• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

I'm just saying..... [W:106; 116]

Cut the B.S. denials. The Left stole the election, end of story.


You cheated your way into power... Fine.


You have the control of the country for the next four years.


We will stand aside and let you do ANYTHING at all that you want. ANYTHING!


But in four years, when the majority of people in America are far, far more unhappy, in poverty, and going without due to the inherent failures of your ideaology, it won't be "Dubya's Fault".


We will simply stand out of the way, and let you fail, so that the majority of the American People will rise up against the idiocy of the "Neo-Liberal" ethnic socialist, faux-enviromentalist radical agenda.



You can steal an election, but with your intrinsically flawed agenda, you can't govern.


-

I could sit here and point out instances where Republicans tried to use manipulation in order to gain more votes, but what will that prove? Regardless, there are less flaws in liberal ideology than conservatism. I wonder how conservatives are going to feel in four years, when everything is just fine? All those conspiracy theory doomsday prophecies will fall by the wayside, and what will there be for conservatives to fall back on? Will they change their tone, or keep up with the same rhetoric? And, since we're on the topic, I'd rather have a "socialist" president, than a fascist one. And, for your quote at the bottom of your post, Dubya was proof of that.
 
I think there have been enough complaints in enough places that we need to scrap the touchscreen machines in every state.

It's funny when the left brought this up in 2004, conservatives called the left crazy and now that the righty candidate lost, people on the right "suddenly" believe electronic voting machines to be "faulty".

Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with you in that we should do paper ballot only. However, it is amusing watching all the so called "voter fraud" threads when the righty candidate lost.

Definitely sour grapes on the rights part. They can't admit that their candidate lost, so it MUST be voter fraud.
 
FireAndreaMitchell.com? Now there's a credible site! :lamo
 
It's funny when the left brought this up in 2004, conservatives called the left crazy and now that the righty candidate lost, people on the right "suddenly" believe electronic voting machines to be "faulty".

Don't get me wrong, I actually agree with you in that we should do paper ballot only. However, it is amusing watching all the so called "voter fraud" threads when the righty candidate lost.

Definitely sour grapes on the rights part. They can't admit that their candidate lost, so it MUST be voter fraud.

The voting machine issue and the voting fraud issues are not comparable to me. There have been reports of voting machines errors that have nothing to do with one party or the other. I like the idea of electronic machines just because it should be easier to tally votes and avoid errors in the data stream but there just seems to be too many unexplained glitches.
 
That is not going to happen with the republican controlled house. Obama is reliant on congress to pass the bills before he can sign them into law. I think you are overreacting a whole lot. As amusing as the meltdown is, you are loosing a grip on reality. I know you are dissapointed, and i hope this is just a tantrum that will go away, but if it continues you really should consider some therapy or something. Just for the fact it is not fun to live for long periods in this sort of fear and delusional misery. It is just not that bad.


Uh, no, not really. What we have is in effect a two man dictatorship. Harry Reid blocks anything coming up from the House he doesn't want and Obama passes what he wants with executive order. So Congress has pretty much been nullified. I'd like to see THAT change. Obviously there will be contention within and between the houses, but that was designed that way for a reason. Until we go back to this you will see the divide between the two sides get wider and wider.

I think part of the problem is exactly what we saw in the election. It's not that the Republicans have gone too far right (I would argue they are more centrist today than in years past), it's that the electorate has moved further left. In a world where individuals see themselves as the center of the universe which has shrunk to the size of their smart phone or tablet screen, everything is instant. Congress is no more obstructed than it has ever been (with the exception of super majorities, and even then when Obama had one his first two years he struck out on many of his plans) it's just that people want what they want and they want it NOW.
 
Ohhh, I see. So you beleive that the Left does now have a MANDATE.


The Democrats are now in charge and can pass whatever they want? Is that it?

It's much more than a mandate it's a revolution. And you are not invited, but your taxes will come in handy.
I hope you make alot of money.
 
It's funny when the left brought this up in 2004, conservatives called the left crazy and now that the righty candidate lost, people on the right "suddenly" believe electronic voting machines to be "faulty".
To be fair the drumbeat of them being crapy, some designs more than others, has been building for awhile across the political spectrum. Just not so much in the loudest corners that it is right now, and they are somewhat behind the curve as there are already counties that have been getting rid of the POS machines (and more that wish they had the ready resources to do so).
 
