The emperor has no clothes...

[Bullypulpit]

<center><h1><a href=http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20041119.html>We don't need no steenkeen mandate...!</a></h1></center>

As the day of Dubbyuh's coronation...er...inauguration approaches, we should examine Dubbyuh's mandate or rather, his lack thereof.

Let's take a brief look at the historical record. In 2000, Dubbyuh lost the popular vote, and his "political capital" was non-existent then, though he claimed a mandate even then. He barely maintained his hold on power in 2004, and his "political capital" was only marginally better than that in 2000.

As for this election cycle Dubbyuh only won by 34 electors, the smallest margin of electoral victory for any US president. His margin of victory in the popular vote was 51%, hardly an overwhelming majority and not the mandate he claims. His 3% margin of victory is well within the margin of error given most polls.

As for the mandate he claims, reforming social security, selecting conservative judges and "simplifying" the tax code, were not the issue he ran on in the election. Had he run on those issue he would have been soundly defeated. Intsead, Karl Rove played the fear card. Fear of terrorism...fear of attack...fear of same-gender marriage...He did not run on substantive domestic issues. He ran on intangible emotional issues.

In the end, Dubbyuh's mandate is, like the rest of his administration, a fabric of obfuscation, disinformation, misdirection and outright lies. The emperor has no clothes, nor does he have a mandate.

 

[dilloduck]

<center><h1><a href=http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20041119.html>We don't need no steenkeen mandate...!</a></h1></center>

As the day of Dubbyuh's coronation...er...inauguration approaches, we should examine Dubbyuh's mandate or rather, his lack thereof.

Let's take a brief look at the historical record. In 2000, Dubbyuh lost the popular vote, and his "political capital" was non-existent then, though he claimed a mandate even then. He barely maintained his hold on power in 2004, and his "political capital" was only marginally better than that in 2000.

As for this election cycle Dubbyuh only won by 34 electors, the smallest margin of electoral victory for any US president. His margin of victory in the popular vote was 51%, hardly an overwhelming majority and not the mandate he claims. His 3% margin of victory is well within the margin of error given most polls.

As for the mandate he claims, reforming social security, selecting conservative judges and "simplifying" the tax code, were not the issue he ran on in the election. Had he run on those issue he would have been soundly defeated. Intsead, Karl Rove played the fear card. Fear of terrorism...fear of attack...fear of same-gender marriage...He did not run on substantive domestic issues. He ran on intangible emotional issues.

In the end, Dubbyuh's mandate is, like the rest of his administration, a fabric of obfuscation, disinformation, misdirection and outright lies. The emperor has no clothes, nor does he have a mandate.

Hide and watch Bully---intangibles can jump up and smack you in the ass. The libs are on the run and have been forced to totally rethink thier game plan.

 

[no1tovote4]

<center><h1><a href=http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20041119.html>We don't need no steenkeen mandate...!</a></h1></center>

As the day of Dubbyuh's coronation...er...inauguration approaches, we should examine Dubbyuh's mandate or rather, his lack thereof.

Let's take a brief look at the historical record. In 2000, Dubbyuh lost the popular vote, and his "political capital" was non-existent then, though he claimed a mandate even then. He barely maintained his hold on power in 2004, and his "political capital" was only marginally better than that in 2000.

As for this election cycle Dubbyuh only won by 34 electors, the smallest margin of electoral victory for any US president. His margin of victory in the popular vote was 51%, hardly an overwhelming majority and not the mandate he claims. His 3% margin of victory is well within the margin of error given most polls.

As for the mandate he claims, reforming social security, selecting conservative judges and "simplifying" the tax code, were not the issue he ran on in the election. Had he run on those issue he would have been soundly defeated. Intsead, Karl Rove played the fear card. Fear of terrorism...fear of attack...fear of same-gender marriage...He did not run on substantive domestic issues. He ran on intangible emotional issues.

In the end, Dubbyuh's mandate is, like the rest of his administration, a fabric of obfuscation, disinformation, misdirection and outright lies. The emperor has no clothes, nor does he have a mandate.

I think the belief comes in the fact that the voters gave the Republicans more power in the Senate the Congress and reelected the President. Thus giving more power specifically to the Republican agenda rather than the Democrat agenda. Bush may have a fight on his hands, but it is one he is more likely to win after this election than before the election.

 

[5stringJeff]

As the day of Dubbyuh's coronation...er...inauguration approaches, we should examine Dubbyuh's mandate or rather, his lack thereof.

Let's take a brief look at the historical record. In 2000, Dubbyuh lost the popular vote, and his "political capital" was non-existent then, though he claimed a mandate even then. He barely maintained his hold on power in 2004, and his "political capital" was only marginally better than that in 2000.

As for this election cycle Dubbyuh only won by 34 electors, the smallest margin of electoral victory for any US president. His margin of victory in the popular vote was 51%, hardly an overwhelming majority and not the mandate he claims. His 3% margin of victory is well within the margin of error given most polls.

As for the mandate he claims, reforming social security, selecting conservative judges and "simplifying" the tax code, were not the issue he ran on in the election. Had he run on those issue he would have been soundly defeated. Intsead, Karl Rove played the fear card. Fear of terrorism...fear of attack...fear of same-gender marriage...He did not run on substantive domestic issues. He ran on intangible emotional issues.

In the end, Dubbyuh's mandate is, like the rest of his administration, a fabric of obfuscation, disinformation, misdirection and outright lies. The emperor has no clothes, nor does he have a mandate.

Great attempt at revisionist histroy, Bully. A for effort - but an F for accuracy. Let's review.

1. Bush picked up a few million extra voters in 2004. His margin of victory improved by 3.5 million. So obviously, he did something right over the last four years. He is also the first President since Bush 41 to win a majority of popular votes.

2. Bush, in the first eight months of his Presidency, did nothing but reach out to Democrats. Remember him inviting Ted Kennedy over to the White House to watch that movie about the Bay of Pigs? Bush reached out, to the point of losing some GOP support. What did it earn him? Filibusters and hateful rhetoric.

3. His issues were certainly ones that he voiced during the campaign. But the election really boiled down to a referendum on the War on Terrorism. Want a strong CinC? Vote Bush. Want a vacillating CinC? Vote Kerry.

As to mandates... I believe that Bush has enough of a mandate to continue fighting the war, to start reforming domestic programs like Social Security (which he's been trying to do since 2000), and to nominate judges that he feels would be appropriate.

And, as you will certainly recall, Clinton won in 1992 with a sparse 43% of the popular vote, yet he went on in his first two years in office to allow homosexuals in the military (against DoD will), pass the biggest tax raise in American history, attempt to socialize 14% of the economy with HillaryCare, and put down an unconstitutional ban on weapons with cosmetic differences for "safety" purposes. If Clinton did all that with 43%, why should Bush, with 51%, settle for anything less?

 

[Avatar4321]

What is this fascination Bully has with our President being naked... I mean i sure like the President but I have no desire to see him naked. even the thought of it is quite sickening.

President Bush has more of a mandate than any Democrat candadite has since FDR. He gained millions of new votes this time around and conservatism has gained power in the legislature. Face it Bully the only one without clothes is the Democrat party. The American people have seen what they truly look like and are rejecting the extremists who would destroy our nation.

 

[freeandfun1]

and Bully has no brain.

 

[MissileMan]

<center><h1><a href=http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20041119.html>We don't need no steenkeen mandate...!</a></h1></center>

His 3% margin of victory is well within the margin of error given most polls.

Are you really trying to imply that there is a +/- 3% error in the election results?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

As the day of Dubbyuh's coronation...er...inauguration approaches, we should examine Dubbyuh's mandate or rather, his lack thereof.

Tough Bully.

Bush won! Won the Senate! Won the House!

REPUBLICANS are going to break out the bubbly! :alco:

 

[Bullypulpit]

Dubbyuh's approval rating has sunk to 49%, with another 49% disapproving of his job performance. Sounds like he's suckin' hind tit to me. Ah well, if the Republic is still around in '06, the mid-term elections will be interesting. America will know the neo-cons and their Republican cronies are to blame. The backlash will be ferocious.

 

[Merlin1047]

Dubbyuh's approval rating has sunk to 49%, with another 49% disapproving of his job performance.

Gee - that sounds suspiciously like the 49% of those peckerheads who voted kerry in the last election.

Now if they are anything like you, a 49% disapproval rating is meaningless. Because to them it doesn't matter what Pres. Bush does, this 49% will not approve - no matter what. So the only thing your statistics prove is that the rabid anti-Bush element, of which you are no doubt a charter member, is alive and well and as irrational as ever.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Maybe so, but Bush won and that's not changing anytime soon!

Nope, but there's nothing like a good dog-and-pony show, which his second term will be, to pass the time.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Gee - that sounds suspiciously like the 49% of those peckerheads who voted kerry in the last election.

Now if they are anything like you, a 49% disapproval rating is meaningless. Because to them it doesn't matter what Pres. Bush does, this 49% will not approve - no matter what. So the only thing your statistics prove is that the rabid anti-Bush element, of which you are no doubt a charter member, is alive and well and as irrational as ever.

Come now old son, you've got it backwards. It's the pecker-heads that voted for Dubbyuh. Apparently though, some are coming to their senses.