Doubts About Mandate for Bush, GOP (Wash. Post)

[Up2Late]

(It seems the Damn is beginning to crack, or is Chickens? What ever, this is good to see)

Doubts About Mandate for Bush, GOP

By John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, May 2, 2005; Page A01

The day after he won a second term in November, President Bush offered his view of the new political landscape. "When you win there is a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view," he said, "and that's what I intend to tell the Congress, that I made it clear what I intend to do as president . . . and the people made it clear what they wanted, now let's work together."

Six months ago, this comment was widely viewed as more than just a postgame boast. Among campaign strategists and academics, there was ample speculation that Bush's victory, combined with incremental gains in the Republican congressional majority, signaled something fundamental: a partisan and ideological "realignment" that would reshape politics over the long haul.

As the president passed the 100-day mark of his second term over the weekend, the main question facing Bush and his party is whether they misread the November elections. With the president's poll numbers down, and the Republican majority ensnared in ethical controversy, things look much less like a once-a-generation realignment.

Instead, some political analysts say it is just as likely that Washington is witnessing a happens-all-the-time phenomenon -- the mistaken assumption by politicians that an election won on narrow grounds is a mandate for something broad. In Bush's case, this includes restructuring Social Security and the tax code and installing a group of judges he was unable to seat in his first term. This was the error that nearly sank Bill Clinton's presidency in his first years in office in 1993 and 1994 when he put forth a broad health care plan, and that caused then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich's Republican "Revolution" to stall in 1995 in a confrontation over cutting spending for popular domestic programs.

(more at link above)

[renaissanceguy]

1. This is news?

I could've told you that, and I don't even have a journalism degree.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.21272015

[Journeyman]

2. As a 10 percenter from way, way back. . .

I say it's about time the rest of the nation caught up. Now let's try to move ahead . . .

[Ken Burch]

5. what's a "ten percenter"?

Not that I disagree with you, I just had't heard that term.

[Journeyman]

6. It's a term that used to be used a lot here on DU. . .

back in late 2001, early '02, when Shrub's approval ratings were hovering around 90%. We weren't the only ones in the nation who disapproved of him, but we were incredibly resolute in our opposition.

[Ken Burch]

9. In that case, I think I was a ten percenter as well.

[fasttense]

17. Yeah, but now you are closer to a 60 percenter.

[rndmprsn]

3. Great read...lets hope the rethug over-reach of 2005 translates...

into big electoral victories for dems in 2006.

[radfringe]

11. the big turning point

was the interference by GOP into Shaivo...

I think this opened alot of people's eyes as to just how far to the right GOPers are moving.

now their arguments about everything includes "GOD"

just my 2-cents: Religion is a personal matter.. it's not a tool to be used for political positioning, nor should it be exploited as such.

GOPers have themselves trapped -- to get to where they are today they wooed narrow religious factions, made big promises -- and now these factions want what was promised - and GOPers can't keep those promises without alienating other segments of their big tent.

Their main tent poles are "Values" and "GOD" - other than warm fuzzy words -- GOPers haven't done much to support either -- they just use and exploit the words for maximum political advantage.

[dusty64]

15. Sorry, not as long

as the extreme rightwing controlled "voting" machine issue is resolved that isn't gonna happen. There is a simple reason these fascists are pushing their putrid agenda down the throats of the People, they are NOT afraid of the voters' anger. Why could that be?

[Up2Late]

19. Exactly, my vote (here in Georgia) hasn't been counted...

Since the 2000 election, and maybe not even then, knowing what we now know about how easy it is to rig the Optical Scan machines.:evilfrown:

[wellst0nev0ter]

4. I Have No Doubts About THIS Man Date

http://us.news3.yimg.com/img.news.yahoo.com/util/anysize/345,http%3A%2F%2Fus.news1.yimg.com%2Fus.yimg.com%2Fp%2Frids%2F20050425%2Fi%2Fr2381478845.jpg

[Erika]

7. Their families have done business for decades

Why let 9/11 cause friction. The Bush's want that income pouring in. So the majority of 9/11 bombers were Saudi. He's got his priorities and we're not one of them.

[NoodleBoy]

8. wow, did anyone really think .7% signified a massive, cataclysmic

political shift during an election year with super-increased turnout?

Well, fuck, man. Anyone with a brain could see this was nothing like the lopsided victories in 1984, 1964, 1952, and the slew of landslides in the first half of the 20th century, and even then with the exception of ideological victories here and there those election outcomes determined very little in the course of American politics.

[LynnTheDem]

10. "I made it clear what I intend to do as president "; so repubs are just

very stupid, implies bush;

The majority of bush supporters INCORRECTLY assume bush's stance on issues

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/html/new_10_21_04.html

[wishlist]

12. I heard Bush say recently that fixing Soc Sec was central to his campaign

I was amazed to hear him state recently that Social Security reform had been a centerpiece of his re-election campaign. When in fact he did not bring up SS that often during his campaign and whenever Kerry or anyone else raised concern over his plans to change Social Security with private accounts and possible cuts in benefits he always downplayed the issue by saying that benefits wouldn't be reduced for current retirees and he didn't want to privatize the system. He would never admit that Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's plan included reducing benefits. Now we are finding out that Kerry was right and Bush never leveled with us before the election.

I was stunned when the con artist immediately began steamrolling Social Security change as his highest priority immediately after election day.

Majority of those who voted for him had no clue about his true intentions with Soc Sec or the environment and other issues but I am afraid most of them are still either ignorant or in denial about his agenda and giving him a free pass to do whatever he wants to do.

[LynnTheDem]

14. When Kerry said bush planned to cut SS bennies, bush DENIED IT,

called Kerry a liar.

[lanlady]

13. many misleading statements in this article

such as attributing the bankrupcy "victory" to Bush or that the Rethugs could not anticipate the difficulty of holding their right wing in check. Bullshit on both counts.

[LizW]

16. What a steaming pile

What "campaign strategists and academics" in their right minds thought there had been a partisan and idealogical realignment? Are these writers insane?

NO ONE, except maybe Bush the Psychotic Imbecile himself, thought this election was a mandate for the kind of extreme stuff Bushco and the neocons want to do.

Everyone I know understands the failings of the Electoral College, and the corruption of electoral process in "battleground" states. Actually, most people I know can count and calculate simple percentages and understand that 51% is no freaking mandate. 51% for an incumbent is an indicator of a deeply divided electorate.

Idiots.

Oh, and it couldn't be that Bush is an arrogant little f**k, either because -- wait for it -- Bill Clinton made the same "error"!

Excuse me while I go throw up.

[fasttense]

18. LizW you have a way with words. n/t