Did Bush earn a mandate?

An article in my local paper this morning suggested Bush is going to significantly advance his mandate. Extend the lifespan on his tax cuts, revamp the legal system, appoint enough Supreme Court Justices to outlaw abortion, and (my favorite) “bring a wave of freedom across the Middle East.”


I buzzed CNN for a similar article and found then suggesting almost the opposite.


I don’t really know what to expect here, at first though I’m leaning towards a massively advanced mandate since this is his second term, but the closeness of the election also makes me think he’s going to want to work hard to not alienate voters from his party. Although Bush never really seemed to care about that last part too much. One should also consider that the Republicans have increased their power in Congress as well.

Anyway, discuss.

I think a word we’re going hear a lot over the next 4 years will be “Filibuster”

Takes 60% of the senate to break a Filibuster, Republicans only control 52%.

Also, He does not need to worry about re-election, and the last 4 years has shown he in no way cares about anybody but his base. I seriousy doubt he will in any way help anybody except the ultra-rich and ultra-religious.

55% actually. Net gain of 4 seats to a total of 55 (well, 54 since I guess Florida is still in the air somewhat). And with Daschle ousted, the new Minority Leader might try to compromise with Frist and company so as not to be labelled an obstructionist (which will happen given the rather clear, IMO, mandate for Republicans in general).

As for CH’s question, I dunno if Bush will have a mandate. I mean, 11 states did ban gay marriages. rimshot

Twice the recounts here, 984.

The election is a mandate in my opinion, in the sense that this vote comes after the American people have seen the devastation Bush has wreaked upon our country and world, and seem to not care enough about his obscene policies to oust him. I mean, the fucking guy got a bigger percentage of the vote than when people accidently voted for him in 2000. Jesus Christ, America is fucking brilliant.

If by brilliant you mean reta-OH!! I GET IT NOW!!!

A lot of people voted for Bush because MORAL VALUES were number 1 on their list of priorities. And the people who had morality as their number 1 priority more often than not had moral values similar to Bush, hence their votes. This doesn’t make them stupid, or ignorant, or whatever else, it just means they have different priorities than you obviously have. A lot of Bush supporters didn’t necessarily like Bush’s policies in Iraq and whatnot, but they felt that the moral issues (abortion, stem cell research, etc.) were more important TO THEM, so they voted for Bush. I have respect for people who stand by their convictions to such a degree.

Personally, the moral issues are the most important to me (I guess you’ll all brand me as “stupid” now, but whatever), but I felt Kerry was moderate enough that it didn’t make THAT much of a difference to me in that regard, and I felt that America needed a change (mostly because all the bitching on both sides of the political spectrum), so I voted for Kerry. But I can understand why people would want to vote for Bush, and I respect that, even though I disagree with it.

No, but I don’t see how the war in Iraq, which caused so much death for no reason whatsoever, is not a “moral issue.”

It is a moral issue. But it’s a different moral issue. You’re right, I probably should have made that clear. But there’s a difference in many people’s minds between an “immoral act” (such as an unjust war) and an 'immoral policy" (such as abortion). Some people didn’t find the Iraq War immoral at all, and some don’t find abortion immoral at all. Others, on both sides, obviously do. And each individual person had to compare their priorities (moral and otherwise) to both candidates and decide which was more important to them, which is not always an easy decision (it was a very difficult decision for me, for example.

Note that I’m not making any judgement on the morality of either issue, I’m just trying to demonstrate people’s point of view.

This is probably a time of political realignment in my humble opinion/observation. Groups are switching affiliations. Up until the 2000 election I believe, 90% of Catholics voted Democrat. That’s changing now. Right now the Democratic party is the “moon” party. The Republican party is the “sun” party. The American public most agree’s with the agenda set by the Republian party. This is probably going to be the way we do things for the next 30 or so years. Democrats will have to resort to agreeing with the policies set by the Republican party and basically say, “Yeah, that’s a good idea, but we can do it better.” Not that they haven’t tried that somewhat now. Expect to see lots of war heroes running for the Dems.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly. Although I’d hardly consider 51% a mandate, it bewilders me how so many people have the thought process of “well, we know Bush is bad but at least we know what we’re going to get”

This whole situation really brings an interesting point to mind. A lot of people seem to think that morality and ethics are the same thing, I think Bush really proves that they’re two totally different things and having one doesn’t mean you have the other.

If we believe everyone who voted for Bush and said that moral principles were their number one reason probably believe that Bush has good moral principles of his own (we’ll assume for the sake of argument). However, based on his current track record, he seems to be seriously lacking when it comes to ethical behavior.

Let see, he’s lied, crippled the economy, and seems to be systematically taking apart the US’s already miserable social security systems; all for the sake of a very small percentage of the population of which he and his cabinet belong to. No if that’s not unethical behavior I don’t know what else.

You should all thank the All Mighty G.W. resolving this age-old question of whether ethics and morality are actually one and the same. Oh and try not to destroy the world in the next 4 years, you might be crazy enough to actually elect that lunatic for real this time around, but some of us would actually like some peace and quite.

Republicans get our seat in the Senate. Mandate confirmed.

Like it was said on the Daily Show: He lost the popular vote in 2000 and saw that as a mandate. This time he won flat out: to him, that’s a shut-out.

Okay, I’m not calling anyone who based their vote on this stupid, but what do moral issues have to do with someone’s ability to run a country. Example Clinton Vs Bush. Clinton had all the morality of a cat on catnip, but he made your country look good, and work well. Bush has the morals of a priest, yet he makes your country look bad, not to mention the state of your economy.
And in fact, is it not more immoral to take away someones freedom of choice, their free will, which is apparantly given by the same God who Bush is loyal to, by banning something like abortion, which does no harm to them if done correctly and for the right reasons?
Edit: Oh yeah, and Irish papers agree that Bush has decided he earned his mandate, although they disagree.

A good economical proof of the Bush administration’s inability to deal with the economy.

The Canadian dollar is at 0.82 something.

The Canadian dollar is actually worth something because of the Bush administration.

I have heard on thursday that some ecmonical type pople think that we might get $2 to £1 soon.

Big Nutter
I think it was $1.66 to £1 before 9-11.

If you ask me, there’s a difference between “earning” a mandate and “recieving” a mandate.

Personally, I feel that Bush did not earn his mandate. However, he did recieve it, as he got elected.

Yeah, I realized afterwards that my wording was rather awkward.

That’s what I thought, but why not continue the thread with philosophical existentialism (and yes, I put those two words together just to sound intelligent which I obviously am not)