
Conservatism Ascendant
Through the 1960s the emergent conservative wing, first witnessed in Barry Goldwater's 1964 candidacy, began to push out liberal Republicans.
Richard Nixon came to power in 1968 after appealing to what he called the silent conservative majority of America, concerned about issues such as the rise of radicalism, law and order, and also implicitly, of race.
From 1968 to 1992, the Republicans held the presidency with one short period from 1976-1980 when Jimmy Carter won the White House following the Watergate scandal.
As the South moved away from the Democrats and the north-eastern liberal wing of the party faded, Republicanism became more ideologically coherent.
The conservative tide found its fullest expression in the Reagan presidency between 1980 and 1988.
His populist programme of reduced government, tax cuts, increased defence spending and anti-communism, inflicted on the Democrats some of the heaviest defeats in their history.
Republicans had high hopes for his successor, George Bush, but in spite of his record on foreign policy, the Bush presidency proved a disappointment to many conservatives.
'Contract with America'
Campaigning on Mr Bush's failure to address domestic problems, Bill Clinton won the White House in 1992, giving the Democrats control of the House, Senate and the White House for the first time in 12 years.
|
REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865) Ulysses S Grant (1869-1877) Rutherford Hayes (1877-1881) James Garfield (1881) Chester A Arthur (1881-1885) Benjamin Harrison (1889-1893) William McKinley (1897-1901) Theodore Roosevelt (1901-09) William H Taft (1909-1913) Warren G Harding (1921-1923) Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) Dwight Eisenhower (1953-1961) Richard Nixon (1969-1974) Gerald R Ford (1974-1977) Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) George H W Bush (1989-1993) George W Bush (2001-present) |
But despite unified control, the Democrats proved unable to pass substantial legislation, noticeably on healthcare, and a newly resurgent conservatism led by House Republican leader Newt Gingrich recaptured control of Congress in 1994 under the banner of the radical "Contract with America".
The anti-government populism of the Contract proved hard to put into practice, allowing President Clinton to exploit public fears that the Republican Congress was going too far and helping him defeat Bob Dole in the 1996 presidential election.
As a result of these trends, Republicans split into a number of different wings of the party - anti-government populists, pro-business internationalists, isolationists, supply side economy supporters and moralists.
Politics
is supposed to be the
second oldest profession.
I have come to realise that it bears
a very close resemblance
to the first
Ronald Reagan
Republican president 1981-89
But then a new, more moderate brand of Republicanism emerged, in particular around Texas Governor George W Bush, son of the first President Bush.
It was on the younger Bush and his "compassionate conservatism" that Republicans pinned their hopes for an election victory in 2000.
Although he lost the popular vote, a Supreme Court decision eventually handed him victory over Vice-President Al Gore by ordering a halt to over a month of recounts of ballots in Florida, where the Democrat was disputing an extremely close and controversial result. In spite of this limited mandate, the GOP controlled both the presidency and both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952.
Despite running as a centrist and pledging bipartisanship in the wake of the election fiasco, his first acts as president betrayed the influence of the right-wing of the party. He appointed a largely conservative cabinet and his administration became the most overtly religious in living memory.
In contrast to the internationalism of his father, George W Bush withdrew US support for the Kyoto treaty on global warming and declared his opposition to the International Criminal Court. Tax cuts became the central plank of his domestic policy.
The 'War on Terror'
The 11 September 2001 attacks on New York and Washington transformed the Bush presidency. What had previously been an administration openly hostile to foreign entanglements was given a new focus following his declaration of a "war on terrorism".
As a result, President Bush enjoyed the highest approval ratings in history, and sustained them for well over a year.
The blank cheque Congress handed President Bush after 11 September and the policy vacuum in the national security establishment gave radical Republicans advocating a more assertive US foreign policy - dubbed "neoconservatives" - unprecedented influence in the White House.
The party of Newt Gingrich's anti-government revolution was now backing vastly increased military spending, despite growing fiscal deficits, and the biggest expansion of the federal bureaucracy since World War II with the creation of a new Department of Homeland Security.
By the November 2002 mid-term elections, Republican strategists were able to use President Bush's popularity and his robust response to 11 September to cement the GOP's position as the party of patriotism and national security.
As a result, the party scored a remarkable victory. For the first time since 1934, the party in control of the White House gained seats in both houses of Congress in a mid-term election. The Republicans won back control of the Senate, giving them a position of dominance in Washington not seen since the Eisenhower era.
22 October 2004
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3340221.stm>
The Democratic Party first emerged in the 1790s under the
leadership of Thomas Jefferson, organised around the protection of
agricultural interests and opposed to concentration of power
in the hands of
the federal government.
At the centre of the party stood a belief in "state's rights", meaning that the federal government should intervene as little as possible, leaving almost all responsibility to individual state governments.
The issue became increasingly bound up with slavery dividing the party between northern and southern Democrats.
Eventually, with the election in 1860 of Republican Abraham Lincoln as president, the southern Democrats seceded from the Union, plunging the country into civil war.
In the years after the war, charges of disloyalty dogged the party helping to keep them out of the White House until 1884.
As the minority party - reliant on southern support and the votes of ethnic minorities in the North - the Democrats began to identify with the more marginalised groups such as poor farmers in the west and those left behind by the growth of big business in the late 19th Century.
|
|
When a man assumes a public trust, he should
consider himself as public
property
|
Democrats Divided
Long periods out of power had a damaging effect on the party, leaving it weak and divided, principally between conservative southerners and urban progressives in the north.
In a bruising party convention in 1924, it took 103 separate ballots to decide upon a candidate for the presidency.
It took the Great Depression and the Republican failure to meet the challenges that it threw up to transform the political landscape and pave the way for Franklin Roosevelt's powerful new Democratic coalition.
In what became known as "the New Deal" Roosevelt moved the party onto an agenda of vigorous intervention in social and economic issues, expanding the Democratic vote to encompass urban workers, the unions, intellectuals, small farmers, minorities and poor southern whites.
During this period roughly twice as many voters identified themselves as Democrats compared to Republican, leading to a period of Democratic dominance in the White House and Congress.
Between 1932 and 1968 the Democrats held the presidency for 28 out of 36 years, interrupted only by Eisenhower's two terms (1952-1960). They also controlled the House of Representatives until 1994 and the Senate for the vast majority of that period.
The New Deal coalition began to split in the 1960s, when Presidents Kennedy and Johnson pursued a civil rights agenda, opening the way for Nixon and the Republicans to pursue their "Southern Strategy" of appealing to Southern whites.
Growing opposition to the war in Vietnam and the counter-culture movement allied with the rising union power in turn caused further divisions in the Democratic party.
Losing Ground
|
|
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTS Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) Martin Van Buren (1837-1841) James Knox Polk (1845-1849) Franklin Pierce (1853-1857) James Buchanan (1857-1861) Grover Cleveland (1885-1889) Grover Cleveland (1893-1897) Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921) Franklin D Roosevelt (1933-1945) Harry S Truman (1945-1953) John F Kennedy (1961-1963) Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969) Jimmy Carter (1977-1981) Bill Clinton (1993-2001) |
The Sixties onwards saw the Democrats become increasingly out of touch with their traditional, core constituency: white working- and middle-class voters, the key "swing group" in American politics.
Instead the party became associated with elite opinion and special interests or "identity politics" rather than the interests of working people.
This widening gulf opened the field to the populist conservatism of the Reagan presidency, uniting working and middle class America and heightening the extent to which the Democratic party became identified with minority interests, big government, welfare, racial quotas and weak foreign policy.
Between 1968 and 1992, the Democrats only held the White House for four years. It is significant that the people who broke that trend in 1976 and 1992 were both Southern governors - Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
Carter came in on the back of Watergate with a powerful centrist message of honesty which scored highly in the wake of the Nixon Watergate scandal.
But he fared poorly in office, consigning the Democrats to 12 more years in the wilderness until the arrival of Bill Clinton in 1993.
The Clinton Years
President Clinton's most significant achievement was in repositioning the Democrats as centrists committed to sound economic management. He presided over the longest economic expansion in US history and in 1996 became the first Democrat since Franklin Roosevelt to win re-election.
But Bill Clinton's ability to enact reform - most notably of healthcare - was hampered in 1994 by a Republican landslide in mid-term elections, ending four decades of Democratic control in Congress. He faced an opposition-controlled Congress for the last six years of his presidency.
With his hands tied domestically, he was free to push an international peace agenda, notably in the Middle East, and more successfully in Northern Ireland.
However President Clinton's impeachment - over a denial under oath that he had had an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky - overshadowed his second term and began a highly partisan era in American politics. Although acquitted by the Senate, he was only the second president to be impeached by the House.
Democrats Demoralised
Vice-President Al Gore tried to exploit Bill Clinton's strong economic legacy while distancing himself from the president's personal shortcomings in his campaign to retain the White House for the Democrats in 2000. Mr Gore adopted a populist stance, appealing to the party's grassroots neglected by President Clinton, but his strategy backfired.
The manner of Al Gore's defeat at the hands of Republican challenger George W Bush was deeply demoralising for the Democrats. Although he won the nationwide popular vote, he lost Florida, the deciding state in the Electoral College, by a margin tiny enough to trigger a recount.
Any hopes of a Democrat revival in 2001, when a Republican defection handed them control of the Senate, were dashed by the terrorist attacks of 11 September, which in effect suspended normal partisan politics for over a year.
Partisan political sniping was seen as unpatriotic and few Democrats dared oppose legislation authorising military action and introducing tough domestic anti-terrorist provisions.
George W Bush's extraordinary popularity following his declaration of a "war on terrorism" inoculated him from the political fallout from scandals the Democrats would normally have expected to exploit, specifically the collapse of energy firm Enron in January 2002.
The president's popularity translated into a Republican victory in the 2002 mid-term elections. While most midterms punish the incumbent, the results saw an unexpectedly large swing towards the Republicans, who increased their majority in the House and regained control of the Senate after portraying the Democrats as soft on national security.
These gains appeared to reinforce long-term political trends favouring Republicans and left the Democrats excluded from both the government and Congressional leadership for the first time since 1954.
22 October 2004
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3341043.stm>
Guide to the U.S. Government [Extract]
Introduction
The US is a federal republic of 50 states. The framers of the Constitution, drafted in 1787, wanted to block any individual or group from gaining too much control, so they established a government of separate institutions that share powers. Authority is divided into three tiers of national, state and local government, with the American people electing officials to serve in each tier. At the national level the government is split into three autonomous branches - legislative, executive and judicial. Each has its own distinct responsibilities, but they can also partially limit the authority of the others through a complex system of checks and balances.
President
In addition to leading the executive branch, the president is the head of state and commander in chief of the military. The president's duties include negotiating international treaties, signing or vetoing bills, appointing members of the Cabinet, judiciary and ambassadors and issuing pardons for federal offences. Thanks to its superpower status the US president is often cited as the most powerful person on Earth. But while the office does have significant authority it is limited by the checks and balances enshrined in the Constitution. However the power of the press and the importance of foreign policy has enormously boosted the authority of the president in recent times.
How the legislature can check the president:
How the judiciary can check the president:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/americas/04/us_election/govt_system/
html/introduction.stm>
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/americas/04/us_election/govt_system/html/
president.stm>
Q&A: How US Results are Called
Election night can baffle the
uninitiated. This guide explains where the results come from, what exit polls
are, and how states are called.