Uh, no, not really. What we have is in effect a two man dictatorship. Harry Reid blocks anything coming up from the House he doesn't want and Obama passes what he wants with executive order. So Congress has pretty much been nullified. I'd like to see THAT change. Obviously there will be contention within and between the houses, but that was designed that way for a reason. Until we go back to this you will see the divide between the two sides get wider and wider.

Executive order does not work that way and you know it. If you don't you should probably learn a bit before dabbling in any political discussion.
I think part of the problem is exactly what we saw in the election. It's not that the Republicans have gone too far right (I would argue they are more centrist today than in years past), it's that the electorate has moved further left. In a world where individuals see themselves as the center of the universe which has shrunk to the size of their smart phone or tablet screen, everything is instant. Congress is no more obstructed than it has ever been (with the exception of super majorities, and even then when Obama had one his first two years he struck out on many of his plans) it's just that people want what they want and they want it NOW.

You really have no clue do you. America does not want the extreme right position the republicans are pushing. Not because they have gone left, but because republicans have gone fascist. They want america to be a christian nation where biblical law is the law of the land. they want to tell people who can marry and who can have sex with each other. They want to tell you who you can talk to and how you are supposed to be in every aspect of your life, and people are damned sick and tired of it. We are not a christian nation though we have a lot of christians in our nation. Gay marriage is OK as long as it is between consenting adults. If you think abortion is a sin then you don't have one, but it should be a choice for other people. You don't get to make choices for their lives. It is called freedom and you have to start accepting it. You are not entitled to walk outside and only see things you like. Some things will bother you and you will have to suck it up and deal. you do not have the right to be not offended. People have the right to handle their lives and health the way they see fit, and you are not a part of that decision because it does not effect you. Yes, people actually want their government to do things because despite it's failing at times it does a far better job than private industry at many things. We want a government that runs efficiently and one that does provide things for us. Yes, we are willing to pay taxes for that because we either pay taxes or we pay for it in the private sector. Either way we get to pay for it, so in some cases it is good to have the government handle it considering the lowlife slimeballs like Mittens who would take every little bit of profit they could and give you as little as possible.

We are tired of hearing your bitching because you want to stop people from getting abortions, or stop two consenting adults from marrying because you read a book that said it was bad. Tough tittie that you don't like it. We are sick of your laws that do everything to try and hurt people who are not like you, and it is getting old and tired. We are not going further left we are getting more ticked off at bossy little snobs who think they know how to run everyone else's life yet they cannot get it together themselves. We are just sick of you. That is what you have to know. We don't need you to save our souls, we did not ask you to save our souls, and frankly unless we have asked we don't want you to save our souls. Work on yourself, because you need a lot of fixing.

It is not us, it is you who is wrong.
 
Executive order does not work that way and you know it. If you don't you should probably learn a bit before dabbling in any political discussion.


You really have no clue do you. America does not want the extreme right position the republicans are pushing. Not because they have gone left, but because republicans have gone fascist. They want america to be a christian nation where biblical law is the law of the land. they want to tell people who can marry and who can have sex with each other. They want to tell you who you can talk to and how you are supposed to be in every aspect of your life, and people are damned sick and tired of it. We are not a christian nation though we have a lot of christians in our nation. Gay marriage is OK as long as it is between consenting adults. If you think abortion is a sin then you don't have one, but it should be a choice for other people. You don't get to make choices for their lives. It is called freedom and you have to start accepting it. You are not entitled to walk outside and only see things you like. Some things will bother you and you will have to suck it up and deal. you do not have the right to be not offended. People have the right to handle their lives and health the way they see fit, and you are not a part of that decision because it does not effect you. Yes, people actually want their government to do things because despite it's failing at times it does a far better job than private industry at many things. We want a government that runs efficiently and one that does provide things for us. Yes, we are willing to pay taxes for that because we either pay taxes or we pay for it in the private sector. Either way we get to pay for it, so in some cases it is good to have the government handle it considering the lowlife slimeballs like Mittens who would take every little bit of profit they could and give you as little as possible.

We are tired of hearing your bitching because you want to stop people from getting abortions, or stop two consenting adults from marrying because you read a book that said it was bad. Tough tittie that you don't like it. We are sick of your laws that do everything to try and hurt people who are not like you, and it is getting old and tired. We are not going further left we are getting more ticked off at bossy little snobs who think they know how to run everyone else's life yet they cannot get it together themselves. We are just sick of you. That is what you have to know. We don't need you to save our souls, we did not ask you to save our souls, and frankly unless we have asked we don't want you to save our souls. Work on yourself, because you need a lot of fixing.

It is not us, it is you who is wrong.

See, this is what is wrong with your perspective. You see my position as you wish to see it when all you had to do was ask. I'm a Christian, there are many things in your post that are just dead wrong. I don't expect everybody to live by the standards I have for myself. That requires faith, and if you don't have it changing your behavior will not change that. I don't care about gay marriage. It is not shunned in our church. Granted our pastor will not likely be performing any gay marriage ceremonies, but we have an inordinate high percentage of gay kids in or missions group (this is a 2 year live in program that includes a free ride at the local Baptist college, we are not baptists). Seems some parents think they can church the gay out of their kids. They can not. And when they finish they are still gay. We love them anyway.

Your statement on abortion is the same stance I have. I would like to see fewer abortions but I wouldn't legislate against it. The goal is fewer unwanted children and there are many ways to achieve that. I agree that people have the choice to handle their health as they see fit. BTW Obamacare does away with that and last I checked conservatives don't want it. It limits our choices and should not be a function of federal government. We would like an efficient government as well, but that has not and will not happen under this administration. We haven't seen a budget since Obama took office. How do you decide on a path for the future without first determining where you are now? You can't. Try getting to your destination using a map without knowing where you are to begin with. It doesn't work.

As for your soul, I have no interest in saving it. You and people like you have abandoned that pursuit in favor of your own immediate happiness. That's not my problem. What is my problem is that you and your have also abandoned your responsibilities to your parents and grandparents in favor of a government you trust to care for them because it is inconvienent for you. What is my problem is that your world of personal gratification does not consider the needs of those around you. And frankly, I don't care any more. I'll take care of my family and those of you who want personal freedom at the cost of liberty can do what you want... until it affects me, and then we will have a problem. But you are free to live as you like. Just don't expect anyone who thinks past their smart phone screen of Facebook page to bail you out when it goes wrong, and it will. Good luck with that.

So let's end the evil Christian boogieman theory. The only reason you feel that way is that you do not understand us and are too selfish to see what effect your behavior has on those around you. We have become a nation of "what's in it for me". What you are seeing is seperation of those of us who say "no more" and have left you to your own devices. We may have tried to convince you in the past, those days are gone. Wrath, as it is used biblicly, is not outward agression but abandonment. Man has proven time and again he is capable of destroying himself and everything around him in the absence of God, and you and your have abandoned him. There is a simple truth in life: You will arrive where your path leads you. We have chosen different paths. The seperation we are seeing is the growing devide as we move down different paths from a common point. In the end, you will not be our concern. Sooner or later our paths will be so far apart that we will not be able to see you or you us, and then we will all be happy.

Or will we?
 
We see allot of Democrats Gloating and talking about all the things they're now going to do....


But it was a very close election, AND...

There is NO Mandate.

The Dems, with the help of the Courts blocking Voter ID, Can STEAL an Election, but they'll never Govern.

There may well have been a mandate...

387px-Election-state-08-12.png

File:Election-state-08-12.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nearly ALL of the states votes moved to the right...

With the exception of slight movement in MS, NJ (which was devastated by a hurricane many attribute incorrectly to global warming)... only Alaska shifted left.

Republican enthusiasm was way up in this election... and Independents voted for Romney more so than they did Obama...

Yet... despite that... Something remarkably odd occured...

Romney recieved less votes than McCain...
 
Ohhh, I see. So you beleive that the Left does now have a MANDATE.

The Democrats are now in charge and can pass whatever they want? Is that it?

Republicans declared Bush had a mandate in 2004 with a smaller popular vote margin and a smaller EC margin.
If Bush had one with those numbers, Obama has one with his. Using the arguments given by Republicans in 2004, Obama absolutely has a mandate.
 
