Bush - " We Had An Accountability Moment, The Election"

[BVS]

You know the running joke, dead people voting, etc.

Oh yeah. Last thing I heard that was all squashed.

 

[BonosSaint]

I'm thinking of sending George a bag of pretzels for a congrats on the second term gift....

 

[STING2]

Delusional

or just an idiot.

Neither, He is your president, elected by a 51% majority of the population, the first time that has happened in 16 years, supported by A House and Senate where the Presidents party gained seats, the first time that has happened since the 1930s. Congrats to all 62,041,268 people who voted for Bush, the largest vote total ever for a President in the USA.

 

[STING2]

yes, lovely medal of freedom Tenet has hanging round his neck.

one word: RUMSFELD.

fired. head on a platter. packed in dry ice. full apology for wanting to show off his little too-cute-by-half "modern" army where he seems to think 150,000 soldiers can effectively occupy a country the size of california and populated by 25m people who have just had the bejezus bombed out of them.

the one consolation i have is that Rumsfeld is going to occupy a very special place in American history. right next to McNamara.

Iraq is not Vietnam and Rumsfeld is not McNamara. The Iraqi people are about to have their first free election because of the hard work Rumsfeld, the US Military and US Foreign Services have done in Iraq.

 

[STING2]

I agree he doesn't have a mandate, but he really doesn't need one with a Republican Congress. The last pres with a real mandate was Reagan, and he made use of it to pass his agenda through a Democratic Congress.




One would hope any leader believes what he is doing is correct. At that level, there are no spur of the moment decisions. Contrary to what many think, W has advisers, debates issues, then makes decisions. What's he supposed to do, make a decision that he knows is incorrect?

When Reagan was first elected, he got 50.75% of the popular vote which is less than what George Bush got in this recent election. The second time Reagan got 58.7% of the popular vote. So with Bush in between those two totals, I think you can say he has a mandate if in fact Reagan had one.

 

[BonosSaint]

Let's see Bush has a mandate from the votes of 51% of the voting public. That's about 25% of eligible voters. Strong mandate there. 51% of the voters love him. 49% of the voters hate him and the others don't care one way or the other. Sounds like a wash to me.

(PS, Kerry also had a lot more votes than Reagan did and a lot more votes than Bush got in 2000 and NOBODY really liked Kerry.
No mandate. Just a sharply divided country.)

 

[STING2]

Let's see Bush has a mandate from the votes of 51% of the voting public. That's about 25% of eligible voters. Strong mandate there. 51% of the voters love him. 49% of the voters hate him and the others don't care one way or the other. Sounds like a wash to me.

(PS, Kerry also had a lot more votes than Reagan did and a lot more votes than Bush got in 2000 and NOBODY really liked Kerry.
No mandate. Just a sharply divided country.)

So what percentage would Bush have had to reach in order for it to be a "mandate"?

 

[BonosSaint]

I think perhaps politicians (all stripes) and their supporters are very quick to claim victory and mandate long before all the analyses are in.

What do you think he has a mandate for?

1. A recent poll (whether you trust it or not) show the
majority of Americans polled are not happy with the way
he is handling Iraq. Does he have a mandate for Iraq?

2. Does he have a mandate for a ban on gay marriage?
The total overhaul of the social security system? The
introduction of creationism (Forgive me--"Intelligent
Design") in our SCIENCE classes?

Or did people vote for him because they thought he was the lesser of the two evils?

Way until the dust settles before you decide he has a mandate. You'll know soon enough.

 

[Judah]

I found this item very funny.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/19/poll/index.html

Let me get this straight...a divided America is split on whether Bush is a divider or a uniter?

Poll: Nation split on Bush as uniter or divider
Wednesday, January 19, 2005 Posted: 4:19 PM EST (2119 GMT)

(CNN) -- On the eve of President Bush's inauguration, a poll shows the nation is split over whether he has united or divided the nation, but a majority believe his inauguration festivities should be toned down because of the war.

During the 2000 campaign, Bush promised to be a "uniter, not a divider."

Forty-nine percent of 1,007 adult Americans said in phone interviews they believe Bush is a "uniter," according to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday. Another 49 percent called him a "divider," and 2 percent had no opinion.

The results nearly match those of a poll taken in October 2004, which showed 48 percent considered Bush a "uniter" and 48 percent called him a "divider," with 4 percent having no opinion. (Full story)

Bush's inauguration was viewed by 69 percent, more than two-thirds of respondents, as a celebration by the winning presidential candidate's supporters rather than a celebration of democracy by all Americans, as 29 percent saw it. Two percent had no opinion.