What is the source for the BBC's election results?
The Associated Press are providing the election results published on the BBC News website.
The AP are the sole organisation responsible for providing the results for the major American media networks. The information they provide will form the basis for election results but different broadcasters may decide to interpret partial results in different ways.
In order to help improve the accuracy of calls - or predicted wins - during this election, and to avoid some of the problems apparent in 2000, the AP has said: "For the first time in a presidential race, the AP and its partners will refrain from making a call in any particular state until all the polls have closed" in that state.
How do the results take shape, and what are projected results?
Initially the outcome of the US election is likely to be a projection, based on partial results. This means the result will be labelled as projected until all the votes are counted.
The reason for this is that states are often called, or declared, for a candidate, on the basis of incomplete figures. The American electoral system enables each state to release partial results to the public, well before they have counted every single vote. Results are later confirmed once all the votes have come in.
Typically votes in urban centres are counted first, and then the results from more rural areas come in later. This means that partial results can sometimes favour the Democrats who tend to do better in the cities, while the Republicans tend to catch up later on as their votes are counted in smaller towns and rural communities.
What does "calling" mean?
Calling a state, or calling the whole election, is the process whereby candidates are declared winners by different broadcasters ahead of the final votes being counted.
Decisions on calling are made by individual broadcasters when they believe they have enough information, either from exit polls or from the votes counted so far or both, to be able to make a decision and declare a winner.
Are the calls ever wrong?
Yes. This is most likely to happen if the election is very close. Most memorably the major US networks, including Fox, CNN, NBC, CBS, and ABC called Florida for Al Gore in 2000, only to retract that and then call it for George W Bush, and then to retract that while the result was under dispute.
What is an exit poll?
Exit polls are gathered by speaking to members of the public after they have voted. They are used in two main ways.
They can help predict the outcome of an election before all the votes are counted and they may also include information on demographics. For example, they could show which candidate appealed most to women voters, or who got the most support from the Hispanic community.
This year exit polls are being handled solely by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International.
Is Washington DC a state?
No. DC, or the District of Columbia, is not a state, but it does receive three electoral college votes. DC is able to vote for president but it does not have senators or congressmen of its own.
BBC News,
1 November 2004
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3956161.stm>
Profile: George W. Bush
George W. Bush was re-elected
President of the United States on 2 November 2004.
He won both the popular vote - by 51% to 48% - and was comfortably ahead in the Electoral College.
He therefore laid the ghosts of 2000 to rest when he lost in the popular vote and had to rely on a decision in the Supreme Court to confirm his victory.
He projected himself during the election campaign as the strong leader who could defend the United States in a time of war.
He also appealed to the conservative mood of the American people.
He was successful on both counts.
In his first term, events did not turn out quite as he predicted when he came to office promising to be a "uniter not a divider" and as someone who believed in a "humble" foreign policy.
He had to fight for a second term with his country and the world divided over the war he launched against Saddam Hussein.
Supporters and opponents agree that his finest hour came when he rallied the United States after the attacks of 11 September 2001.
He has struggled to find the same support for the war in Iraq.
Yet he has not wavered in his determination nor in his belief that he was right - despite the fact that no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq.
In winning a second term, he has outshone his father who was defeated by Bill Clinton in his bid for re-election in 1992.
President George Bush Senior was something of a patrician, who followed Rudyard Kipling's advice to treat triumph and disaster as impostors both.
For President George Bush Junior (a description he hates, hence his insistence on using his middle initial W to distinguish him from his father), re-election has not only validated him as a leader, but as a war leader at that.
It has partly made up for the loss his father suffered after his first term. He might even take pride in outshining his parent.
For George W Bush, re-election has also validated the views of middle America.
At a dinner for correspondents in Washington in 2001, he poked fun at himself for mangling the English language, but then paused and said: "But you know, life goes on."
It did not really matter, he was suggesting, to ordinary folk.
"Folk" is a word he likes a lot.
Tough Decisions
Rightly or wrongly, George W Bush has taken big decisions.
In 2001 and 2002, he responded to the crisis of 11 September by declaring a "war on terror", overthrowing the Taleban and developing a doctrine of pre-emptive intervention.
He seemed to come of age as a president when he stood on the rubble of the World Trade Center and declared that "those who did this will soon hear from us".
In 2003, he went a stage further. He invaded Iraq.
Was it a stage too far? It has already proved far more difficult than forecast.
But those voters who have delivered Mr Bush his second term were either persuaded that Iraq is on the path towards representative government, or simply did not feel that the situation there warranted his ejection.
In domestic politics, too, Mr Bush has not shied away from taking hard, some would say harsh, decisions. In 2003, he cut taxes again, despite a rising budget deficit.
He argued that the economy needed a boost and it has got one. But he was accused of robbing the poor to pay the rich.
All this puts him rather far away from the description he once gave of himself, in an interview with the BBC on his governor's campaign bus in Texas over a bowl of fresh popcorn, as someone who unites not divides.
That was how he, as governor, was seen in Texas. The wider world is a different place. In some places he has attracted both love and loathing. In others it is mostly loathing.
George W Bush has brought to his presidency the fervour with which became a born-again Christian during his younger years and the commitment with which he suddenly gave up drinking.
He has something of the convert about him.
And yet, those who have met him often say that he charms them. Certainly, British Prime Minister Tony Blair is one of them.
Tony Blair admired George W Bush for more than a firm handgrip and a look straight in the eye.
He saw in him a soulmate who was ready to change the world. The British prime minister had already demonstrated over Kosovo in 1999 that he was quite prepared to use ground troops.
The then American President, Bill Clinton, was taken aback.
George W Bush was not. He and Tony set out to put the world to rights.
Whether they will be seen as knights in shining armour or as a version of Don Quixote and Sancho Panza is for the cartoonists and the history books.
From Texas to Washington
It took a long time for Mr Bush's character to emerge.
His upbringing in a successful political family opened many doors. He was at private schools and went to Yale University, but he seemed to have no idea where it should lead. Instead, he was a party boy, even, or perhaps especially, at Yale.
During the Vietnam war, he signed up, not for actual combat, as did his erstwhile Democratic opponent John Kerry, but as a part-time pilot in the Texas Air National Guard, which was never sent to the war.
Then he started to get serious. He made money in business, by selling the Texas Rangers, a baseball franchise he had bought cheaply - as part of a group of investors - and developed shrewdly.
He listened to his wife's concerns about his lifestyle and changed it. After an unsuccessful run for the US Congress, he went into state politics.
His opponent for the Texas governorship, the incumbent Ann Richards, made a big mistake. She dismissed him as "Shrub". She lost.
George W Bush has always had one huge advantage. His opponents have often underestimated him.
He has now, in his own words, fought his last race. So he has had the last word.
Paul Reynolds,
World Affairs
Correspondent, BBC News website,
5 November 2004
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3355319.stm>
Profile: John F. Kerry
Senator John F. Kerry failed in his attempt to become the second senator from Massachusetts with the initials JFK to reach the White House.
He fought a generally well-regarded campaign but John Forbes Kerry lacks the charisma of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
He lost both the popular vote - by 51% to 48% - and the Electoral College vote.
Mr Kerry had his strengths. Part of his attraction came from his grave senatorial demeanour.
And he used that with effect to attack President Bush over the war in Iraq.
Senator Kerry came of age as a candidate during the first debate with Mr Bush when he did not appear as the bumbler portrayed by his opponent.
But he had weaknesses. He can suffer from the senatorial sin of waffle.
And he was mercilessly attacked by the Bush campaign for allegedly changing his mind on major issues, including the war in Iraq.
Like the first JFK, John Kerry is generally liberal on domestic issues and more conservative over foreign policy. But he is not entirely predictable on either - like JFK the first, whom incidentally he knew as a young man when he was going out with Jacqueline Kennedy's half-sister.
John Kerry became the candidate because he was seen by Democrats as a credible challenger to President Bush, especially over the issue of Iraq.
Vietnam Veteran
His record as a Vietnam veteran who turned against the war was used in evidence against a president who joined the Texas Air National Guard which did not see active service in Vietnam.
In a campaign in which national security issues, led by those of Iraq and the war on terror, were important, his military record was seen as relevant.
He presented himself as someone who had done his duty, who knows war at first hand and yet who also knows the limitations of war.
This helped to counter the fact that he voted in the Senate in support of the war against Iraq.
In his Vietnam service, John Kerry was captain of a gunboat in the Mekong Delta, personally killing a Viet Cong fighter in one action. He was wounded three times, though not seriously.
The contrast with George W Bush was there without having to be spelled out.
Anti-War Stance
It was his disillusionment with Vietnam which first brought him to public attention as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
That he had an instinct for politics was shown when he asked a congressional committee: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
That he had an instinct for shrewdness was shown when he was with a group of veterans who threw their medals onto the steps of the Capitol.
In fact, Mr Kerry threw someone else's and kept his own.
Inconsistent Voting
His votes on issues of war and peace in the Senate (he was first elected in 1984) have not been consistent.
Although he has been critical of American policy in Iraq, he voted for military action there in 2002.
On the other hand he opposed intervention in Central America and made a name for himself by investigating the US role in supporting the Contra rebels in Nicaragua.
He was also against President Bush Senior's action to remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait in 1991, but he was in favour of military intervention in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Somalia, Haiti and Panama.
Republicans are also pointing out that he opposed spending on numerous military projects, including the Apache attack helicopter.
On social issues, Kerry is generally liberal. He is regarded as "solid" by environmentalists, and is in favour of abortion rights and more action to improve health care. He backs civil unions for gays, but not gay marriages.
Public Prosecutor
But he is no bleeding heart. In fact, as a district attorney, he was a tough public prosecutor and went into state politics (he became lieutenant governor of Massachusetts) on the back of his record.
He used his legal expertise when he wrote a scathing Senate report on the BCCI bank scandal in 1992 which criticised, among many others, the Bank of England.
John Kerry made special mention in his campaign of the power of lobbyists in the Bush administration. "We're coming, you're going and don't let the door hit you on the way out," had been his earlier popular refrain.
But the Washington Post, quoting federal records, pointed out that he himself had raised more money from paid lobbyists than any other senator over the past 15 years. His counter-argument is that this has not stopped him from fighting on behalf of ordinary Americans.
Family History
It might be thought, and he has not discouraged such a thought, that this JFK, a Catholic from Massachusetts like the first, is also Irish by background. Not so.
He is a product of the American melting pot.
His middle name Forbes is his mother's maiden name. The Forbes family in the United States goes back to an Anglican clergyman, the Reverend John Forbes, who, after leaving the University of Aberdeen in 1763 was sent to the American colonies by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts.
His mother's mother came from an even grander family, the Winthrops, one of the founding families of New England. This grandmother bought a house and settled in Brittany, and Mr Kerry has a first cousin who is a local mayor and a former French environment minister. As a boy John Kerry often spent summers there.
He also has Jewish roots, though these were not well known about until quite recently. He himself did not know for a long time that his grandfather was born Fritz Kohn in what is now the Czech Republic.
Kohn emigrated to the United States and changed his name to Kerry in 1907. He was a successful businessman though ended his life by committing suicide in a hotel room.
John Kerry says he remembers his grandmother as a practising Catholic. Although born Jewish, she had later converted.
