Dr. K Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Josh Marshall gives a take on the election that I agree with: Yesterday, in an overnight post, Andrew Sullivan wrote, President Bush "deserves a fresh start, a chance to prove himself again, and the constructive criticism of those of us who decided to back his opponent. He needs our prayers and our support for the enormous tasks still ahead of him." I thought about this when I read it. And, to put it simply, I didn't agree. What I considered writing was that given the track record he's compiled and the way he ran this campaign, he's really owed no fresh start. That would be graciousness at war with reality. It would be up to the president, I thought of writing, to show concrete signs of a willingness not to govern in the divisive and factional spirit from which he's governed in the last four years. And then there's this from his comments today: "We've worked hard and gained many new friends, and the result is now clear -- a record voter turnout and a broad, nationwide victory." This is the touchstone and the sign. A 'broad, nationwide victory'? He must be kidding. Our system is majority rule. And 51% is a win. But he's claiming a mandate. "A broad, nationwide victory"? It would almost be comical if it weren't for the seriousness of what it portends. This election cut the nation in two. A single percentage point over 50% is not broad. A victory that carried no states in the Northeast, close to none in the Industrial midwest is not nationwide, and none on the west coast is not nationwide. And yet he plans to use this narrow victory as though it were a broad mandate, starting right back with the same strategy that has already come near to tearing this country apart. -- Josh Marshall This is what the first Bush term gave us--he governed as if he had won a landslide and a mandate. Of course he has the right to try to do so, and the GOP controls both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court, so he can get most anything he wants passed. And the Republicans are completely responsible for the consequences, which is at least some consolation for us liberals. But if Bush seriously wants to heal the divisions in the country, he has to treat the Dems as more than an obstruction. The Supreme Court nominations he is likely to have the opportunity to make--as many as three of them over his term--will be real evidence of his sincerity. If he says, "Today I nominate John Ashcroft to the SC--now, let the healing begin" we will know that he doesn't give a damn about the 49% of the population who voted against him. I don't expect him to make any meaningful efforts to reach across the aisle. As Grover Norquist said once, "Bipartisanship is just another word for date rape." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Josh Marshall gives a take on the election that I agree with: Yesterday, in an overnight post, Andrew Sullivan wrote, President Bush "deserves a fresh start, a chance to prove himself again, and the constructive criticism of those of us who decided to back his opponent. He needs our prayers and our support for the enormous tasks still ahead of him." I thought about this when I read it. And, to put it simply, I didn't agree. What I considered writing was that given the track record he's compiled and the way he ran this campaign, he's really owed no fresh start. That would be graciousness at war with reality. It would be up to the president, I thought of writing, to show concrete signs of a willingness not to govern in the divisive and factional spirit from which he's governed in the last four years. And then there's this from his comments today: "We've worked hard and gained many new friends, and the result is now clear -- a record voter turnout and a broad, nationwide victory." This is the touchstone and the sign. A 'broad, nationwide victory'? He must be kidding. Our system is majority rule. And 51% is a win. But he's claiming a mandate. "A broad, nationwide victory"? It would almost be comical if it weren't for the seriousness of what it portends. This election cut the nation in two. A single percentage point over 50% is not broad. A victory that carried no states in the Northeast, close to none in the Industrial midwest is not nationwide, and none on the west coast is not nationwide. And yet he plans to use this narrow victory as though it were a broad mandate, starting right back with the same strategy that has already come near to tearing this country apart. -- Josh Marshall This is what the first Bush term gave us--he governed as if he had won a landslide and a mandate. Of course he has the right to try to do so, and the GOP controls both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court, so he can get most anything he wants passed. And the Republicans are completely responsible for the consequences, which is at least some consolation for us liberals. But if Bush seriously wants to heal the divisions in the country, he has to treat the Dems as more than an obstruction. The Supreme Court nominations he is likely to have the opportunity to make--as many as three of them over his term--will be real evidence of his sincerity. If he says, "Today I nominate John Ashcroft to the SC--now, let the healing begin" we will know that he doesn't give a damn about the 49% of the population who voted against him. I don't expect him to make any meaningful efforts to reach across the aisle. As Grover Norquist said once, "Bipartisanship is just another word for date rape." 100274[/snapback] It's a two way street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 This is the touchstone and the sign. A 'broad, nationwide victory'? He must be kidding. Our system is majority rule. And 51% is a win. But he's claiming a mandate. 