You do remember, of course, how well “your side” remembered that and acted accordingly during the ancient history of 1992-2000. The rest of us certainly remember.
Face it, acting as if they shared responsibility for *all * the country has not been part of the GOP tradition since, oh, about the time they made Gingrich the Speaker. But you cannot pretend that that’s either the way it’s always been or the way it always should be.
You win, you have a “mandate.” That’s how elections work.
Is he a good President? Hell no, he’s one of the worst to ever occupy the office. But he’s the choice of the electorate, so he gets the job. In fact, he was the choice of most of the people who cast a ballot, which is more than you can say for ANY of the following Presidents:
Clinton
Kennedy
Truman
Wilson
Cleveland
Harrison
Hayes
etc., etc.
Not in our system down here. Just ask President Gore.
So you’d have had an argument in 2000. Not legally, but maybe morally.
Not anymore.
The amazing thing to me is that with a weak tit candidate like Kerry, it was still a really close race. What does that say? Well, it doesn’t say “mandate” to me. It says people were willing to cast an ‘anyone but Bush’ vote. Just think what would have happened if the Dems had actually had a candidate.
xtisme*
I’d like a cite though that GW’s win was the “smallest percentage ever”.*
Well that’s why I put a link in my posting. (AND I bothered to post that letter on an alternate site because news links have a tendency to die a quick death). Also, that posting does answer your question as to what the smallest percentage means.
I will admit that I was lazy and did NOT look up all the popular vote percentages since the 19th century. Still the letter seems authentic and the Boston Globe added that the author was a former historian at the JFK Library.
No one forced the Dems to pick Kerry…he was their CHOICE. What makes you think that next time they will choose a better candidate? I’ve seen no indications that the Dems learned anything from this past election. Certainly I’ve seen no indications from folks on this board that they have. All I’ve heard mostly is how dumb the electorate is, and some dark mutterings about another ‘stolen’ election.
My guess is that they will run Hilary in '08, who is about as moderate a candidate as I can see them running (hell, I might vote for her depending on who the 'Pubs run next time). If not her, I’d be willing to bet money they will run another left of center (by US standards) liberal who will run on the same tired platform that they have been running on (with the exception of Clinton) for decades now. But hell, what do I know…maybe the American people really do yearn for a left wing liberal agenda and its merely going to take the right man/woman to come in to do it.
However, to turn your assertion around for a moment…if the Dems couldn’t beat GW in this election with Kerry, who do you expect them to be able to beat in the future??. Personally I think Kerry was a decent candidate who represented fairly well the Dems goals and platform. This election should have been a cake walk for the Dems…yet they managed (once again) to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And with the deck firmly stacked against the 'Pubs to boot IMO.
-XT
However, to turn your assertion around for a moment…if the Dems couldn’t beat GW in this election with Kerry, who do you expect them to be able to beat in the future??. Personally I think Kerry was a decent candidate who represented fairly well the Dems goals and platform. This election should have been a cake walk for the Dems…yet they managed (once again) to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. And with the deck firmly stacked against the 'Pubs to boot IMO.
-XT
[/QUOTE]
I think you are right on. If the Dems nominate an articulate war hero, and he loses to the most incompetent President in a century, the fault lies with the voters.
They like their lying, warmongering, cowboy just fine. We have met the enemy and he is us.
mailman:
As I recall, the main reason Democrats chose Kerry was “electability.” So if you think he was weak, who do you think would have beenh more electable?
If that’s true, then he should’ve been easily beaten. Since he wasn’t easily beaten, you might want to check your premises-- they don’t appear to square well with the facts. The disaproval rating alone makes your “9/11 bond” theory unlikely. You seem to want to have it both ways-- the American people both love and hate Bush at the same time.
My thoughts exactly, and I’ve said so in this forum many times. Bush had to have been one of the weakest candidates the GOP ever fielded. If the Dems couldn’t beat him, they need to do some serious soul searching.
Oops. That last quote should have been from Xtisme, not jgoodfri.
Fault? The voters got what they wanted. In a democracy, that’s not a feature, not a bug.
One more time… In a democracy, that’s a feature, not a bug.
I’m not sure its my premises that are faulty here, John. You seem to be saying that the fact of re-election, by whatever extent, automaticly confers competence and value. As in, for instance, Nixon? When Mr. Lincoln talks about the ability to fool all of the people some of the time, you think he’s full of it? For a time, the vast majority of the American people heartily approved of the Viet Nam War. How’d that work out, John? (Hint: not real good)
No, I think my premises are pretty sound.
Value (to the majority who voted for him) yes. I never said competence. You seem to forget that our discussion started because you claimed Bush was nuts for thinking his re-election was an affirmation of his foreign policy. I never said I thought his foreign policy was good, just that it was obviously preferred over the alternative by the majority of voters. If you prefer to believe that the majority of people voted for something they didn’t want, go right ahead.
And yet Kennedy, who got us into that war, is pretty well thought of today…no? 
I think winning the election DOES confer some level of acceptance on a president…even this one. At least as far as the electorate goes. However, my own opinion is that it says more about the Dems and their message than it does about how popular Bush is.
Despite literally years of yammering about how stupid he was, how evil he was, how he was going to ruin the country and destroy the world, blah blah blah, gloom doom, gloom doom, gloom doom…he still managed to win by a fairly comfortable margin.
I know you think this is merely because the American electorate is both deluded and stupid…but has it never crossed your mind that perhaps they simply don’t overwhelmingly like the message the Dems keep putting forth (and have put forth for literally decades now)? That when even a weak, unpopular and frankly bungling president can be re-elected at all, let alone by a comfortable margin…that this says something fundamental about the Dems message and their ability to elect ANYONE with that core message. That the only Dem president you’ve managed to get re-elected in recent history broke with that message (and was only elected the first time because of unprecidented numbers of voters actually voted for a 3rd party candidate…too bad THAT trend didn’t continue)?
Naw…couldn’t be that. Must just be that the electorate is stupid and deluded. I’m sure the 'Pubs are going to be laughing themselves all the way to further margins in the Senate/Congress and putting yet another president in the WH in '08 with that kind of attitude. Hell, they got to be thinking that if they can get THIS fool in office (AND keep him there) they can run anyone and win.
-XT
Well, yeah, but there’s a problem with that, a problem I think you are as aware of as I. For instance, the guy who knuckle-walked into the polling place with nothing more on his tiny mind but preventing the dreadful curse of gay marriage, he stopped for a moment and thought: “Boy, I really really approve of Bush’s foreign policy as well, what a happy coincidence!” Really? You think so?
On the other hand, I think you would probably agree that almost all of the people who voted against Bush (I agree this was more important than voting for Kerry) did so for reasons of disagreement with policy. A policy that it is increasingly apparent is ham-fisted, chuckle-witted and just plain stupid.
Or do you think it was just one of those amazing coincidences that the “gay marriage” propositions just happened to be on the ballot at the same time? And if so, what is your opinion as regards bridges, in terms of real estate investments?
And I suppose the Republicans stages the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision that kicked this all off? Harumph. We are good, but not that good.
Not at all, Pubbies didn’t invent bigotry. They just have the cynicism to exploit it without qualms. A capacity you seem to regard with calm aplomb, bordering on approval.
I agree. Notice now that Kerry and his campaign managers aren’t around to keep Bush’s numbers propped up – we see them settle to their natural, unsupported level. As Rove said, Kerry was “the gift that just kept on giving.”
Actually, you may well have a point there. If things keep going as they are, the Pubbies will be lucky to elect a dogcatcher in West Podunk. Sometimes it takes the people a long time to wake up, but when they do wake up, they wake up mad!