Wilderness Years
Nor is Mr Kerry a son of the soil or toil. His father was a diplomat and the family was often on the move. John Kerry went to a boarding school in Switzerland, to a top private school in New Hampshire and then to Yale, where he studied political science and joined the secret and elite Skull and Bones club, just as George W Bush did two years later.
He has married twice, both times to rich women. His first wife was a Philadelphia heiress Julia Thorne, who suffered from depression. After their break-up, Mr Kerry went through some wilderness years.
Then in 1995 he married again, this time to Teresa Heinz, who had lost her husband, Senator Richard Heinz, in a plane crash and had inherited his canned food and ketchup fortune.
Teresa Heinz Kerry, originally from a Portuguese family in Mozambique, has always spoken her mind and kept her independence. It was some time before she started using the Kerry name.
Mr Kerry has two daughters from his first marriage and three stepsons from his second.
It is quite convenient, really. Mr Kerry has solid Yankee connections, an interesting immigrant background and a lot of folk in Massachusetts probably think he is Irish anyway.
Not bad for a presidential candidate.
But not quite enough.
Paul
Reynolds,
World Affairs Correspondent, BBC News
website,
5 November 2004
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3003306.stm>
Profile: Ralph Nader
Ralph Nader is the man accused by many Democrats of handing the presidency to George W Bush in November 2000.
Nearly three million Americans - more than 2% of the vote - backed this anti-establishment consumer champion when he stood as the Green Party candidate in the last presidential election.
That election was so close that a small proportion of those votes - particularly in the key state of Florida - would have put Al Gore in the White House.
As a result, many on the left of American politics have never forgiven him and there has been an angry backlash. Thousands of people have cancelled donations to consumer groups Mr Nader founded or supported.
This year, he has failed to win the Green Party's support - and with no political machine backing him, he found it difficult to get on the ballot in every state.
But he has been endorsed by the Reform Party, which was born out of Ross Perot's 1992 independent presidential campaign.
And reports that Mr Nader is getting help from the Republicans to get himself on ballots continue to worry Democrats, who are still pleading with him to stay out of the race - and vigorously fighting to keep him off ballots.
A slick website called Don't Vote Ralph has been set up to encourage left-wing voters to stay away from Mr Nader, arguing his claim that "I'll take more votes from Bush...than from Kerry" is wrong. Mr Nader, it declares, is "directly helping Bush".
But Mr Nader shows no sign of backing down. Not for nothing did one of his friends describe him as one of the most stubborn men in America.
This will be his fourth tilt at the presidency - in 1996 he spent only $5,000 of his own money and won 700,000 votes (less than 1%).
Once again, he has virtually no chance of winning.
New Left-wing Politics
Mr Nader was born in Connecticut in 1934 and was educated at Princeton and Harvard universities.
His website says he "was taught by his parents that social activism was a civic duty".
He has spent most of his life fighting for consumers and workers against corporations.
In the 1960s his work on car safety led directly to seat belts and shatter-resistant glass being fitted in every American car.
From the 1970s he built a reputation for dealing with issues including workers' rights, public safety, the environment and the influence of corporations.
He founded a number of groups including Public Citizen, which in recent years has been active in organising protests against the World Trade Organisation and World Bank/IMF.
The emergence of Mr Nader as a nationally recognised figure in the US is a sign of the growth of a new left-wing politics centred on protest against corporate-led globalisation. It joins together groups like students, environmentalists and some unions.
Whether he will have a significant effect on the November 2004 election will largely depend on the closeness of the vote.
22 October 2004
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/810188.stm>
In Full: Bush's Victory Speech
George W Bush has accepted his victory in the US election with an address to the party faithful, televised across the world.
Here is his speech:
Thank you all. Thank you all for coming. We had a long night, and a great night.
The voters turned out in record numbers and delivered an historic victory.
Earlier today, Senator Kerry called with his congratulations. We had a really good phone call. He was very gracious.
Senator Kerry waged a spirited campaign, and he and his supporters can be proud of their efforts.
Laura and I wish Senator Kerry and Teresa and their whole family all our best wishes. America has spoken, and I'm humbled by the trust and the confidence of my fellow citizens.
With that trust comes a duty to serve all Americans, and I will do my best to fulfil that duty every day as your president.
'Grateful'
There are many people to thank, and my family comes first.
Laura is the love of my life. I'm glad you love her, too. I want to thank our daughters, who joined their dad for his last campaign. I appreciate the hard work of my sister and my brothers. I especially want to thank my parents for their loving support.
I'm grateful to the vice-president and Lynne and their daughters, who have worked so hard and been such a vital part of our team.
The vice-president serves America with wisdom and honour, and I'm proud to serve beside him.
I want to thank my superb campaign team. I want to thank you all for your hard work. I was impressed every day by how hard and how skilful our team was.
I want to thank chairman Mark Racicot and the campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, the architect, Karl Rove.
Prayers and Hugs
I want to thank Ed Gillespie for leading our party so well.
I want to thank the thousands of our supporters across our country.
I want to thank you for your hugs on the rope lines. I want to thank you for your prayers on the rope lines. I want to thank you for your kind words on the rope lines.
I want to thank you for everything you did to make the calls and to put up the signs, to talk to your neighbours, and to get out the vote.
And because you did the incredible work, we are celebrating today.
There's an old saying, "Do not pray for tasks equal to your powers, pray for powers equal to your tasks."
In four historic years, America has been given great tasks and faced them with strength and courage.
'Family and Faith'
Our people have restored the vigour of this economy and shown resolve and patience in a new kind of war.
Our military has brought justice to the enemy and honour to America.
Our nation has defended itself and served the freedom of all mankind. I'm proud to lead such an amazing country, and I am proud to lead it forward.
Because we have done the hard work, we are entering a season of hope. We will continue our economic progress.
We will reform our outdated tax code. We will strengthen the Social Security for the next generation.
'Honour'
We will make public schools all they can be, and we will uphold our deepest values of family and faith.
We will help the emerging democracies of Iraq and Afghanistan so they can grow in strength and defend their freedom, and then our servicemen and women will come home with the honour they have earned.
With good allies at our side, we will fight this war on terror with every resource of our national power so our children can live in freedom and in peace.
Reaching these goals will require the broad support of Americans, so today I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent.
|
|
On the open plains of Texas, I first learned the character of
our country; sturdy and honest, and as hopeful as the break
of day
|
To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust.
A new term is a new opportunity to reach out to the whole nation. We have one country, one constitution, and one future that binds us.
And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America.
Made in Texas
Let me close with a word to the people of the state of Texas. We have known each other the longest, and you started me on this journey.
On the open plains of Texas, I first learned the character of our country; sturdy and honest, and as hopeful as the break of day.
I will always be grateful to the good people of my state. And whatever the road that lies ahead, that road will take me home.
A campaign has ended, and the United States of America goes forward with confidence and faith.
I see a great day coming for our country, and I am eager for the work ahead.
God bless you. And may God bless America.
3 November 2004
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3980659.stm>
In Full: Kerry's Concession Speech
Democratic challenger John Kerry has publicly admitted defeat in the US election, giving President George W Bush a second term in office.
Here is his speech:
Earlier today, I spoke to President Bush, and I offered him and Laura our congratulations on their victory.
We had a good conversation, and we talked about the danger of division in our country and the need, the desperate need for unity, for finding the common ground, coming together.
Today, I hope that we can begin the healing.
In America it is vital that every vote count, and that every vote be counted.
But the outcome should be decided by voters, not a protracted legal process.
I would not give up this fight if there was a chance we would prevail.
But it is now clear that even when all the provisional ballots are counted - which they will be - there won't be enough outstanding votes for us to be able to win Ohio, and therefore we cannot win this election.
'Thank you'
My friends, it was here that we began our campaign for the presidency, and all we had was hope and a vision for a better America.
|
It was a privilege and a
gift to spend two years travelling this country, coming to
know so many of you |
It was a privilege and a gift to spend two years travelling this country, coming to know so many of you.
I wish that I could just wrap you up in my arms and embrace each and every one of you individually all across this nation.
I thank you from the bottom of my heart...
I will always be particularly grateful to the colleague that you just heard from who became my partner, my very close friend, an extraordinary leader, John Edwards.
And I thank him for everything he did... Thank you, John. John and I would be the first to tell you that we owe so much to our families. They're here with us today. They were with us every single step of the way. They sustained us. They went out on their own and they multiplied our campaign all across this country.
No one did this more with grace and with courage and candour that I love than my wife, Teresa, and I thank her. Thank you.
And our children were there every single step of the way. It was unbelievable. Vanessa, Alex, Chris, Andre and John from my family. And Elizabeth Edwards, who is so remarkable and so strong and so smart. And Johnny and Cate, who went out there on her own, just like my daughters did, and also Emma Claire and Jack, who were up beyond their bedtime last night, like a lot of us.
I want to thank my crewmates and my friends from 35 years ago, that great band of brothers who crisscrossed this country on my behalf through 2004. They had the courage to speak the truth back then, and they spoke it again this year, and for that I will forever be grateful.
Child Campaigners
And thanks also, as I look around here, to friends and family of a lifetime, some from college, friends made all across the years, and then all across the miles of this campaign.
You are so special. You brought the gift of your passion for our country and the possibilities of change, and that will stay with us and with this country forever.
|
Thanks
to Democrats and Republicans and Independents who stood with us, and
every-one who voted,
no matter who their candidate was
|
Thanks to Democrats and Republicans and independents who stood with us, and everyone who voted, no matter who their candidate was.
And thanks to my absolutely unbelievable, dedicated staff, led by a wonderful campaign manager, Mary Beth Cahill, who did an extraordinary job.
There's so much written about campaigns and there's so much that Americans never get to see. I wish they could all spend a day on a campaign and see how hard these folks work to make America better. It is its own unbelievable contribution to our democracy, and it's a gift to everybody, but especially to me.
And I'm grateful to each and every one of you, and I thank your families, and I thank you for the sacrifices you've made, and to all the volunteers all across this country who gave so much of themselves.
You know, thanks to William Field - a six-year-old who collected $680, a quarter and a dollar at a time, selling bracelets during the summer, to help change America.
Thanks to Michael Benson from Florida, who I spied in a rope line holding a container of money, and it turned out he had raided his piggy bank and wanted to contribute.
And thanks to Ilana Wexler, 11 years old, who started "Kids for Kerry" all across our country.
'Greatest Privilege'
I think of the brigades of students and people, young and old, who took time to travel, time off from work, their own vacation time, to work in states far and wide.
They braved the hot days of summer and the cold days of the fall and the winter to knock on doors because they were determined to open the doors of opportunity to all Americans.
They worked their hearts out. And I wish you, you don't know how much, that I could have brought this race home for you, for them.
And I say to them now: don't lose faith. What you did made a difference... Building on itself, we go on to make a difference another day. I promise you that time will come.
|
But
in an American election, there are no losers, because whether or not our
candidates are successful, the next
morning, we all wake up as Americans |
The time will come, the election will come when your work and your ballots will change the world. And it's worth fighting for.
I want to especially say to the American people, in this journey you have given me the honour and the gift of listening and learning from you. I have visited your homes, I visited your churches, I visited your community halls. I've heard your stories. I know your struggles. I know your hopes.
They are part of me now. And I will never forget you, and I'll never stop fighting for you.
You may not understand completely in what ways, but it is true when I say to you that you have taught me and you've tested me and you've lifted me up, and you've made me stronger.
I did my best to express my vision and my hopes for America. We worked hard, and we fought hard, and I wish that things had turned out a little differently.
