Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by Swamp Fox, Nov 7, 2002.
Bush has won a mandate, but is it a mandate for war?
I think that's what many of us fear, Stanley, and personally, I just don't see war as solving the problem. Now that the "triad" is there, Bush will be able to push damn near any agenda. I'm afraid our world will never be the same...
I am in a different place than Sunriser but still have the same fear. I think that war is necessary and unavoidable (he will strike us if we don't take him out first) but if he has a mandate maybe he will miss the way out if it appears.
I am still hopeful that he has another surprise for us as he did in Afghanistan. We expected a full scale war and he avoided it. Or at least avoided only our troops fighting.
President Bush had a mandate before the election for the option of using military force against Iraq.
As far as a perceived mandate for far right wing legislation, I don't think President Bush has that. Bush will still want support from a portion of the Democrats as well. The exception to this will be his judicial nominations. If the Bush White House is smart they will offer incremental steps in the direction of conservative values. If hardlined legislation is rammed through with no Democrat support, then Bush could be looking at one term and the Republicans losing congress. IMO, Bush's best offense will be to frame arguments for his priorities so that anyone who attacks those ideas look foolish. For instance, Bush wants to be able to fire ineffective or incompetent employees of the yet to be created Department of Homeland Security. In the interests of National Security it makes sense for the President to be able to get rid of risks in the Department that is in charge of security here at home. IMO, it looks foolish and dangerous to have incompetence in the Department of Homeland Security. I don't really care if a unionized employee doesn't do their job in the US Postal service because I don't depend on that employee to help keep me safe. I think this argument can be made to the mainstream of Americans. IMO, only the left wing of the Democrat party who represent the views of organized labor will oppose this.
With all due respect, the idea that the left-wing liberals
are advocating keeping incompetent people in any job is
another indication of how misunderstood liberals are.
Please, a little reality here.
Before claiming a mandate, two things should be noted.
1. The Republican victory represents a small shift in actual votes because so many races were tight.
2. Less than 20% of registered voters voted for Republicans in this election, and only a few % more in the previous one, where Bush lost the popular vote by 500,000+.
The 1994 Republican victory was a clear mandate, but only for Congress, since Clinton was re-elected. Bush has no mandate, he is a minority president, and only another election can change that. I'm surprised Republicans didn't do better, considering the cowardice, confusion, and identity crisis of the Democrats. Why vote for a Democrat who acts like a Republican, when you can vote for the real thing.
Most Rebpulicans and many Democrats have stated that the republican victories were a direct result of the campaign activities of the President. I would say that is pretty clear that the public approves of the president. It should be noted that both Gore and Clinton came out and campaigned too. Very interesting. Maybe the voters do respond to the man. Nah, what am I thinking?