WP: For Bush, Doubts About A Mandate

[Pirate Smile]

For Bush, Doubts About A Mandate

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

-snip-
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.

-snip-
Even among many influential conservatives, there has been a growing consensus that the Bush governing theory, at least on Social Security, has been proved wrong. The conservative Weekly Standard magazine recently warned in a headline of a "Social Security Quagmire," and argued that Bush should position himself so that a defeat on the issue does not cripple other parts of his agenda or produce big Republican losses in next year's congressional elections.

History suggests the possibility of major losses next year is not beyond imagination. The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll showed support for Bush's handling of Social Security at just 31 percent. That is several points lower than support for Clinton's handling of health care in the summer of 1994 -- just before the failure of what was widely perceived as an over-ambitious plan helped fuel the GOP takeover of Congress that fall.

A recent analysis by Democracy Corps, which offers polling and strategy to Democrats, concluded, "Voters have not yet turned to the Democrats as an instrument of change, but when they do, there can be electoral changes on a very large scale."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/01/AR2005050100948.html

[Deaniac20]

1. something new?

This idea that this was ever a mandate was a bunch of shit being pulled on us by the "liberal" media. he won by 2.7 percent of the vote, and gained congressional seats only becuase they have better politicians than we do. They are going to be very sorry for their partisanship, for which they are already paying the price now.

[TruthIsAll]

4. Deaniac: When will you get it?

For the umpteenth time: Bush lost.

This is apparent to virtually all DUers. Why, after all this time, do you still fail to see the obvious?

Kerry won by at least 5 million votes.

If you are a Deaniac, then you'll recall last summer, when Bev Harris demonstrated to Dean how the vote can be hacked - on live TV.

He knows. But he can't say it - yet.

You should know, also.

[Deaniac20]

9. well here is why

there is no hard proof like in Florida. I don't fall for GOP conspiracy theories, so why am I going to fall for liberal ones? I am not a complete one sided partisan. Not even Michael Moore thinks Bush stole the election like in 2000. Sure there were problems, but rigging 3 million votes is kinda tough. Florida was easy, because they only rigged a few thousand. I want hard proof like in Florida. Or Kerry could have taken it to the courts to prove it but he didn't. I am happy though that the vote was contested to get the issue of voting reform on the table and get some retribution for 2000. its a problem, but I need true, hard proof

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Griffy]

7. yea.. they slipped you some koolaid! Bush LOST.. thats why no mandate!

Its a lie bush won.. his approval ratings are closer to the truth! This is why voting reform is so key! and its not better politicains they have.. its better and more favorable media coverage. So the IMAGE is that.. please use language to reflect the truth.. we cant let an echo chamber form here! (some irony here!)

[tmooses]

2. This is what kind of insight you get when you surround yourself with

people who only echo your point of view.

[Jade Fox]

3. This comment makes no f###ing sense....

but it is still fueling the actions of the press, and the House and Senate:

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.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Six months ago more people than ever voted for St. Reagan voted for John Kerry.
How is it that we were ever considered non-existant??

Damn, this is making me angry!! :mad:

[Disturbed]

6. A Man date?

Guckert, perhaps?

[tinrobot]

8. Not Guckert...

His Prince... of course

[Disturbed]

10. Ah...

Laura must be jealous.