But in an American election, there are no losers, because whether or not our candidates are successful, the next morning, we all wake up as Americans.
And that is the greatest privilege and the most remarkable good fortune that can come to us on Earth.
'Bridge the Divide'
With that gift also comes obligation.
We are required now to work together for the good of our country.
In the days ahead, we must find common cause, we must join in common effort, without remorse or recrimination, without anger or rancour.
America is in need of unity and longing for a larger measure of compassion.
I hope President Bush will advance those values in the coming years.
I pledge to do my part to try to bridge the partisan divide.
I know this is a difficult time for my supporters, but I ask them, all of you, to join me in doing that.
Now more than ever, with our soldiers in harm's way, we must stand together and succeed in Iraq and win the war on terror.
'Our fight Goes on'
I will also do everything in my power to ensure that my party, a proud Democratic Party, stands true to our best hopes and ideals.
I believe that what we started in this campaign will not end here, and I know.
Our fight goes on to put America back to work and to make our economy a great engine of job growth.
|
|
We
stood for real change, change that would make a real difference in the
life of our nation and the lives of our families, and we defined that
choice to
America
|
Our fight goes on to make affordable health care a accessible right for all Americans, not a privilege.
Our fight goes on to protect the environment, to achieve equality, to push the frontiers of science and discovery, and to restore America's reputation in the world.
I believe that all of this will happen, and sooner than we may think because we're America and America always moves forward.
I've been honoured to represent the citizens of this commonwealth in the United States Senate now for 20 years, and I pledge to them that in the years ahead I'm going to fight on for the people and for the principles that I've learned and lived with here in Massachusetts.
I'm proud of what we stood for in this campaign and of what we accomplished.
When we began, no one thought it was possible to even make this a close race.
But we stood for real change, change that would make a real difference in the life of our nation and the lives of our families, and we defined that choice to America.
I'll never forget the wonderful people who came to our rallies, who stood in our rope lines, who put their hopes in our hands, who invested in each and every one of us.
I saw in them the truth that America is not only great, but it is good.
So with a grateful heart, I leave this campaign with a prayer that has even greater meaning to me now that I have come to know our vast country so much better, thanks to all of you, and what a privilege it has been to do so, and that prayer is very simple: God bless America. Thank you.
3 November 2004
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3980533.stm>
Bush Wins Second Term
Kerry Concedes Defeat; Both Speak of Need for Unity
An elated President Bush claimed a re election victory yesterday after a
tumultuous night of vote counting and a gracious concession by challenger John
F. Kerry, and he pledged that he would seek to earn the trust of those who did
not back him during the long, contentious campaign.
In an explicit appeal to those Americans who voted for Kerry, Bush said: "To
make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support, and I will
work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust. A new term is a
new opportunity to reach out to the whole nation."
Bush spoke to jubilant supporters at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington,
where he had planned to go for a pre-dawn victory speech after he had won
Florida's 27 electoral votes and appeared to have locked up Ohio's 20 votes.
He postponed that event when Kerry declined to concede the election overnight
and signaled a possible fight over the vote totals in Ohio.
But an hour before Bush's appearance, an emotional Kerry took the stage at
Boston's historic Faneuil Hall to offer Bush his congratulations and a formal
concession. The Massachusetts senator had called Bush earlier to convey the
same message privately. Kerry snuffed out the hopes of many Democrats who were
eager to keep the fight for the White House alive by declaring, "We cannot win
this election."
Bush will begin his second term with strengthened majorities in the House and
Senate. With GOP candidates picking off a string of Democratic open seats,
Republicans expanded their Senate caucus from 51 to 55 members -- a
significant gain but still not a filibuster-proof margin. Senate Minority
Leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) lost his reelection bid to former congressman
John Thune (R). In the House, the GOP added three seats and could emerge with
a 29-seat majority once all the races are concluded.
With the second term that eluded his father secured, Bush pivoted to the task
of trying to heal a nation that appeared on Tuesday as culturally and
geographically divided as the country that produced the disputed presidential
election in 2000. Vice President Cheney said that Bush had run on a clear
agenda and that "the nation resounded by giving him a mandate."
Bush's speech offered an olive branch to the opposition, but he provided no
hint of policy concessions to the Democrats. He outlined a domestic agenda
that included broad tax reform and a proposal to allow younger workers to
establish personal accounts with some of their Social Security payroll taxes.
Many Democrats oppose his Social Security plans, and he may face partisan
opposition on tax reform.
The president also vowed to continue to put the fight against terrorism at the
forefront of his agenda, saying, "With good allies at our side, we will fight
this war on terror with every resource of our national power so our children
can live in freedom and in peace."
His stance on terrorism proved to be a significant political asset on Tuesday,
but Bush faces enormous problems in trying to stabilize Iraq and pull off
elections there scheduled for early next year. In his speech, the president
did not mention the frayed international relationships that also will occupy
him now that the election is over.
Bush claimed 51 percent of the popular vote to Kerry's 48 percent, with a
margin of about 3.5 million votes, removing the label of minority president
that he had carried since 2000. Four years ago, Bush lost the popular vote to
Vice President Al Gore, but on Tuesday he became the first president since his
father in 1988 to be elected with a majority of all votes cast. Independent
Ralph Nader proved to be a non-factor, winning less than 1 percent.
With Ohio in his column, Bush won 30 states and 279 electoral votes. Kerry won
19 states and the District for 252 electoral votes. Iowa and its seven
electoral votes remain in doubt. Bush was leading there with 100 percent of
precincts reporting, and while counties were still tabulating absentee and
provisional ballots, officials in the state said they did not expect a change
in the lead.
Two states -- New Hampshire, which went for Kerry, and New Mexico, which went
for Bush -- switched sides from 2000, despite efforts by both sides to take
the campaigns into each other's territory.
Nearly 120 million Americans voted, or about 60 percent of those eligible, the
highest number since 1968, according to the Associated Press. Many strategists
believed an increase of that magnitude would favor Kerry, but the Bush
campaign proved more than equal to the task of getting supporters to vote.
The swift and courteous end to the campaign came in marked contrast to the
emotional roller coaster that played out overnight and that provided eerie
similarities to the triggering events that produced the 36-day recount in
Florida four years ago.
The battle for Ohio turned out to be short and conclusive. By the time more
than 90 percent of the precincts there had reported, Bush strategists were
certain there was no way for Kerry to win the state, and they chafed that the
challenger would not concede.
Kerry aides originally believed there might be enough provisional ballots --
those cast by voters whose eligibility was in doubt -- to win Ohio. At that
point, Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), made a speech at
Boston's Copley Plaza in which he vowed that "every vote would be counted," a
thinly veiled warning that the Democrats were prepared to begin legal action
to contest the state. At the time, Kerry aides said, there was pandemonium
inside the campaign.
Overnight, the Kerry campaign's senior staff, in a series of calls with the
boiler-room leadership in Washington and political and legal advisers in Ohio,
analyzed the situation. They concluded that the estimated 150,000 provisional
ballots were not enough to overcome Bush's margin of 136,000 votes in Ohio,
even if Kerry were to win the lion's share of them.
Some lawyers argued that Kerry had a good legal argument to make and said that
if the campaign was serious about a possible challenge, it needed to move
immediately to force the state's counties to adopt uniform rules for counting
the provisional ballots. Eventually, senior adviser Tad Devine said, the Kerry
high command presented the candidate with a unanimous recommendation not to
fight the count. "It's fair to say the unanimous recommendation was that this
would not succeed," he said.
Kerry further discussed the situation with Edwards, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy
(D-Mass.) and campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill, eventually agreeing that it
was time to concede. At 11 a.m. yesterday, Kerry called Bush in the Oval
Office to concede the election and pledge to bridge the nation's divisions.
Three hours later, accompanied by his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, he left his
home in Boston's Beacon Hill area for the short drive to Faneuil Hall.
There, he found a hall packed with campaign staff members and supporters, many
of them trying to hold back tears over a loss that they never dreamed possible
as they heard results of the first wave of exit polls Tuesday afternoon.
Kerry wasted no time in ending any talk of contesting the election. "In
America, it is vital that every vote count and that every vote be counted," he
said, in a nod to the exhortation that Edwards had invoked almost 12 hours
earlier and that the two had used to rouse the Democratic base throughout the
campaign. "But the outcome should be decided by voters, not a protracted legal
process."
Kerry choked back tears and his voice broke as he recalled the experiences of
his two-year campaign and talked about the need for unity in the election's
aftermath, citing his conversation with the president. "We talked about the
danger of division in our country and the need, the desperate need, for unity
and for finding the common ground, coming together," he said.
Kerry advisers fully expected to win the election, based on their final polls,
their analysis of Bush's weaknesses, their belief that the country hungered
for change and their confidence that they would do a better job than the
Republicans of getting their supporters to vote. Instead, they were swamped by
a huge outpouring of votes in Republican-leaning areas of battleground states,
particularly rural and small-town counties in Florida and the Midwest.
"We had [vote] goals that we set out that we thought were very realistic, that
we thought could achieve victory," Devine said. "But a lot of people in rural
areas participated in this process at levels that we have not seen before."
Another Kerry strategist said the campaign may have miscalculated the power of
incumbency, especially during a time of heightened concern about terrorism.
"It's easy to underestimate the reluctance in general that the American public
would have in throwing out an incumbent president," the strategist said. "It's
even more of a challenge when the country's perceived to be in some level of a
war. That was an overriding backdrop that some of us tended to underestimate."
The Kerry camp also may have misjudged the power of Bush's appeal to social
and cultural conservatives, even though White House senior adviser Karl Rove
had explicitly set about to expand turnout among Christian conservatives.
Led by Rove, campaign manager Ken Mehlman, chief strategist Matthew Dowd and
others, Bush's reelection team ran a disciplined operation that rarely
deviated from the plan that was set from the start. Bush paid tribute to his
team in his remarks yesterday, describing Rove, who has been at his side as he
ascended through the Texas governorship to the presidency and now to a second
term, as "the chief architect."
Bush's advisers, often second-guessed over their strategic decisions, took
satisfaction not only from the victory but from the size of Bush's margin,
which they said would end questions of legitimacy that had dogged him after
2000. Dowd, in a final strategy memo before returning to Texas, said the
president had won more votes -- more than 59 million -- than any other
candidate in history and that the campaign had succeeded in changing the shape
of the electorate, raising Republicans to parity with Democrats.
"The other side did a very good job identifying their voters and getting them
out to vote," Devine said. "It's just that simple."
Research editor Lucy Shackelford and political researcher Brian Faler
contributed to this report.
Dan Balz, Washington Post Staff Writer, Page A01, 4 November 2004
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19510-2004Nov2.html?referrer=email>
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19510-2004Nov2_2.html
Press Conference of the President
Press Conference of the President
Room 450
Eisenhower Executive Office Building
11:17 A.M. EST
The President: Thank you all. Please be seated. Yesterday I pledged to reach out to the whole nation, and today I'm proving that I'm willing to reach out to everybody by including the White House press corps.
This week the voters of America set the direction of our nation for the next four years. I'm honored by the support of my fellow citizens, and I'm ready for the job.
We are fighting a continuing war on terror, and every American has a stake in the outcome of this war. Republicans, Democrats and independents all love our country, and together we'll protect the American people. We will preserve -- we will persevere until the enemy is defeated. We will stay strong and resolute. We have a duty, a solemn duty to protect the American people, and we will.
Every civilized country also has a stake in the outcome of this war. Whatever our past disagreements, we share a common enemy. And we have common duties: to protect our peoples, to confront disease and hunger and poverty in troubled regions of the world. I'll continue to reach out to our friends and allies, our partners in the EU and NATO, to promote development and progress, to defeat the terrorists and to encourage freedom and democracy as alternatives to tyranny and terror.
I also look forward to working with the present Congress and the new Congress that will arrive in January. I congratulate the men and women who have just been elected to the House and the Senate. I will join with old friends and new friends to make progress for all Americans.
Congress will return later this month to finish this current session. I urge members to pass the appropriations bill that remain, showing spending discipline while focusing on our nation's priorities. Our government also needs the very best intelligence, especially in a time of war. So I urge the Congress to pass an effective intelligence reform bill that I can sign into law.
The new Congress that begins its work next year will have serious responsibilities and historic opportunities. To accelerate the momentum of this economy and to keep creating jobs, we must take practical measures to help our job creators, the entrepreneurs and the small business owners. We must confront the frivolous lawsuits that are driving up the cost of health care and hurting doctors and patients. We must continue the work of education reform, to bring high standards and accountability not just to our elementary and secondary schools, but to our high schools, as well.
We must reform our complicated and outdated tax code. We need to get rid of the needless paperwork that makes our economy -- that is a drag on our economy, to make sure our economy is the most competitive in the world.
We must show our leadership by strengthening Social Security for our children and our grandchildren. This is more than a problem to be solved; it is an opportunity to help millions of our fellow citizens find security and independence that comes from owning something, from ownership.
In the election of 2004, large issues were set before our country. They were discussed every day on the campaign. With the campaign over, Americans are expecting a bipartisan effort and results. I'll reach out to everyone who shares our goals. And I'm eager to start the work ahead. I'm looking forward to serving this country for four more years.
I want to thank you all for your hard work in the campaign. I told you that the other day, and you probably thought I was just seeking votes. (Laughter.) But now that you voted, I really meant it. I appreciate the hard work of the press corps. We all put in long hours, and you're away from your families for a long period of time. But the country is better off when we have a vigorous and free press covering our elections. And thanks for your work. Without over-pandering, I'll answer a few questions. (Laughter.)
Hunt.
Question: Mr. President -- thank you. As you look at your second term, how much is the war in Iraq going to cost? Do you intend to send more troops, or bring troops home? And in the Middle East, more broadly, do you agree with Tony Blair that revitalizing the Middle East peace process is the single most pressing political issue facing the world?
The President: Now that I've got the will of the people at my back, I'm going to start enforcing the one-question rule. That was three questions. (Laughter.)
I'll start with Tony Blair's comments. I agree with him that the Middle East peace is a very important part of a peaceful world. I have been working on Middle Eastern peace ever since I've been the President. I've laid down some -- a very hopeful strategy on -- in June of 2002, and my hope is that we will make good progress. I think it's very important for our friends, the Israelis, to have a peaceful Palestinian state living on their border. And it's very important for the Palestinian people to have a peaceful, hopeful future. That's why I articulated a two-state vision in that Rose Garden speech. I meant it when I said it and I mean it now.
What was the other part of your question?
Q: Iraq.
The President: Oh, Iraq, yes. Listen, we will work with the Allawi government to achieve our objective, which is elections, on the path to stability, and we'll continue to train the troops. Our commanders will have that which they need to complete their missions.
And in terms of the cost, I -- we'll work with OMB and the Defense Department to bring forth to Congress a realistic assessment of what the cost will be.
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. How will you go about bringing people together? Will you seek a consensus candidate for the Supreme Court if there's an opening? Will you bring some Democrats into your Cabinet?
The President: Again, he violated the one-question rule right off the bat. Obviously, you didn't listen to the will of the people. But, first of all, there's no vacancy for the Supreme Court, and I will deal with a vacancy when there is one. And I told the people on the campaign trail that I'll pick somebody who knows the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law. You might have heard that several times. I meant what I said. And if people are interested in knowing the kind of judges I'll pick, look at the record. I've sent up a lot of judges, well-qualified people who know the law, who represent a judicial temperament that I agree with and who are qualified to hold the bench.
The second part of your two-part question?
Q: Any Democrats to your Cabinet, by any chance?
The President: I haven't made any decisions on the Cabinet, yet.
Q: How else will you bring people together?
The President: We'll put out an agenda that everybody understands and work with people to achieve the agenda. Democrats want a free and peaceful world, and we'll -- and right away, right after September the 11th we worked very closely together to secure our country. There is a common ground to be had when it comes to a foreign policy that says the most important objective is to protect the American people and spread freedom and democracy. It's common ground when it comes to making sure the intelligence services are able to provide good, actionable intelligence to protect our people. It's not a Republican issue, it's a Republican and Democrat issue. So I'm -- plenty of places for us to work together.
All right, Gregory.
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. On foreign policy, more broadly, do you believe that America has an image problem in the world right now, because of your efforts and response to the 9/11 attacks? And, as you talked down the stretch about building alliances, talk about what you'll do to build on those alliances and to deal with these image problems, particularly in the Islamic world.
The President: I appreciate that. Listen, I've made some very hard decisions: decisions to protect ourselves, decisions to spread peace and freedom. And I understand in certain capitals and certain countries, those decisions were not popular.
You know, you said -- you asked me to put that in the context of the response on September the 11th. The first response, of course, was chasing down the terror networks, which we will continue to do. And we've got great response around the world in order to do that. There's over 90 nations involved with sharing information, finding terrorists and bringing them to justice. That is a broad coalition, and we'll continue to strengthen it.
I laid out a doctrine, David, that said if you harbor terrorists, you're equally as guilty as the terrorists, and that doctrine was ignored by the Taliban, and we removed the Taliban. And I fully understand some people didn't agree with that decision. But I believe that when the American President speaks, he'd better mean what he says in order to keep the world peaceful. And I believe we have a solemn duty, whether or not people agree with it or not, to protect the American people. And the Taliban and their harboring of al Qaeda represented a direct threat to the American people.
And, of course, then the Iraq issue is one that people disagreed with. And there's no need to rehash my case, but I did so, I made the decision I made, in order to protect our country, first and foremost. I will continue to do that as the President. But as I do so, I will reach out to others and explain why I make the decisions I make.
There is a certain attitude in the world, by some, that says that it's a waste of time to try to promote free societies in parts of the world. I've heard that criticism. Remember, I went to London to talk about our vision of spreading freedom throughout the greater Middle East. And I fully understand that that might rankle some, and be viewed by some as folly. I just strongly disagree with those who do not see the wisdom of trying to promote free societies around the world.
If we are interested in protecting our country for the long-term, the best way to do so is to promote freedom and democracy. And I -- I simply do not agree with those who either say overtly or believe that certain societies cannot be free. It's just not a part of my thinking. And that's why during the course of the campaign, I was -- I believe I was able to connect, at least with those who were there, in explaining my policy, when I talked about the free election in Afghanistan.
There were -- there was doubt about whether or not those elections would go forward. I'm not suggesting any of you here expressed skepticism. But there was. There was deep skepticism, and -- because there is a attitude among some that certain people may never be free -- they just don't long to be free or incapable of running an election. And I disagree with that. And the Afghan people, by going to the polls in the millions, proved -- proved that this administration's faith in freedom to change peoples' habits is worthy. And that will be a central part of my foreign policy. And I've got work to do to explain to people about why that is a central part of our foreign policy. I've been doing that for four years.
But if you do not believe people can be free and can self-govern, then all of a sudden the two-state solution in the Middle East becomes a moot point, invalid. If you're willing to condemn a group of people to a system of government that hasn't worked, then you'll never be able to achieve the peace. You cannot lead this world and our country to a better tomorrow unless you see a better -- if you have a vision of a better tomorrow. And I've got one, based upon a great faith that people do want to be free and live in democracy.
John, and then I'll get to Terry. No follow-ups today, Gregory.
Q: Thank you, sir.
The President: I can see one -- yes.
Q: Would you like it? Now that the political volatility is off the issue because the election is over, I'd like to ask you about troop levels in Iraq in the next couple of months leading up to elections. The Pentagon already has a plan to extend tours of duty for some 6,500 U.S. troops. How many more will be needed to provide security in Iraq for elections, seeing as how the Iraqi troops that you're trying to train up are pretty slow coming on line?
The President: Yes, first of all, the -- we are making good progress in training the Iraqi troops. There will be 125,000 of them trained by election time. Secondly, I have yet to -- I have not sat down with our Secretary of Defense talking about troop levels. I read some reports during the course of the campaign where some were speculating in the press corps about the number of troops needed to protect elections. That has not been brought to my attention yet.
And so I would caution you that what you have either read about or reported was pure speculation thus far. These elections are important, and we will respond, John, to requests of our commanders on the ground. And I have yet to hear from our commanders on the ground that they need more troops.
Terry.
Q: Mr. President, your victory at the polls came about in part because of strong support from people of faith, in particular, Christian evangelicals and Pentecostals and others. And Senator Kerry drew some of his strongest support from those who do not attend religious services. What do you make of this religious divide, it seems, becoming a political divide in this country? And what do you say to those who are concerned about the role of a faith they do not share in public life and in your policies?
The President: Yes, my answer to people is, I will be your President regardless of your faith, and I don't expect you to agree with me necessarily on religion. As a matter of fact, no President should ever try to impose religion on our society.
A great -- the great tradition of America is one where people can worship the way they want to worship. And if they choose not to worship, they're just as patriotic as your neighbor. That is an essential part of why we are a great nation. And I am glad people of faith voted in this election. I'm glad -- I appreciate all people who voted. I don't think you ought to read anything into the politics, the moment, about whether or not this nation will become a divided nation over religion. I think the great thing that unites is the fact you can worship freely if you choose, and if you -- you don't have to worship. And if you're a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim, you're equally American. That is -- that is such a wonderful aspect of our society; and it is strong today and it will be strong tomorrow.
Jim.
Q: Thank you, sir. Mr. President, you talked once again this morning about private accounts in Social Security. During the campaign you were accused of planning to privatize the entire system. It has been something you've discussed for some time. You've lost some of the key Democratic proponents, such as Pat Moynihan and Bob Kerrey in the Congress. How will you proceed now with one of the key problems, which is the transition cost -- which some say is as much as $2 trillion -- how will you proceed on that? And how soon?
The President: Well, first, I made Social Security an issue -- for those of you who had to suffer through my speeches on a daily basis; for those of you who actually listened to my speeches on a daily basis -- you might remember, every speech I talked about the duty of an American President to lead. And we have -- we must lead on Social Security because the system is not going to be whole for our children and our grandchildren.
And so the answer to your second question is, we'll start on Social Security now. We'll start bringing together those in Congress who agree with my assessment that we need to work together. We've got a good blueprint, a good go-by. You mentioned Senator Moynihan. I had asked him prior to his -- to his passing, to chair a committee of notable Americans to come up with some ideas on Social Security. And they did so. And it's a good place for members of Congress to start.
The President must have the will to take on the issue -- not only in the campaign, but now that I'm elected. And this will -- reforming Social Security will be a priority of my administration. Obviously, if it were easy it would have already been done. And this is going to be hard work to bring people together and to make -- to convince the Congress to move forward. And there are going to be costs. But the cost of doing nothing is insignificant to -- is much greater than the cost of reforming the system today. That was the case I made on the campaign trail, and I was earnest about getting something done. And as a matter of fact, I talked to members of my staff today, as we're beginning to plan to -- the strategy to move agendas forward about how to do this and do it effectively.