And 79 percent of poll respondents said they believe the inauguration ceremony will not do much to heal political divisions in the country. Eighteen percent said it would, and 3 percent had no opinion.

Also, 54 percent said the celebration should be toned down this year, compared with other inaugurations, because the country is at war. Forty-five percent said the inauguration should be held just as in other years, and 1 percent had no opinion.

Sixty-one percent of respondents said they believe protests during the inaugural celebration would be inappropriate, regardless of whether they believed people had a right to protest. When the same question was asked in January 2001, 71 percent said protests are inappropriate.

Asked about the president's most important role, 34 percent of respondents said it should be to manage the federal government and 24 percent said it should be to provide moral leadership.

Another 20 percent said it is acting as commander in chief of the military, up from 9 percent in a poll taken eight months before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The telephone poll was conducted Friday through Sunday. It has a 95 percent confidence rate, and the margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points

 

[A_Wanderer]

2. Does he have a mandate for a ban on gay marriage?
The total overhaul of the social security system? The
introduction of creationism (Forgive me--"Intelligent
Design") in our SCIENCE classes?

Gay marriage will probably be left to the states, social security is a definite and I have heard nothing about him wanting to bring creationism into the science classroom and I doubt that anything of the sort will occur - but if it does I guarantee that I will be strongly against it.

 

[BonosSaint]

They are already starting to bring "Intelligent Design" into the science classrooms.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Where and when? Are you referring to the Kansas School Board controversy or the more recent Cobb County? that seemed to be more of a state matter. I demand evidence for these accusations against this administration.

I keep my eye on this issue and I havent seen this administration work actively to force intelligent design into the science classroom. Show me the evidence and I may be inclined to agree. I think that the issue itself is worked on a more local level by religious organisations and groups of "concerned parents" and it is the school boards that wind up voting on them.

 

[financeguy]

I keep my eye on this issue and I havent seen this administration work actively to force intelligent design into the science classroom. Show me the evidence and I may be inclined to agree.

Yes, I think if I was a Christian Conservative right now I'd actually be quite pissed off at the failure of this administration to implement its policy platform.

I mean Ashcroft was the only decent God fearing man amongst them - then they got rid of him!

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Or did people vote for him because they thought he was the lesser of the two evils?

Moral Values, the Economy, and Terrorism were the top three issues of this election. 51% of the voting population voted on these three issues that have faced this country, and it turns out, Bush's campaign was better than expected. I honestly didn't expect his re-election. Kerry couldn't prove his case on Iraq as well as expected, and the economy was his most successful issue. A little funny how taxation hardly mattered this time around. In 1776, it played a major role in setting off the Revolutionary War, now it's a minor issue.

KERRY / BUSH

Moral Values (22%) 18% / 80%

Economy/Jobs (20%) 80% / 18%

Terrorism (19%) 14% / 86%

Iraq (15%) 73% / 26%

Health Care (8%) 77% / 23%

Taxes (5%) 43% / 57%

Education (4%) 73% / 26%

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/05/opinion/meyer/main653931.shtml

From CBS News, and surprise, it's a liberal article.

 

[BonosSaint]

Where and when? Are you referring to the Kansas School Board controversy or the more recent Cobb County? that seemed to be more of a state matter. I demand evidence for these accusations against this administration.

I keep my eye on this issue and I havent seen this administration work actively to force intelligent design into the science classroom. Show me the evidence and I may be inclined to agree. I think that the issue itself is worked on a more local level by religious organisations and groups of "concerned parents" and it is the school boards that wind up voting on them.

You're correct. I misspoke. This is not a policy he is implemening. I am more inclined to consider the climate that he represents and with a religious conservative in office, the fundamentalists in the country are starting to feel they have carte blanc to take over the education system.

I think this President is more inclined to break things than to fix anything and too many Americans just go along for the ride.

I defer to your expertise.

 

[Do Miss America]

Moral Values (22%) 18% / 80%

This just backs my theory that this country has actually lost all moral ground.