Republicans declared Bush had a mandate in 2004 with a smaller popular vote margin and a smaller EC margin.
If Bush had one with those numbers, Obama has one with his. Using the arguments given by Republicans in 2004, Obama absolutely has a mandate.

They were wrong then just as those who claim an Obama mandate are now. I don't think anyone beyond pure party pundits thought Bush had a mandate in 2004. Same is true of Obama today.
 
Republicans declared Bush had a mandate in 2004 with a smaller popular vote margin and a smaller EC margin.
If Bush had one with those numbers, Obama has one with his. Using the arguments given by Republicans in 2004, Obama absolutely has a mandate.
I don't know what Republicans seriously thought Bush had a mandate in 04...

However, it should be said, that in 04, the Republicans also won the house and senate...

In this election, Republicans kept the house, extended their lead among governorships... Democrats kept the presidency and Senate...

and nearly every state in the union had their presidential election result lean more to the right... 48 out of 51, including DC...

That's not a mandate that Obama's way is the right way... that's Obama narrowly winning a popularity contest, with a highly unpopular guy who does the right thing most of the time... a sqaure... Well done Obama... beating the stiff old rich guy that no one likes in a popularity contest...

Nothing else changed...
 
I don't know what Republicans seriously thought Bush had a mandate in 04.

You really need to start using Google.

Bennet, Kristol and Tucker Carlson openly declared it. Bush himself claimed a mandate.

However, it should be said, that in 04, the Republicans also won the house and senate...

In this election, Republicans kept the house, extended their lead among governorships... Democrats kept the presidency and Senate...

and nearly every state in the union had their presidential election result lean more to the right... 48 out of 51, including DC...

That's not a mandate that Obama's way is the right way... that's Obama narrowly winning a popularity contest, with a highly unpopular guy who does the right thing most of the time... a sqaure... Well done Obama... beating the stiff old rich guy that no one likes in a popularity contest.

That's your take on it. But that wasn't the arguments presented by the media, as well as the Bush administration on why they had a mandate.

Nothing else changed...

Now that is true.
 
You really need to start using Google.

Bennet, Kristol and Tucker Carlson openly declared it. Bush himself claimed a mandate.

That's your take on it. But that wasn't the arguments presented by the media, as well as the Bush administration on why they had a mandate.

LMFAO @ the need to start using "google"... I'm sorry, since when did "Google" become synonimous with "knowledge"... That's ridiculous... Not only are there other search engines out there, that you don't have to buy into the google hype... but googling sites is a heavily flawed way of doing research, that only brings back website information which can be tampered with or adjusted on the fly... No college, court, or other official institution would accept a google search or website as proof of anything...

Neither is what Tucker Carlson or William Kristol considered to be proof of anything but a partisan hack spouting off crap they like to hear themselves say...

No Democrat felt Bush had a mandate... and they all wanted Kerry to push for a recount, take it to the courts... and to start impeachment proceedings on Bush...

Go "Google" that aspect of it...

Funny now they are all turned 180 degrees and saying such behavior is wrong...

Now that is true.
That is true... This was a status quo election...

Prior to the election: Democrat President, Democrat controlled Senate but not a supermajority, Republican controlled House but not a super majority, More Republican Governors.

After the election: Democrat President, Democrat controlled Senate but not a supermajority, Republican controlled House but not a super majority, More Republican Governors.

The dynamic has not changed regarding leadership of this nation... it's all the same... $6B spent for a status quo election... despite all the hatred of the way the government has been performing... the very same government has returned to power...

You know who lost this election... the American people...
 
LMFAO @ the need to start using "google"... I'm sorry, since when did "Google" become synonimous with "knowledge"

No, Google is a method of finding information. Which you clearly have a problem here.

That's ridiculous... Not only are there other search engines out there, that you don't have to buy into the google hype... but googling sites is a heavily flawed way of doing research, that only brings back website information which can be tampered with or adjusted on the fly

You clearly do not understand how Google's algorithm works. To actually mess with Google's data requires a huge endeavor. Getting Santorum to show what it shows rather then him took years to do. You are pushing this notion that anyone can quickly and deliberately mess with Google's search results. That is not possible.

No college, court, or other official institution would accept a google search or website as proof of anything

Did I say it was? My point about Google is using it to find information. You again have a problem with basic information, in getting it, understanding it and merging it with your arguments. Good arguments are based on proper, decent information. You need to fix how you do this as there is a massive gap in your current capacity.