100274[/snapback] Actually, he's wrong. Our system isn't majority rule, it's representative rule. And Bush won the representation with 279 votes. And it still isn't a broad nationwide victory either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 he has to treat the Dems as more than an obstruction. And vice versa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 The Supreme Court nominations he is likely to have the opportunity to make--as many as three of them over his term--will be real evidence of his sincerity. If he says, "Today I nominate John Ashcroft to the SC--now, let the healing begin" we will know that he doesn't give a damn about the 49% of the population who voted against him. I don't expect him to make any meaningful efforts to reach across the aisle. 100274[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 100393[/snapback] Sorry, I hit return before I was done. Still too pi$$sed about the results to type I guess . Anyway, the Supreme court will be our new battle ground. We tried, and failed in this election, but there is no way in hell people will accept an Ashcroft on the Supreme court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Sorry, I hit return before I was done. Still too pi$$sed about the results to type I guess . Anyway, the Supreme court will be our new battle ground. We tried, and failed in this election, but there is no way in hell people will accept an Ashcroft on the Supreme court. 100401[/snapback] BTW, you any relation to Eddie Coli? He owes me money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 BTW, you any relation to Eddie Coli? He owes me money. 100403[/snapback] Not related, but E Coli owes me too. So does Eddie Bola. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Not related, but E Coli owes me too. So does Eddie Bola. 100414[/snapback] You in research, or industry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 You in research, or industry? 100418[/snapback] Industry. I'm a research scientist. Antimicrobials. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. K Posted November 3, 2004 Author Share Posted November 3, 2004 And vice versa. 100363[/snapback] Bush has all the power. The GOP completely controls the congressional agenda. The Dems can't do a damned thing on their own initiative. So it's incumbent on Bush to make the first move, if he's serious about "healing the wounds." Especially after treating the Dems like a doormat for the first term, doing such things as holding a vote open in the House for three hours until they could strongarm a couple of Republicans into changing their votes on the Prescription Drug bill, accusing the Dems of disloyalty, acting like the Dems were obstructing judges when they blocked a small fraction of the number of judges that the Rebublicans blocked of Bill Clinton's nominees. Frist went to South Dakota and campaigned against Daschle, a breach of collegiality that no Democratic Senate leader had ever done against the Republican minority leader when the Dems had the whip hand. This is whyBush's "I'm a uniter, not a divider" talk is just so much rhetoric. I fully expect the GOP to use their power to the max, and devil take the hindmost. This quote from Bush only reinforces that expectation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 This is whyBush's "I'm a uniter, not a divider" talk is just so much rhetoric. I fully expect the GOP to use their power to the max, and devil take the hindmost. This quote from Bush only reinforces that expectation. 100425[/snapback] He just got his second term...he doesn't even need to pretend with all his "compasionate conservative" crap. This will be the most divisive, polarizing four years in our nation's history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 He just got his second term...he doesn't even need to pretend with all his "compasionate conservative" crap. This will be the most divisive, polarizing four years in our nation's history. 100432[/snapback] You mean worse than the one that caused a Civil War? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Industry. I'm a research scientist. Antimicrobials. 100424[/snapback] You should have a better understanding of some of our current "WMD" issues than most anyone here. I have a hard time believing you think Kerry would have provided a better solution, as we have a real big problem on our hands. were you aware that he planned on cutting a couple billion from Bio-shield? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 You mean worse than the one that caused a Civil War? 100437[/snapback] Clearly I am allowed a bit of hyperbole today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Clearly I am allowed a bit of hyperbole today. 100445[/snapback] No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Clearly I am allowed a bit of hyperbole today. 100445[/snapback] It's your world, baby. I'm just taking in the scenery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Someone sent me this attachment which I thought was funny. The "majority" has ruled. And since it's those people in those red states who will pay the most: in taxes, in the blood of their children and more, I guess it's only fair. Being in the top 1% I was willing to give up my tax breaks in the hope that their burden might be eased, but apparently they don't want that. So be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Someone sent me this attachment which I thought was funny. The "majority" has ruled. And since it's those people in those red states who will pay the most: in taxes, in the blood of their children and more, I guess it's only fair. Being in the top 1% I was willing to give up my tax breaks in the hope that their burden might be eased, but apparently they don't want that. So be it. 100462[/snapback] It's alive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Someone sent me this attachment which I thought was funny. The "majority" has ruled. And since it's those people in those red states who will pay the most: in taxes, in the blood of their children and more, I guess it's only fair. Being in the top 1% I was willing to give up my tax breaks in the hope that their burden might be eased, but apparently they don't want that. So be it. 100462[/snapback] Glad to see you back and evil as ever. Guess you couldn't come in and congratulate and be like the guy you voted for. You had to come back stirring stevestojan in your cauldron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts