When Kerry conceded the election, he asked Bush to show more compassion. Bush responded by promising more tax cuts for the wealthy, privatization of social security, and more integration of religion and government. These are the things he has no mandate to do. People voted out of fear, not out of a deep desire for a deeply stratified economy that favors the upper class, crushes the middle class, and legislates morality. So much for compassion and unity. He’s pitting class against class, and the religious against the secular.
For the first time in sixteen years, a candidate has gotten an absolute majority of the vote. Yet you call him a ‘divider’.
Most people who voted wanted Bush, presumably because of what he said he would do if re-elected. Now you claim he has some obligation not to follow thru on his promises. This makes no sense.
Look, you need to recognize something - Kerry lost. The majority of the electorate did not want what Kerry said he would do. Thus, there is no particular reason why Bush should try to turn into Kerry - just the opposite, in fact.
Regards,
Shodan
Baloney. People were scared. Scared of being attacked, or scared of the “unknown” candidate. Why should anyone believe that Bush would follow thorugh on his promises? He didn’t the last time. He promised to be bi-partisan. He said he wouldn’t get involved in nation building. He said he would improve education, then underfunded his poorly planned program. When he was running the first time he said he would privatize social security, and it didn’t happen. One of the few promises he has kept was to give tax cuts to the rich.
I don’t think the electorate didn’t believe what Kerry said, they were scared. People probably prefer to have affordable health care, but insurance really doesn’t matter if you think an airplane is going to get hijacked and flown into the town Wal-Mart.
How do you know this? You are just guessing here and you know it. I didn’t vote for Bush (I voted Badnarik), but my wife didn’t vote Bush out of ‘fear’…one of the main reasons she voted for Bush was because of the tax cuts and what it meant to our family. We are by no means ‘rich’, yet we got back a huge amount on our taxes…and it helped a lot.
As to your rant about a ‘stratified economy that favors the upper class, crushes the middle class, and legislates morality’ I don’t agree that this is what Bush is doing.
-XT
Because he said so in his acceptance speech.
Horseshit…thats how you interpereted it, not what he said. Those are two different things, and I don’t think you understand the distinction.
-XT
He could be basing his conclusions on exit polls, which showed that 19% of the electorate considered terrorism the number one issue, and went for Bush 86%.
But he also promised “by far the vast majority of the help goes to people at the bottom end of the economic ladder.” So he lied there, too.
Oh god… this guy paid his subscription. :eek:
If it makes you feel any better, Karl Rove is sitting somewhere rubbing his hands together and muttering: “MWUHAHAHAHAHA!!!”
Er…correct me if I’m wrong here, but wouldn’t that mean that 81% felt there were OTHER reasons but fear to vote for? And I always though 81% is more than 19%…
If he doesn’t calm down some it will be a moot point…
-XT
But he only won by 3%. Fear could well have made the difference in the election.
Bush hasn’t been an uniter before… any reason to beleive he will be now ?
This election will only reinforce his idea of never being wrong. The “people have spoken” and they “chose” Bush despite so many fucked up things. Plus he has GOP control of Congress… why bother “uniting” or bi-partisanship ? No re-election to try…
I just don’t see any plausible reasons for Bush to be more moderate or balanced about any of his policies.
I’m oddly torn about this. It occurs to me that he may fall victim to the same thing as the democrats - being so confident of his position and his support that he makes bad decisions.
I’ll admit now that I and many others were so confident that people would vote based on Bush’s mistakes that we didn’t even consider the idea of him winning. It’s been quite a shock.
In a way, I hope he makes the same mistake and marginalizes himself based on some notion of a mandate. He already has been acting in a similar vein by forging ahead with Iraq. But at the same time, that would be a terrible thing to happen.
Bush is a divider even though he got the majority of the vote. My statistics may be sketchy (I’m a Canadian) but he only got 51% of it. That’s not exactly a large margin between him and his opponent. And more to the point regardless of his winning the popular vote democrats and republicans seem to religously follow their leader. One needs look no further than the postings in this thread to see how intensly divided each side’s supporters are. Don’t forget how widely supported Bush was after 9/11 and how much more divisive his support is now.
When Kerry conceded, Bush also said, in that very same speech:
…and here’s a choice tidbit from his acceptance speech for his first term:
That’s why I’m not impressed.
Yeah. That sounds familiar…like somebody said something just like it four years ago.
How did that work out for us again?
The OP was arguing that he was a divider based on what he said in that speech. Clearly a lie or delusion.
Beyond that, only time will tell.
So some of you don’t like Bush, ergo, he is a ‘divider’? Amazing how you guys just can’t seem to do any wrong; all faults conveniently fall at Dubya’s feet. :rolleyes:
That’s only because he keeps stepping in it.
You certainly can’t argue that he’s a “uniter”.