Q: If I could, Mr. President --
The President: Yes -- no, no, you're violating the follow-up rule. It would hurt Gregory's feelings. King.
It's a new --
Q: Mr. President, thank you.
Q: That's always one of my concerns.
The President: Hurting Gregory's feelings? He is a sensitive guy. Well centered, though. (Laughter.)
Q: I'm not going there. Mr. President, you were disappointed, even angry 12 years ago when the voters denied your father a second term. I'm interested in your thoughts and the conversation with him yesterday as you were walking to the Oval Office, and also whether you feel more free to do any one thing in a second term that perhaps you were politically constrained from doing in a first.
The President: At 3:30 a.m. in the morning on, I guess, it was the day after the election, he was sitting upstairs, and I finally said, go to bed. He was awaiting the outcome and was hopeful that we would go over and be able to talk to our supporters, and it just didn't happen that way.
So I asked him the next morning when he got up, I said, come by the Oval Office and visit. And he came by and we had a good talk. He was heading down to Houston. And it was -- there was some uncertainty about that morning as to when the election would actually end. And it wasn't clear at that point in time, so I never got to see him face-to-face to watch his, I guess, pride in his tired eyes as his son got a second term.
I did talk to him and he was relieved. I told him to get a nap. I was worried about him staying up too late.
But -- so I haven't had a chance to really visit and embrace. And you're right, '92 was a disappointment. But he taught me a really good lesson, that life moves on. And it's very important for those of us in the political arena, win or lose, to recognize that life is bigger than just politics, and that's one of the really good lessons he taught me.
Q: Do you feel more free, sir?
The President: Oh, in terms of feeling free, well, I don't think you'll let me be too free. There's accountability and there are constraints on the presidency, as there should be in any system. I feel -- I feel it is necessary to move an agenda that I told the American people I would move. Something refreshing about coming off an election, even more refreshing since we all got some sleep last night, but there's -- you go out and you make your case, and you tell the people this is what I intend to do. And after hundreds of speeches and three debates and interviews and the whole process, where you keep basically saying the same thing over and over again, that when you win, there is a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view, and that's what I intend to tell the Congress, that I made it clear what I intend to do as the President, now let's work to -- and the people made it clear what they wanted, now let's work together.
And it's one of the wonderful -- it's like earning capital. You asked, do I feel free. Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That's what happened in the -- after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I've earned capital in this election -- and I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on, which is -- you've heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror.
We have an obligation in this country to continue to work with nations to help alleve poverty and disease. We will continue to press forward on the HIV/AIDS initiative, the Millennium Challenge Account. We will continue to do our duty to help feed the hungry. And I'm looking forward to it, I really am.
It's been a -- it's been a fantastic experience campaigning the country. You've seen it from one -- perspective, I've seen it from another. I saw you standing there at the last, final rally in Texas, to my right over there. I was observing you observe, and you saw the energy. And there was just something uplifting about people showing up at 11:00 p.m. at night, expressing their support and their prayers and their friendship. It's a marvelous experience to campaign across the country.
Mike.
Q: Mr. President -- thank you, Mr. President. Do you plan to reshape your Cabinet for the second term, or will any changes come at the instigation of individuals? And as part of the same question, may I ask you what you've learned about Cabinet government, what works, what doesn't work? And do you mind also addressing the same question about the White House staff? (Laughter.)
The President: The post-election euphoria did not last very long here at the press conference. (Laughter.)
Let me talk about the people that have worked with me. I had a Cabinet meeting today and I thanked them for their service to the country and reminded them we've got a job to do and I expected them to do the job.
I have made no decisions on my Cabinet and/or White House staff. I am mindful that working in the White House is really -- is exhausting work. The people who you try to get to leak to you spend hours away from their families, and it is -- the word "burnout" is oftentimes used in the -- in Washington, and it's used for a reason, because people do burn out.
And so obviously, in terms of those who are -- who want to stay on and who I want to stay on, I've got to make sure that it's right for their families and that they're comfortable, because when they come to work here in the White House, I expect them to work as hard as they possibly can on behalf of the American people.
In the Cabinet, there will be some changes. I don't know who they will be. It's inevitable there will be changes. It happens in every administration. To a person, I am proud of the work they have done. And I fully understand we're about to head into the period of intense speculation as to who's going to stay and who's not going to stay, and I assured them that -- today I warned them of the speculative period. I said, it's a great Washington sport to be talking about who's going to leave and who their replacements may be, and handicapping, you know, my way of thinking.
I'll just give you -- but let me just help you out with the speculation right now. I haven't thought about it. I'm going to start thinking about it. I'm going to Camp David this afternoon with Laura, and I'll begin the process of thinking about the Cabinet and the White House staff. And we'll let you know at the appropriate time when decisions have been made. And so, nice try, Mike.
Yes, Ed, and then --
Q: What you learned --
The President: Learned and not learned about the Cabinet?
Q: What works, what doesn't.
The President: Yes, well, first I've learned that I put together a really good Cabinet. I'm very proud of the people that have served this government, and they -- to a man and a woman, worked their hearts out for the American people. And I've learned that you've got to continue to surround yourself with good people. This is a job that requires crisp decision-making, and therefore, in order for me to make decisions, I've got to have people who bring their point of view into the Oval Office and are willing to say it.
I always jest to people, the Oval Office is the kind of place where people stand outside, they're getting ready to come in and tell me what for, and they walk in and get overwhelmed in the atmosphere, and they say, man, you're looking pretty. And therefore, you need people to walk in on those days when you're not looking so good and saying, you're not looking so good, Mr. President. And I've got -- those are the kind of people that served our country.
We've had vigorous debates, which you all, during the last four years, took great delight in reporting, differences of opinion. But that's what you want if you're the Commander-in-Chief and a decision-maker. You want people to walk in and say, I don't agree with this, or I do agree with that, and here's what my recommendation is. But the President also has to learn to decide. You take, you know -- there's ample time for the debate to take place, and then decide and make up your mind and lead. That's what the job's all about.
And so I have learned how important it is to be -- to have a really fine group of people that think through issues, and that are not intimidated by the process, and who walk in and tell me what's on their mind.
Ed, and then Stevens.
Q: Good morning. Sir, does it bother you that there's a perception out there that your administration has been one that favors big business and the wealthy individuals? And what can you do to overcome that, sir?
The President: Ed, 70 percent of the new jobs in America are created by small businesses. I understand that. And I have promoted during the course of the last four years one of the most aggressive, pro-entrepreneur, small business policies. Tax relief -- you might remember -- I don't know if you know this or not, but 90 percent of the businesses are sole proprietorships or subchapter-S corporations. (Laughter.)
Q: We've heard it.
The President: Tax relief helped them. This is an administration that fully understands that the job creators are the entrepreneurs. And so in a new term, we will make sure the tax relief continues to be robust for our small businesses. We'll push legal reform and regulatory reform because I understand the engine of growth is through the small business sector.
Stevenson.
Q: Sir, given your commitment to reaching out across party lines and to all Americans, I wonder if you could expand on your definition of bipartisanship, and whether it means simply picking off a few Democrats on a case-by-case basis to pass the bills you want to pass, or whether you would commit to working regularly with the Democratic leadership on solutions that can win broad support across party lines?
The President: Do you remember the No Child Left Behind Act? I think there the model I'd look at if I were you. It is a -- I laid out an agenda for reforming our public schools. I worked with both Republicans and Democrats to get that bill passed. In a new term, we'll continue to make sure we do not weaken the accountability standards that are making a huge difference in people's lives, in these kids' lives.
But that's the model I'd look at, if I were you. And we'll -- there's a certain practicality to life here in Washington. And that is, when you get a bill moving it is important to get the votes, and if politics starts to get in the way of getting good legislation through, you know, that's just part of life here. But I'm also focused on results. I think of the Medicare bill -- you might remember that old, stale debate. We finally got a bill moving. I was hoping that we'd get strong bipartisan support -- unfortunately, it was an election year. But we got the votes necessary to get the bill passed. And so we will -- I will -- my goal is to work on the ideal and to reach out and to continue to work and find common ground on issues.
On the other hand, I've been wizened to the ways of Washington. I watched what can happen during certain parts of the cycle, where politics gets in the way of good policy. And at that point in time, I'll continue to -- you know, I'll try to get this done, I'll try to get our bills passed in a way, because results really do matter, as far as I'm concerned. I really didn't come here to hold the office just to say, gosh, it was fun to serve. I came here to get some things done, and we are doing it.
Yes, Big Stretch.
Q: Thank you, Mr. President. I know you haven't had a chance to learn this, but it appears that Yasser Arafat has passed away.
The President: Really?
Q: And I was just wondering if I could get your initial reaction? And also your thoughts on, perhaps, working with a new generation of Palestinian leadership?
The President: I appreciate that. My first reaction is, God bless his soul. And my second reaction is, is that we will continue to work for a free Palestinian state that's at peace with Israel.
Yes.
Q: Mr. President, as you look at your second term domestic priorities, I wonder if you could talk a little bit about how you see the sequence of action on issues beyond Social Security -- tax reform, education. And if you could expand a little bit for us on the principles that you want to underpin your tax reform proposal -- do you want it to be revenue neutral? What kinds of things do you want to accomplish through that process?
The President: I appreciate that. I was anticipating this question; that, what is the first thing you're going to do? When it comes it legislation, it just doesn't work that way, particularly when you've laid out a comprehensive agenda. And part of that comprehensive agenda is tax simplification.
The -- first of all, a principle would be revenue neutral. If I'm going to -- if there was a need to raise taxes, I'd say, let's have a tax bill that raises taxes, as opposed to let's simply the tax code and sneak a tax increase on the people. It's just not my style. I don't believe we need to raise taxes. I've said that to the American people. And so the simplification would be the goal.
Now, secondly, that obviously, that it rewards risk and doesn't -- it doesn't have unnecessary penalties in it. But the main thing is that it would be viewed as fair, that it would be a fair system, that it wouldn't be complicated, that there's a -- kind of that loopholes wouldn't be there for special interests, that the code itself be viewed and deemed as a very fair way to encourage people to invest and save and achieve certain fiscal objectives in our country, as well.
One of the interesting debates will be, of course, in the course of simplification, will there be incentives in the code: charitable giving, of course, and mortgage deductions are very important. As governor of Texas, when I -- some time I think I was asked about simplification, I always noted how important it was for certain incentives to be built into the tax code, and that will be an interesting part of the debate.
Certain issues come quicker than others in the course of a legislative session, and that depends upon whether or not those issues have been debated. I think of, for example, the legal issue -- the legal reform issues, they have been -- medical liability reform had been debated and got thwarted a couple of times in one body in particular on Capitol Hill. And so the groundwork has been laid for some legislation that I've been talking about. On an issue like tax reform it's going to -- tax simplification, it's going to take a lot of legwork to get something ready for a legislative package. I fully understand that. And Social Security reform will require some additional legwork, although the Moynihan Commission has laid the groundwork for what I think is a very good place to start the debate.
The education issue is one that could move pretty quickly because there has been a lot of discussion about education. It's an issue that the members are used to debating and discussing. And so I think -- all issues are important. And the timing of issues as they reach it through committee and floor really depend upon whether or not some work has already been on those issues.