Neither is what Tucker Carlson or William Kristol considered to be proof of anything but a partisan hack spouting off crap they like to hear themselves say.

So the Bush Adminstration is a bunch of hacks too? I like how you just called Kristol a hack. Needless to say, you are wrong about your initial point. Unless you are calling Kristol, Carlson and Bennet liars. Not to mention Bush himself.

No Democrat felt Bush had a mandate... and they all wanted Kerry to push for a recount, take it to the courts... and to start impeachment proceedings on Bush.

See what I mean about Google?

"

  • Paula Zahn, CNN host: "A president with a mandate, a 10-seat majority in the Senate, at least 25 seats in the House. So everything should be smooth sailing for Republicans, right? Well, maybe not." [CNN's Paula Zahn Now, 11/8/04]

  • Chicago Tribune editorial board: "In trying to advance an ambitious second-term agenda, President Bush has made it clear he intends to make every use he can of the assets at his disposal, starting with the electoral mandate he got last week." [Chicago Tribune, "Memo to Bush: Just say 'no,' " 11/8/04]

  • John Roberts, CBS News chief White House correspondent (now with CNN): "With the majority of the popular vote behind him [Bush], with the Electoral College win, with a mandate that perhaps many people didn't allow him to have in the first term, can he afford to be more magnanimous with the press?" [CNN's Reliable Sources, 11/7/04]

  • Andy Serwer, CNN host and Fortune magazine editor-at-large: "Interesting time for the president, obviously, he [Bush] seems to have a mandate from the people to go ahead and do what he wants to, his bidding. Where do you think this is going to take him?" [CNN's In the Money, 11/7/04]

  • Christine Romans, CNN anchor: "When I talk to Democrats and people who watch the Democratic machine, they're furious that this was so close again and that now the president has a mandate." [In the Money, 11/6/04]

  • Michele Kelemen, National Public Radio diplomatic correspondent: "Others doubt President Bush will change much given his election mandate and his strong convictions in foreign policy." [NPR's Weekend All Things Considered, 11/6/04]

  • Carol Costello, CNN anchor and reporter: "To American politics now and the mandate. President Bush is promising to use his election mandate to push his agenda forward." [CNN Daybreak, 11/5/04]

  • Ceci Connolly, Washington Post staff writer: "Well, I certainly think that there is a mandate [for Bush]. I think we have to go a little bit careful in terms of what specifically it is a mandate for. I mean as we've all agreed, a lot was discussed in this campaign. Interestingly, what you heard President Bush focus on was tax reform, Social Security changes, partial privatization. And continuing what he calls the war on terrorism." [Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, 11/5/04]

  • David Sanger, New York Times White House correspondent: "But Mr. Bush no longer has to pretend that he possesses a clear electoral mandate. Because for the first time in his presidency, he can argue that he has the real thing." [The New York Times, "Relaxed, Certainly, but Keeping One Eye on the Clock," 11/5/04]

  • Dan Chapman, Atlanta Journal-Constitution global economics and business reporter: "Bush, buoyed by a popular mandate and a more Republican Congress, will probably receive the financial and military wherewithal to fight the insurgency and rebuild Iraq." [The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "Bush gets voters' nod on Iraq, but outlook risky," 11/4/04]

  • Keith Miller, NBC News correspondent: "Bush, who won by more than three and a half million votes, has a solid mandate that will force the attention of America's enemies and allies." [NBC's Nightly News, 11/3/04]

  • Rafael Lorente, Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, Florida) Washington bureau: "Americans not only gave President Bush a mandate, they also gave him the necessary tools in the form of more Republican House and Senate colleagues to push through his conservative agenda." [Sun-Sentinel, "Bush now has the tools to energize his priority programs," 11/4/04, syndicated by Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services]

  • Doyle McManus and Janet Hook, Los Angeles Times staff writers: "Four years ago, George W. Bush won his first term with fewer votes than his opponent, but governed as if the nation had granted him a clear mandate to pursue conservative policies. This time, Bush can claim a solid mandate of 51% of the vote, which made him the first presidential candidate to win a clear majority since 1988 -- a point Bush aides made repeatedly Wednesday." [Los Angeles Times, "Majority Win Could Make Second Term More Partisan," 11/4/04]