Gay marriage and abstinence only programs are not morals!!! Especially when most who voted this way turned a blind eye to the torture scandal and could care less that Bush has made it harder for senior citizens to get their prescriptions. Morals? Give me a break. The GOP has lost sense of what true morals are.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

First off, I agree that abstinence-only programs are not a slice of bread for everybody. It won't stop teen sex and teen pregnancy. I think abstinence should be encouraged, but protection should also be taught. I also agree that the administration should FIGHT HARD against the torture scandal instead of considering Alberto Gonzales - a torture supporter - as a replacement for John Ashcroft. Health care and perscriptions are not exactly my field of study, but if you have a case, I invite you to present it.

You did not mention the conservative stance over the legality of abortion - a major political issue - and as many conservatives like myself see as a major moral issue as well. I don't exactly want to turn this into an abortion thread, but the issue seems to swing in a conservative direction nowadays. I don't know if you know this, but Norma McCorvey, the woman once known as "Jane Roe" whose protest against Texas' abortion ban led to possibly the most notorious and politically divisive court case since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 we know as Roe vs. Wade, NOW ASKS THE SUPREME COURT TO OVERTURN ROE VS. WADE!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144865,00.html

In response, I would like to ask you this: what would promote TRUE morals? Certainly not the legalization of marijuana, or the legalization of prostitution. I would think a ban on torture tactics would help. I would think that a compromise of promoting abstinence as well as educating teens how to use protection would help.

 

[dazzledbylight]

The man thinks he has a mandate, with only 51% of the vote, and that everything he does is correct.

It's going to be a long four years...!

Hi.

<unless their arrogance gets so bad [it's bad enough now] that enough people in governemnt, and populous will reach 'critical mass' to demand impeachment & ousture>

 

[Do Miss America]

You did not mention the conservative stance over the legality of abortion - a major political issue - and as many conservatives like myself see as a major moral issue as well. I don't exactly want to turn this into an abortion thread, but the issue seems to swing in a conservative direction nowadays.

Yes but two major things here. One anti-abortion does not = morals. It may be one moral but it does not equal morals. Two Bush isn't going to do a damn thing to make it illegal.

I don't know if you know this, but Norma McCorvey, the woman once known as "Jane Roe" whose protest against Texas' abortion ban led to possibly the most notorious and politically divisive court case since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 we know as Roe vs. Wade, NOW ASKS THE SUPREME COURT TO OVERTURN ROE VS. WADE!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,144865,00.html

Yes this has been around for awhile. It still doesn't make what the Supreme Court did any less wrong. That's all I will say for this is not a thread about abortion.

In response, I would like to ask you this: what would promote TRUE morals? Certainly not the legalization of marijuana, or the legalization of prostitution. I would think a ban on torture tactics would help. I would think that a compromise of promoting abstinence as well as educating teens how to use protection would help.

Who said anything about pot or prostitution? I don't every remember a canidate standing on the platform of legalizing either of these.

True morals would be a platform that was designed to truly help those in need. Issues that truly helped the elderly, help the children, helped the sick, and helped the poor not taking away rights to certain groups, not lining the pockets of huge corporations, and not allowing tax breaks for those who take away jobs from Americans.

The whole "moral" thing was a ploy and too many fell for it hook line and sinker, but if they really took a look at their personal morals and really took a look at their president's policies they'd choke on their own vomit. I'm not saying they still wouldn't vote for Bush most would, they just wouldn't claim moral reasons.

 

[BonosSaint]

I'm kind of glad this thread changed to a discussion of morality. Perhaps what is the divide in this country is a difference in how people view morality. I think we are a strange country.
1. We get all horrified about Janet Jackson's breast when
during the same Superbowl, they ran promos featuring
photos of Brittany Spears showing much more flesh than
Janet Jackson did. (This is the same FCC who had conniptions
about Bono saying fuck)
2. We have a former attorney general who covered up the
naked breast of a work of art. I'm sure that statue set
off the prurient interests of the populace.
3. We have a government opposed to the legalization of
medical marijuana while allowing morphine and other
hard core narcotics to be used for pain control (and those
narcotics should be allowed!) and an FDA that is slow to
approve potentially life-saving experimental drugs but
is quick to approve every money-making bonanza of the
pharmaceutical companies whether they are dangerous to
the public or not.
4. A country who criticizes the irresponsibility of welfare
recipients but thinks corporate welfare for mismanaged
companies is perfectly acceptable.
This country doesn't expect people to behave morally--as long as they talk about morals. One of my major complaints about this country--all image, diminishing substance. As long as people
see us as a moral beacon, we don't really have to be.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Who said anything about pot or prostitution? I don't every remember a canidate standing on the platform of legalizing either of these.