A couple more questions. Bob.
Q: Mr. President, American forces are gearing up for what appears to be a major offensive in Fallujah over the next several days. I'm wondering if you could tell us what the objective is, what the stakes are there for the United States, for the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi elections coming up in January?
The President: In order for Iraq to be a free country those who are trying to stop the elections and stop a free society from emerging must be defeated.
And so Prime Minister Allawi and his government, which fully understands that, are working with our generals on the ground to do just that. We will work closely with the government. It's their government, it's their country. We're there at their invitation. And -- but I think there's a recognition that some of these people have to -- must be defeated, and so that's what they're thinking about. That's what you're -- that's why you're hearing discussions about potential action in Fallujah.
Heidi.
Q: Thank you, sir. Many within your own party are unhappy over the deficit, and they say keeping down discretional spending alone won't help you reach the goal of halving the deficit in five years. What else do you plan to do to cut costs?
The President: Well, I -- I would suggest they look at our budget that we've submitted to Congress, which does, in fact, get the deficit down -- cut in half in five years, and is a specific line-by-line budget that we are required to submit and have done so.
The key to making sure that the deficit is reduced is for there to be, on the one hand, spending discipline, and I -- as you noticed in my opening remarks, I talked about these appropriations bills that are beginning to move, and I thought I was pretty clear about the need for those bills to be -- to be fiscally responsible, and I meant it. And I look forward to talking to the leadership about making sure that the budget agreements we had are still the budget agreements, that just because we had an election, that they shouldn't feel comfortable changing our agreement. And I think they understand that.
And secondly, the other way to make sure that the deficit is -- decreases, is to grow the economy. As the economy grows, there will be more revenues coming into the Treasury. That's what you have seen recently. If you notice, there's been some write-downs of the budget deficit. In other words, the deficit is less than we thought because the revenues is exceeding projections. And the reason why the revenues -- the revenues are exceeding projections -- sometimes I mangle the English language. I get that. (Laughter.)
Q: Inside joke.
The President: Yes, very inside. (Laughter.)
The revenues are exceeding projections. And as a result, the projected deficit is less. But my point there is, is that with good economic policy that encourages economic growth, the revenue streams begin to increase. And as the revenue streams increase, coupled with fiscal discipline, you'll see the deficit shrinking. And we're focused on that.
I do believe there ought to be budgetary reform in Washington, on the Hill, Capitol Hill. I think it's very important. I would like to see the President have a line-item veto again, one that passed constitutional muster. I think it would help the executive branch work with the legislative branch, to make sure that we're able to maintain budget discipline. I've talked to a lot of members of Congress who are wondering whether or not we'll have the will to confront entitlements, to make sure that there is entitlement reform that helps us maintain fiscal discipline. And the answer is, yes; that's why I took on the Social Security issue. I believe we have a duty to do so. I want to make sure that the Medicare reforms that we've put in place remain robust, to help us make sure Medicare is available for generations to come.
And so there is a -- I've got quite an active agenda to help work with Congress to bring not only fiscal discipline, but to make sure that our pro-growth policies are still in place.
Herman. I'm probably going to regret this. (Laughter.)
Q: I don't know if you had a chance to check, but I can report you did eke out a victory in Texas the other day.
The President: Thank you, sir.
Q: Congratulations. I'm interested in getting back to Steven -- Stevenson's question about unity. Clearly, you believe you have reached out and will continue to reach out. Do you believe the Democrats have made a sincere and sufficient effort to meet you somewhere halfway, and do you think now there's more reason for them the do that in light of the election results?
The President: I think that Democrats agree that we have an obligation to serve our country. I believe there will be goodwill, now that this election is over, to work together. I found that to be the case when I first arrived here in Washington, and working with the Democrats and fellow Republicans, we got a lot done. And it is with that spirit that I go into this coming session, and I will meet with both Republican and Democrat leaders, and I am -- they'll see I'm genuine about working toward some of these important issues.
It's going to be -- it's not easy. These -- I readily concede I've laid out some very difficult issues for people to deal with. Reforming the Social Security system for generations to come is a difficult issue; otherwise, it would have already been done. But it is necessary to confront it. And I would hope to be able to work with Democrats to get this done. I'm not sure we can get it done without Democrat participation, because it is a big issue, and I will explain to them and I will show them Senator Moynihan's thinking as a way to begin the process. And I will remind everybody here that we have a duty to leave behind a better America, and when we see a problem, to deal with it. And I think the -- I think Democrats agree with that.
And so I'm optimistic. You covered me when I was the governor of Texas. I told you that I was going to do that as a governor. There was probably skepticism in your beady eyes there. (Laughter.) But you might remember -- you might remember, we did -- we were able to accomplish a lot by -- and Washington is different from Austin, no question about it. Washington -- one of the disappointments of being here in Washington is how bitter this town can become and how divisive. I'm not blaming one party or the other. It's just the reality of Washington, D.C., sometimes exacerbated by you, because it's great sport. It's really -- it's entertaining for some. It also makes is difficult to govern at times.
But nevertheless, my commitment is there. I fully -- now more seasoned to Washington, I've cut my political eye-teeth, at least the ones I've recently grown here in Washington. And so I'm aware of what can happen in this town. But nevertheless, having said that, I am fully prepared to work with both Republican and Democrat leadership to advance an agenda that I think makes a big difference for the country.
Listen, thank you all. I look forward to working with you. I've got a question for you. How many of you are going to be here for a second term? Please raise your hand. (Laughter.)
Good. Gosh, we're going to have a lot of fun, then. Thank you all.
END 11:57 A.M. EST
4 November 2004
<http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2004/Nov/05-215803.html>
Confident Bush Vows to Move Aggressively
Second-Term Agenda Includes Social Security, Tax Code
President Bush vowed yesterday to use the "political
capital" gained from his victory on Tuesday to push an aggressive domestic
agenda in a second term, beginning with limiting medical malpractice lawsuits
and continuing with revamping the tax code and adding private accounts to
Social Security.
At a news conference a day after Sen. John F. Kerry conceded, Bush spoke
repeatedly about his desire to unify the country, including Democrats who did
their best to evict him from power. But he also made it clear that he views
the election returns -- especially a 3 percent margin of victory in the
popular vote that he said reflected "the will of the people" -- as a mandate
to pursue conservative priorities and to continue a governing style that has
rarely accommodated the opposition.
"I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to
spend it. It is my style," he said. "I'm going to spend it for what I told the
people I'd spend it on, which is -- you've heard the agenda: Social Security
and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning
the war on terror."
In both words and tone, Bush conveyed exceptional self-assurance as he
jauntily parried with reporters and served notice that he expects Congress to
move with dispatch on his agenda. The message was unmistakable: that Bush
intends to be the capital's dominant political and policy force, and that the
election returns mean that other players should move to accommodate his
priorities, not simply meet in the middle.
"I really didn't come here to hold the office just to say, 'Gosh, it was fun
to serve,' " he said. "I came here to get some things done, and we are doing
it."
Bush, whose domestic agenda has been largely overshadowed by war and
terrorism, said he will "start on Social Security now" by beginning to work
with lawmakers who support allowing workers to put some of their payroll taxes
into stocks and bonds. "We must lead on Social Security because the system is
not going to be whole for our children and our grandchildren," he said.
But several officials said a detailed proposal on Social Security is likely to
be held until 2006, ensuring that it looms large before the congressional
midterm election. Democrats contend Bush's plan is a way to weaken the federal
retirement system. Bush said he will "readily concede I've laid out some very
difficult issues for people to deal with."
"Reforming the Social Security system for generations to come is a difficult
issue; otherwise, it would have already been done," he said. "But it is
necessary to confront it. And I would hope to be able to work with Democrats
to get this done."
Bush said the "groundwork has been laid" on Capitol Hill for his longtime
interest in limiting lawsuits, and administration officials said they are
ready to move quickly with a legislative package on curbing the amount of
damages that can be won with lawsuits against doctors. The idea was among his
biggest applause lines this year when speaking to GOP donors at campaign
fundraisers.
As another top priority, Bush said he will work to make the tax code simpler
and more fair. He said he believes certain incentives should be built into a
rewritten code -- for example, provisions to encourage charitable giving and
homeownership. He said the changes would be "revenue-neutral" -- not a hidden
way of raising taxes and reducing the deficit, as some of his critics have
charged.
"If there was a need to raise taxes, I'd say, 'Let's have a tax bill that
raises taxes,' as opposed to 'Let's simply the tax code and sneak a tax
increase on the people.' It's just not my style. I don't believe we need to
raise taxes. I've said that to the American people. And so the simplification
would be the goal."
Facing a huge federal deficit and his promise to cut it in half over five
years, Bush made no mention of a tax cut, and administration officials said
none is in the offing.
Bush also said he plans to move quickly on his education proposals, including
a plan to add accountability for high schools.
On foreign policy, Bush listed the fight against terrorism first when he was
citing his priorities. He declined to estimate the cost of continuing
operations in Iraq, saying that the United States would work with the
government of Iraq's interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, to "achieve our
objective, which is elections, on the path to stability, and we'll continue to
train the troops."
"Our commanders will have that which they need to complete their missions," he
said.
Bush asserted that democracy is still possible in Iraq and throughout the
Middle East: "If we are interested in protecting our country for the long
term, the best way to do so is to promote freedom and democracy."
He said he will continue to work for a Palestinian state coexisting peacefully
with Israel, saying that when he laid out that vision in the Rose Garden in
2002, he "meant it when I said it, and I mean it now."
Other administration officials said they expect relations with Iran to
dominate the foreign policy agenda. The administration has accused Iran of
harboring terrorists and running a nuclear weapons program.
Bush made no effort to hide his high spirits, teasing reporters and calling on
them by last name only, in the fashion of a football coach. He has always
chafed at reporters' tendency to ask follow-ups and to string multiple
questions into one, and yesterday he announced that he will no longer permit
it. "Now that I've got the will of the people at my back, I'm going to start
enforcing the one-question rule," he said.
The news conference's most reflective moments concerned the reaction of former
president George H.W. Bush to his son's achievement of the reelection he was
denied. The president recalled that his father, who spent election night in
the White House, was still sitting upstairs at 3:30 a.m. as returns came in.
Kerry did not concede until later that day.
"I finally said, 'Go to bed,' " Bush recalled. "He was awaiting the outcome
and was hopeful that we would go over and be able to talk to our supporters,
and it just didn't happen that way."
Bush said that when his father woke up, he asked him to come by the Oval
Office before heading home to Houston.
"We had a good talk," the president said. "There was some uncertainty about
that morning as to when the election would actually end. And it wasn't clear
at that point in time, so I never got to see him face to face to watch his, I
guess, pride in his tired eyes as his son got a second term. I did talk to
him, and he was relieved. I told him to get a nap. I was worried about him
staying up too late."
Presidential advisers said Bush is relishing the prospect of a freer hand with
Congress, as the expanded margin of GOP control will give him more flexibility
to pursue his policies.
"After hundreds of speeches and three debates and interviews and the whole
process, where you keep basically saying the same thing over and over again,
that when you win, there is a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced
your point of view, and that's what I intend to tell the Congress," he said.
Bush hedged when asked about changes in his Cabinet, and declined to speculate
about possible nominees to the Supreme Court.