  • Tony Karon, Time magazine columnist and senior editor: "George W. Bush took the reins of power with the confidence and certainty of one who had carried a landslide mandate to implement his own agenda. This time, of course, his claim of a popular mandate is incontrovertible. His party has strengthened its grip on both branches of the legislature, and freed of any first-term restraints that might be thrown up by reelection concerns, President George W. Bush is well positioned to even more vigorously pursue his agenda." [Time, "Victorious Bush Reaches Out," 11/3/04]

  • Wolf Blitzer, CNN anchor: "My sense is that the president will see this as a mandate on his policies, because the Republicans also did very well in the House of Representatives, did very well in the U.S. Senate, picking up seats in both. He gets over 50 percent, 51 percent. And he's going to see this as a mandate in the next four years to try and move the country in the direction he wants it to move. He will try to bring the country together in the short term, but he's going to say, he's got a mandate from the American people, and by all accounts he does." [CNN election coverage, 11/3/04]

  • Renee Montagne, NPR host: "Well, as you say, the president's people are calling this a mandate. By any definition I think you could call this a mandate. How will he govern?" [Morning Edition, 11/3/04]

  • Chris Matthews, MSNBC host: "Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews. And welcome to MSNBC's post-election coverage live from Democracy Plaza in New York's Rockefeller Plaza. Yesterday voters went to the polls and reelected President George Bush, giving him a mandate in his second term." [MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, 11/3/04]"

Oops


Looks like you're wrong....again.
Go "Google" that aspect of it...

The irony here is amusing.

Funny now they are all turned 180 degrees and saying such behavior is wrong.

You mean like how all those quotes aren't what you said?

Seriously, start using Google, or frankly any search engine. Your information is so wrong it's not even funny.
 
No, Google is a method of finding information. Which you clearly have a problem here.
Oh, is that what it is? I thought it was the Capital of OH

The problem Google has, as do most of its users, is that Google just finds information. It doesn't know how to put a correct value on its merit, or know how to utilize it appropriately. Sure you can find information, but you don't have a clue how to use it. Read on
You clearly do not understand how Google's algorithm works. To actually mess with Google's data requires a huge endeavor. Getting Santorum to show what it shows rather then him took years to do. You are pushing this notion that anyone can quickly & deliberately mess with Google's search results. That is not possible.
I'm not sure you have a clue how Google works, because Google puts emphasis on most popular, most searched for, nearest to you geographically, etc. Neither of those things is “most appropriate”, “most accurate”, “most respected within it’s field”, etc. (May also want to check that Santorum bit for grammatical sense, because I couldn’t find any)

Did I say it was? My point about Google is using it to find information. You again have a problem with basic information, in getting it, understanding it & merging it with your arguments. Good arguments are based on proper, decent information. You need to fix how you do this as there is a massive gap in your current capacity.
I will be laughing about this comment for years with my former professors at Harvard, who also rarely have to consult “Google”, something most of them have little respect for as well…

So the Bush Adminstration is a bunch of hacks too? I like how you just called Kristol a hack. Needless to say, you are wrong about your initial point. Unless you are calling Kristol, Carlson & Bennet liars. Not to mention Bush himself.
LMFAO… Oh, did Bush say it, than it must be true… :roll:

Kristol is a well known biased conservative pundit. Everyone knows what lens his words are viewed under. Tucker Carlson is just a clown! Yes, of course the conservative pundits would want to view the election of Bush as a mandate, the very same way idiots like Chris Matthews would want to rant about a Bush mandate for the attention they’d draw as the anti-Bush media…

Yes, the Bush Administration were a bunch of hacks! were you not paying attention? Especially after re-election, when the more talented of the bunch jumped ship, & he was left with recycled hangers-on & more good old boy network types, like Brownie.

I’m sorry, weren’t you just trying to lecture me on how to formulate a good argument, then saying Bush’s own words about whether enough Americans were in support of his policies constituted a mandate for his policies? Have you seen what I mean about not knowing how to utilize information yet?
See what I mean about Google?

Paula Zahn, CNN host: "A president with a mandate, a 10-seat majority in the Senate, at least 25 seats in the House. So everything should be smooth sailing for Republicans, right? Well, maybe not."