I wasn't referring to the candidates, as much as those who support liberal candidates. Quite a few of them have no objection to legalizing prostitution and legalizing marijuana. Perhaps if one politician was devoted to either one of them, I don't doubt he would get support from closet potheads, so to speak.

True morals would be a platform that was designed to truly help those in need. Issues that truly helped the elderly, help the children, helped the sick, and helped the poor not taking away rights to certain groups, not lining the pockets of huge corporations, and not allowing tax breaks for those who take away jobs from Americans.

I agree about the elderly, sick, and the poor. According to these election results, taxation wasn't even a major issue. An undecided, non-political voter is probably not going to be convinced by taxation. I would think their feelings on social issues would dictate leaning them towards a certain party or candidate.

The whole "moral" thing was a ploy and too many fell for it hook line and sinker, but if they really took a look at their personal morals and really took a look at their president's policies they'd choke on their own vomit. I'm not saying they still wouldn't vote for Bush most would, they just wouldn't claim moral reasons.

How about calling them Social Issues? Is that a phrase you are a little more comfortable with?

PS: Seems like corporations also support liberals as well: http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/Archive/200208/CUL20020802b.html

 

[Do Miss America]

I wasn't referring to the candidates, as much as those who support liberal candidates. Quite a few of them have no objection to legalizing prostitution and legalizing marijuana. Perhaps if one politician was devoted to either one of them, I don't doubt he would get support from closet potheads, so to speak.

I've seen you bring this issue up before and it cracks me up. You seem to think this is a huge issue on the Democratic ticket. Well it's not. And to be honest out of all my friends who support the legalization of drugs is about 50-50 Rep to Dem. I know a lot of Reps and Libertarians who would love to make them legal and tax the hell out of them.

I agree about the elderly, sick, and the poor. According to these election results, taxation wasn't even a major issue. An undecided, non-political voter is probably not going to be convinced by taxation. I would think their feelings on social issues would dictate leaning them towards a certain party or candidate.

I'm talking about Bush's tax break for companies who outsource and take jobs from Americans. To me that's not a tax issue it's a moral issue.

How about calling them Social Issues? Is that a phrase you are a little more comfortable with?

No just call it banning gay marriage because when it boils down to it that's the only "moral" issue people were talking about.

PS: Seems like corporations also support liberals as well: http://www.cnsnews.com/Culture/Archive/200208/CUL20020802b.html

I don't think promoting diversity is "corporations supporting liberals".

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I've seen you bring this issue up before and it cracks me up. You seem to think this is a huge issue on the Democratic ticket. Well it's not. And to be honest out of all my friends who support the legalization of drugs is about 50-50 Rep to Dem. I know a lot of Reps and Libertarians who would love to make them legal and tax the hell out of them.

It isn't this generation of liberal candidates that are fighting for legalized drugs, but the fact that liberals seem to want a whole lot of junk food legalized. I can tell you that someday in our lifetime, this will be a much more politically divisive issue, and liberals are going to support it.

No just call it banning gay marriage because when it boils down to it that's the only "moral" issue people were talking about.

I am far more interested in overturning Roe vs. Wade than banning gay marriage.

I don't think promoting diversity is "corporations supporting liberals".

The buzzword "tolerance" is the same word used by the radical activists that call me stupid, intolerant, and bigoted for not supporting their agenda, or cause, if you like that word better. It's like the word values is to you. You wouldn't want a "Values Program" forced on you that perturbs employees and promoting traditional marriage, and forcing you to accept that and only that. You come there to work, and if you aren't respectful to those who don't share your beliefs, you will be called on it.

 

[Do Miss America]

I am far more interested in overturning Roe vs. Wade than banning gay marriage.

Never gonna happen.

The buzzword "tolerance" is the same word used by the radical activists that call me stupid, intolerant, and bigoted for not supporting their agenda, or cause, if you like that word better. It's like the word values is to you. You wouldn't want a "Values Program" forced on you that perturbs employees and promoting traditional marriage, and forcing you to accept that and only that. You come there to work, and if you aren't respectful to those who don't share your beliefs, you will be called on it.

So if I worked with you, you wouldn't have a problem me being discriminated against. This is what you are saying.

There's a big difference in banning rights and teaching tolerance!!! How come you can't see that? You honestly have a problem saying homosexuals are human too and can't be discriminated against in the workplace?