For the second day in a row, Bush said he plans to reach out to his opponents,
joking at the start of the 40-minute session, "I pledged to reach out to the
whole nation, and today I'm proving that I'm willing to reach out to everybody
by including the White House press corps."
But one key adviser said the White House has calculated there is little to be
gained from courting Democrats, since the expected fights over Supreme Court
nominations would just undo the goodwill.
"This isn't a guy who pivots," said a presidential adviser who spoke on the
condition of anonymity so White House officials will continue to talk candidly
to him. "There's no point in a lot of outreach in the next 90 days that would
be rendered moot by the first retirement from the court, and he's not going to
do it."
Another adviser said after speaking to Bush's top aides, "They feel the Bush
brand is strong, and they feel no need to re-brand him."
Bush has held the fewest news conferences of any president since records have
been kept. This was Bush's 16th solo news conference. At this point in their
presidencies, Bill Clinton had held 42 news conferences and Bush's father had
held 83, according to figures compiled by Martha Joynt Kumar of Towson
University.
The meeting was in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, next to the White
House -- a setting that is more formal than the briefing room but less
imposing than the East Room, the traditional site of prime-time news
conferences.
Bush said he feels refreshed, both by the outcome and by the sleep he got
after a marathon night that some of his aides in what is ordinarily an
early-to-bed White House were calling "the Republican Woodstock."
Staff writer John F. Harris contributed to this report.
Mike Allen, Washington Post Staff Writer, Page A01, 5 November 2004
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26467-2004Nov4.html?referrer=email>
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26467-2004Nov4_2.html>
Bush's Economic Challenges
Whatever else the US presidential election has done, it's got rid of a mass of uncertainty - and markets don't like uncertainty.
Stock prices jumped after the Bush victory but it's hard to know how much of that euphoria was because investors think Bush will be better than Kerry, and how much it was simply a gasp of relief that we now know where we stand.
Some bits of the economy are relieved, though. Detroit may be solidly Democratic but some auto-maker executives were worried that Mr Kerry would have been a lot tougher on emission standards than Mr Bush.
The Democratic challenger had recently sponsored a Senate measure that would have tightened the regulations and the auto companies feared he would enact such legislation from the White House.
Military suppliers had been worried by a Kerry victory - there was a sell-off of stock in defence companies when the exit polls falsely showed a strong Kerry performance.
|
|
The true test of whether Mr Bush is good for business will come with the fate of
the economy. If he cuts spending to rein in the deficit,
then growth may suffer
|
In truth, though, it is by no means clear that Democrats are more peaceable in office than Republicans.
Mr Kerry would have faced the same situation in Iraq and there is an argument that parties of the left sometimes have to prove their toughness whereas parties of the right don't. It's impossible to say.
Shares of military companies did rise on news of the Bush victory, but the euphoria could be short-lived.
While President Bush's re-election and the return of a Republican majority in Congress assure a robust approach to Pentagon spending, the growing budget deficit and the costs of the war in Iraq could put pressure on the Pentagon budget.
Tax Plans
The other industries to benefit from a Bush victory are likely to be the health-care and pharmaceutical companies.
They gave $26m to the Republican election effort because they disliked Mr Kerry's plans to allow the government to bargain with drug makers for a better price for medicines for Medicare.
Mr Kerry would also have allowed cheaper drug imports from Canada.
Privatizing parts of the provision of pensions and social security might benefit financial companies. Mr Bush's tax plans are also likely to mean an easing - or not a Kerry tightening - of taxes on dividends.
In truth, though, this kind of calculation of gainers and losers is meaningless - or at least not as meaningful as it might seem.
If one candidate would bring more economic growth than the other, then it doesn't really matter which particular companies or sectors end up gaining or losing. Fast growth is good for all.
Sound Strategies?
The true test of whether Mr Bush is good for business will come with the fate of the economy. If he cuts spending to rein in the deficit, then growth may suffer.
Individual business leaders tend to judge politicians by their policies for a particular industry (widget-makers like tax relief on widgets).
A better yard-stick would be how beneficial for the whole economy a party's policies might be (sound economic policies benefit everybody, including widget makers).
And whether Mr Bush's overall economic strategy is sound remains unproven.
Stephen Evans ,BBC North America Business Correspondent, 5 November 2004
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3984895.stm>
US-Pakistan Relations
For the second time in less than a month, a high-level American official has reiterated the Bush administration's commitment to enhance cooperation with Pakistan in economic and security matters. On Tuesday, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had wide-ranging talks with President Pervez Musharraf, Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmud Kasuri and other Pakistani officials. During the meetings, Mr Armitage highlighted the Bush administration's priorities in the next four years.
According to the Foreign Office spokesman, these included broadening bilateral relations in economic and security areas. Last month, US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Christina Rocca, appreciating Islamabad's role in the war on terror, pledged America's "long-term commitment" to Pakistan in economic and security matters. These assurances deserve to be welcomed, but history shows that "a long-term commitment" is what has been missing in America's relations with Pakistan during the last half a century.
In the fifties and sixties, Pakistan was America's "most allied ally", being a member of Seato and Cento, besides having a bilateral military pact with the US. But both had different motives for entering into this relationship, which, with the benefit of hindsight, appears to have been based on expediency. For Pakistan, the motive was to seek security through these military alliances and get economic and military aid; for the US the predominant consideration was to meet the perceived communist threat, make Pakistan a member of its chain of worldwide military alliances, and have bases on its soil.
Once the communist threat abated, America lost all interest in Pakistan. Which turned out to be a myopic policy, for America was back in Pakistan with its overt and covert economic and military aid when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Once again, when the Soviet tide rolled back, America washed its hands of both Afghanistan and Pakistan. 9/11 has brought them back on the scene.
Pakistan is situated in an area where South Asia, Central Asia, South-West Asia and the Gulf converge. In this region, the US has vital economic and strategic interests. The two countries can, thus, profit from mutual cooperation if they base their relationship on long-term interests common to both. Pakistan wants peace in the region, and it needs faster development of its economic and human resources.
For this, Islamabad needs a solution of regional disputes, besides foreign technology and investment. A Pakistan well-developed economically and stable politically would be an asset to the US, provided Washington helps in a solution of regional disputes, including Kashmir, and enhances cooperation with this country in economic and security matters on a long-term basis.
At the same time, the Pakistani leadership, both in government and in opposition, needs to take stock of the domestic scene. Democratic institutions are still fragile in Pakistan, the political scene is dominated by the military, and the opposition has failed to come up with alternative socio-economic policies that could make the people think that an alternative leadership was available.
Economically, Pakistan remains a poor country with low levels of literacy, health, housing and environment. As for law and order, terrorism continues to stalk the land. Such a Pakistan can be of little interest to any foreign power, whatever its interests in the region.
Editorial, Dawn, 11 November 2004
<http://www.dawn.com/2004/11/11/ed.htm#1>
The Bush Administration
A look
at how President Bush's second term administration is taking shape.
George W Bush
PRESIDENT
| Presided over one of the most turbulent periods in US history in his first term. Revitalised after emerging from the close election race as outright winner, with a clear mandate for a second term. |
Prospects:
There is speculation that the president may pursue a more conservative
social agenda. Mr Bush has vowed to continue the global war on terror and press for reform of taxes and education. |
|
Dick Cheney VICE PRESIDENT One of the administration's hawks, Dick Cheney has been a powerful voice throughout the Bush presidency. Suffered two health scares during his first term as presidential deputy. |
Prospects: Likely to retain his high-influence, low-profile position. His promise not to run for president has opened the field for a number of Republican contenders to run in 2008. |
| One of the administration's rising stars and personally close to the president, Rice is one of the main proponents of the 'Bush doctrine' - pre-emptive action against foreign or terror threats. |
Condoleezza Rice SECRETARY OF STATE Prospects: Nominated to succeed Colin Powell, she will become the first black woman to serve as secretary of state. President Bush has praised her "sound and steady judgment". |
|
Donald Rumsfeld DEFENCE SECRETARY The outspoken and hawkish defence secretary has faced serious questions over his leadership in the wake of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal and military setbacks in Iraq. |
Prospects:
Will stay on in his post as |
| Foreign policy adviser to four former Republican presidents, including Richard Nixon. Prefers to keep a low profile, and has close ties to Vice President Dick Cheney. |
Stephen Hadley NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER Prospects: Promoted after serving as Condoleezza Rice's deputy during President Bush's first term. He is not expected to make any significant policy changes. |
|
Paul Wolfowitz DEPUTY DEFENCE SECRETARY A leading hawk who was tipped for the post of defence secretary in 2000. Leading advocate of fostering democracy in the Middle East through direct American intervention |
Prospects: Not seen as a strong manager and therefore only an outside contender for the top defence role. Lost credibility after campaigning for war in Iraq over WMD, which were never found. |
| The most prominent Hispanic in the administration and a trusted Bush aide, who has served as the president's legal counsel during his White House tenure. Previously a Texas Supreme Court judge |
Alberto Gonzales ATTORNEY GENERAL Prospects: Nominated to succeed John Ashcroft, who resigned on 9 November. His appointment suggests senior posts in the new cabinet will be held, as expected, by loyalists close to the president |
Carlos Gutierrez
COMMERCE SECRETARY
The
Cuban-born ex-chief executive of food giant Kellogg, President Bush has
hailed 51-year-old Mr Gutierrez as a "visionary", and "one of America's
most respected business leaders." |
Prospects:
The second significant Hispanic appointment to Mr Bush's second term
cabinet, Mr Gutierrez replaces Don Evans, who resigned on 29 November. |
| As the man who singled George W Bush out as a possible future president before orchestrating both his White House campaigns, Rove has sealed his reputation as the president's chief strategist. |
Karl Rove PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER Prospects: Will retain his position as the president's key aide, though with his current protege unable to serve another term, it is likely that Rove will be casting his eye over potential candidates for 2008. |
Bernard Kerik SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITYA former beat officer, 49-year-old Kerik rose through the ranks of the NYPD to become commissioner, a post he served in when the 9/11 attacks hit the city. He has pursued a career in law enforcement and security since the 1970s |
Prospects: Nominated to replace Tom Ridge, Kerik was President Bush's first choice to fill the post. But a week later, he withdrew his nomination citing personal reasons amid controversy about his links to a stun-gun maker |
|
OUTGOING One of the more moderate members of the first term administration. Despite being popular in the US and abroad, Powell saw his influence in the White House wane over the last four years. |
Colin Powell Resigned as secretary of state on 15 November, saying it had always been his intention to serve only one term. President Bush has chosen the more hawkish Condoleezza Rice to replace him. |
John Ashcroft
An
uncompromising conservative, Ashcroft was the main architect of the
Patriot Act, which gave the government sweeping powers to spy on and
prosecute suspected terrorists. |
Stepped down as attorney general on 9 November. Criticised
by civil rights groups for undermining liberties and had reportedly become
unpopular in the Justice Department. |
|
Tom Ridge |
|
| A personal friend of President Bush with a tough reputation, Ridge was appointed head of the newly-created Department of Homeland Security in the wake of the 11 September attacks. | Resigned on 30 November citing personal reasons. Some Washington observers predict he will take up a post in the private sector. |
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/americas/2004/vote_usa_2004/administration_guide
/default.stm>
Copyright IPRI 2000-2003
Home
| IPRI Staff
| Publications
| Events
| Feedback
| Web Mail
| Search
| Contact