Chicago Tribune editorial board: "In trying to advance an ambitious second-term agenda, President Bush has made it clear he intends to make every use he can of the assets at his disposal, starting with the electoral mandate he got last week."

John Roberts, CBS News chief White House correspondent (now with CNN): "With the majority of the popular vote behind him [Bush], with the Electoral College win, with a mandate that perhaps many people didn't allow him to have in the first term, can he afford to be more magnanimous with the press?"

Andy Serwer, CNN host & Fortune magazine editor-at-large: "Interesting time for the president, obviously, he [Bush] seems to have a mandate from the people to go ahead &do what he wants to, his bidding. Where do you think this is going to take him?"

Christine Romans, CNN anchor: "When I talk to Democrats&people who watch the Democratic machine, they're furious that this was so close again& that now the president has a mandate."

Michele Kelemen, National Public Radio diplomatic correspondent: "Others doubt President Bush will change much given his election mandate&his strong convictions in foreign policy."

Carol Costello, CNN anchor & reporter: "To American politics now & the mandate. President Bush is promising to use his election mandate to push his agenda forward."

Ceci Connolly, Washington Post staff writer: "Well, I certainly think that there is a mandate [for Bush]. I think we have to go a little bit careful in terms of what specifically it is a mandate for. I mean as we've all agreed, a lot was discussed in this campaign. Interestingly, what you heard President Bush focus on was tax reform, Social Security changes, partial privatization. And continuing what he calls the war on terrorism."

David Sanger, New York Times White House correspondent: "But Mr. Bush no longer has to pretend that he possesses a clear electoral mandate. Because for the first time in his presidency, he can argue that he has the real thing." The New York Times, "Relaxed, Certainly, but Keeping One Eye on the Clock,"

Dan Chapman, Atlanta Journal-Constitution global economics & business reporter: "Bush, buoyed by a popular mandate & a more Republican Congress, will probably receive the financial & military wherewithal to fight the insurgency & rebuild Iraq." [The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "Bush gets voters' nod on Iraq, but outlook risky,"]

Keith Miller, NBC News correspondent: "Bush, who won by more than three & a half million votes, has a solid mandate that will force the attention of America's enemies & allies."

Rafael Lorente, Sun-Sentinel (Fort Lauderdale, Florida) Washington bureau: " Americans not only gave President Bush a mandate, they also gave him the necessary tools in the form of more Republican House & Senate colleagues to push through his conservative agenda."

Doyle McManus & Janet Hook, Los Angeles Times staff writers: "Four years ago, George W. Bush won his first term with fewer votes than his opponent, but governed as if the nation had granted him a clear mandate to pursue conservative policies. This time, Bush can claim a solid mandate of 51% of the vote, which made him the first presidential candidate to win a clear majority since 1988 – a point Bush aides made repeatedly Wednesday." [Los Angeles Times, "Majority Win Could Make Second Term More Partisan," 11/4/04]

Tony Karon, Time magazine columnist & senior editor: "George W. Bush took the reins of power with the confidence & certainty of one who had carried a landslide mandate to implement his own agenda. This time, of course, his claim of a popular mandate is incontrovertible. His party has strengthened its grip on both branches of the legislature, & freed of any first-term restraints that might be thrown up by reelection concerns, President George W. Bush is well positioned to even more vigorously pursue his agenda." Time

Wolf Blitzer, CNN anchor: "My sense is that the president will see this as a mandate on his policies, because the Republicans also did very well in the House of Representatives, did very well in the U.S. Senate, picking up seats in both. He gets over 50 percent, 51 percent. And he's going to see this as a mandate in the next four years to try & move the country in the direction he wants it to move. He will try to bring the country together in the short term, but he's going to say, he's got a mandate from the American people, & by all accounts he does."

Renee Montagne, NPR host: "Well, as you say, the president's people are calling this a mandate. By any definition I think you could call this a mandate. How will he govern?"

Chris Matthews, MSNBC host: "Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews. & welcome to MSNBC's post-election coverage live from Democracy Plaza in New York's Rockefeller Plaza. Yesterday voters went to the polls & reelected President George Bush, giving him a mandate in his second term."

Oops Looks like you're wrong... again.

You mean like how all those quotes aren't what you said?

Seriously, start using Google, or frankly any search engine. Your information is so wrong it's not even funny.
LMFAO! Actually, those quotes aren’t what you said… You just helped make my point!

You researched & found the words of people who were either heavily biased conservatives arguing in favor of it being a mandate, OR, the words of rational minds who questioned why the Bush Administration governed like they had a mandate when they didn’t, & pointed out that there was trouble brewing ahead…

Most of whom were ignominious media characters trying to create something controversial to talk about that would draw reactions from either side, since they entertainment style media… No one seeks them out for knowledge… they seek them out for entertaining delivery & adding the term “mandate” draws attention…

Still, most of those quotes pointed out the two things that have already been said in this thread…

1) Bush’s re-election was different from Obama’s, because he not only won the popular vote, but he also extended the advantage to the Senate & House as well… So he was in complete control of the legislature on top of a re-election BY A WIDER MAJORITY THAN HE WAS INITIALLY ELECTED BY!!!

So this wasn't just Bush winning a narrow election... it was Bush winning by a wider majority than he was narrowly elected by the first time, Republicans winning the Senate, & winning the House by a wide margin. That's a Republican sweep. That's the mandate they were speaking of...

Obama won with FAR less support than he had when he was elected… an appalling amount less, & after having lost the mid-term elections heavily, which in this election, that stayed put, while Republicans kept the House &extended their lead among Governorships. This was a status quo election.

2) As many of them noted, it was Bush, his administration, or his people that were going to try to use it as if it was a mandate, not that it actually was a mandate, & there wasn’t smooth sailing, but stout resistance by Democrats as a result of what they viewed was a false mandate…

So please show me a real academic analysis of what constitutes a clear mandate of the people & just how Bush or Obama got a clear mandate from the people…

You won’t be able to find one (or you may find one or two, there are a few crack-pots at nearly every college… but you won’t find most historians or political scientist discussing either of these elections as a mandate, or that the people reacted to the election in 2004 as if Bush had a clear mandate & everyone should get behind him… That’s the exact opposite of what happened… People became more opposed to Bush, War protests increased, he had to fight for votes within his own party, & he lost the mid-term elections heavily… The people did not feel it was a pro-Bush mandate…

Instead, you’ve just found some popular media articles by “Google”, with uneducated entertainment media hosts pretending to use terms they really don’t know much about… great research there… :roll:

But, are you ready for the real ownage?

The site you stole all the quotes from (stole, you know… took without giving credit… plagiarized… no wonder you’re such a fan of Obama/Biden)... Clearly pointed holes in the reasoning for calling Bush’s victory in 2004 as a mandate… arguing from the standpoint that it should’ve have been… & it was just the media echoing Dick Cheney’s words…

In 2008, will media recall 2004 declarations of Bush "mandate"? | Research | Media Matters for America

“President Bush was re-elected in 2004 with 286 electoral votes, the smallest popular-vote margin since 1976 (excluding the 2000 election) & the lowest electoral vote count for an incumbent president's re-election since 1916. Nevertheless, many in the media were quick to echo Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that "the nation" gave Bush "a mandate." It remains to be seen whether the media will apply the same standard in assessing the results of the 2008 election.”

Their argument was why 2008 wasn’t referred to as a mandate, because it was by far wider that Bush’s in 2004, & I’d agree, 2008 was a mandate, though, more a referendum on the Bush administration

75927_325735947533854_82942143_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
Republicans declared Bush had a mandate in 2004 with a smaller popular vote margin and a smaller EC margin.
If Bush had one with those numbers, Obama has one with his. Using the arguments given by Republicans in 2004, Obama absolutely has a mandate.

Utter nonsense, he has nothing. He will be plagued by scandal the next 4 years.
 
It is utter nonsense the right believes, but they will try to ensure he has nothing. He will be plagued by obstructionist teabaggers for the next 4 years.
 
Utter nonsense, he has nothing. He will be plagued by scandal the next 4 years.

Obvisouly he has something or he wouldn't have won. Also, the senate remains in Dem control, so that's something.

What you have are sour grapes.
 
It is utter nonsense the right believes, but they will try to ensure he has nothing. He will be plagued by obstructionist teabaggers for the next 4 years.

Those Teabaggers were elected were they not. Just like your Obama freebee giver.
 
Back
Top Bottom