I'm not sure what this agenda is you keep speaking about. Can you please explain it to me?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

So if I worked with you, you wouldn't have a problem me being discriminated against. This is what you are saying.

You're kidding. Absolutely kidding. I am all for the employee handbooks that prohibit discrimination of any kind. I am all for kicking a rude, ignorant customer out of the workplace for being a bastard.

There's a big difference in banning rights and teaching tolerance!!! How come you can't see that? You honestly have a problem saying homosexuals are human too and can't be discriminated against in the workplace?/B]

You're going way overboard on this, please read my last comment.

I'm not sure what this agenda is you keep speaking about. Can you please explain it to me?

I am least favorable to the activism, especially the leftist activists that are marching into churches, slicing time out of education, and calling me intolerant, bigoted, and hateful for having differences with them. I mind my business, and I don't attack gays. I just don't promote the lifestyle the activists are leeching at me.

 

[Do Miss America]

You're kidding. Absolutely kidding. I am all for the employee handbooks that prohibit discrimination of any kind. I am all for kicking a rude, ignorant customer out of the workplace for being a bastard.

You're going way overboard on this, please read my last comment.

So then what in fact do you have a problem with about the article you showed me because I'm not getting it.

I am least favorable to the activism, especially the leftist activists that are marching into churches, slicing time out of education, and calling me intolerant, bigoted, and hateful for having differences with them. I mind my business, and I don't attack gays. I just don't promote the lifestyle the activists are leeching at me.

Ok you're throwing everyone in the same pot. This article has nothing to do with the people marching into church. Just like pro-life groups having nothing to do with those who kill abortion doctors.

You still haven't defined the agenda.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

The agenda:

Force beliefs into society, using words like bigot, homophobe, and intolerant to describe those who won't give up theirs. Badger the media to promote homosexual behavior. Portray ourselves (the activists) as victims, and the right as haters. Test children's sexuality at a very young age, through "tolerance programs" in public schools. Annoy and annoy until people just give up and get tired of arguing with us.

Perhaps a different approach - less aggressive and more compassionate - would make some think a little differently.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Ok you're throwing everyone in the same pot. This article has nothing to do with the people marching into church. Just like pro-life groups having nothing to do with those who kill abortion doctors.

Just like to comment that these certain "pro-lifers" who kill abortion doctors aren't pro-life at all.

 

[Do Miss America]

The agenda:

Force beliefs into society, using words like bigot, homophobe, and intolerant to describe those who won't give up theirs. Badger the media to promote homosexual behavior. Portray ourselves (the activists) as victims, and the right as haters. Test children's sexuality at a very young age, through "tolerance programs" in public schools. Annoy and annoy until people just give up and get tired of arguing with us.

Perhaps a different approach - less aggressive and more compassionate - would make some think a little differently.

Ok now we're getting somewhere you've finally defined it.

First of all I'm a little perplexed about the line of badgering the media to promote homosexual behavior. What's homosexual behavior? Do we BEHAVE any differently then heterosexuals? No we are just attracted to the same sex. Our lives are the same. So please get the myth of we behave any differently out of your mind.

We're not forcing beliefs! We're saying we're gay this is who we are, don't hate us for being who we are. We aren't hurting anyone, our lives are no different, our work ethic isn't any different, let us love who we love it's consentual!

We are victims. We're victims of discrimination everyday. We're victims in the sense that we don't have the same rights as you. We're victims in the sense that the only people that have a problem with us are those that interpret the Bible a certain way and call us sinners. Well you know what we're all sinners. My loving another woman is not a sin!!! You're cheating on your wife is a sin, yet you want to make my relationship against the law and not your cheating.

I'm sorry if this is annoying you. I'm sure blacks annoyed many whites when they were trying to claim equal rights. I'm sure many women annoyed men when they claimed equal rights. So if it takes a little bit of "annoying" you then I'm willing to do it, because nothing I'm doing is wrong. I'm in love with a girl, Jesus isn't going to deny me entrance into heaven so why are you denying me my rights?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I would be willing to cite examples, but first I want to make it clear to you that I respect where you are coming from, and that it is not my intention to rile you up. It seems that all I'm doing when I state my personal views on this particular issue is pissing people off. I don't mean to do that, but they are serious issues, and they're out there. This issue has been presented to me almost daily this week, and I am trying my hardest to present where I am coming from without hurting anyone's feelings. Please understand that I am not trying to slam you.