This is your opinion, and "it ain't necessarily so." You think that the election, which was bad enough, was what irrevocably set us Democrats against him. What you do not realize is that when America was attacked, many of us stood with the President in outrage, grief and determination to get those responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Could it possibly be that the attack on Iraq was viewed by us to be a gigantic sidetrip from getting Osama bin Laden and his cronies? Could it possibly be that we felt a sense of betrayal when Iraq was pre-emptively attacked, and then we found out that the trumped-up reasons for attacking Iraq were bogus? Naw--couldn't be that, could it?

Could it be that the No Child Left Behind act was a carrot and stick approach to improving our educational system, and we felt betrayed when Bush removed the carrot for schools? Funding for a standardized test, big deal. So the teachers teach the kids how to pass the test, in the meantime neglecting the curriculum they are charged with teaching. And the teachers still have to cope with teaching proportionately more students than they can manage, especially in urban areas, with outdated textbooks and buildings in dire need of repairs. And they are PENALIZED if they don't do as well as suburban schools with better buildings, more teachers, and more up-to-date textbooks! So this is compassionate conservatism! Is it any wonder Ted Kennedy declined to watch a movie and have popcorn with the President when he found out the funding for the program was going to be gutted?

This altruistic (ahem) President opposed the formation of the 9/11 Commission out of fear that his administration would be criticized. His fear of criticism apparently outweighed his concern that the American people know the facts about why and how we were attacked. Should we love the President for this?

IF the President will actually make overtures to meet the "Blues" halfway, it will be possible for some Blues to go halfway as well. But in
the last four years, it hasn't happened. The left side has been scorned. And from what I can see, it ain't gonna happen in the next four years, either.

But that's okay. George Walker Bush will have to own up to his own mistakes this time. No blaming things on Clinton or the other predecessors; it is exclusively Dubya's dog and pony show from here on in.

If you have strong feelings against GW, can you support him after the campaign he ran?

I have, and will continue to support The President of the United States, no matter who he is. Does this mean I agree with his policies? No--and in the case of Dubya, this is a "No" pretty much across the board. I can and will respect the man as the President of the United States, but as far as a politician goes, I find him to be incompetant.

Do you think he will make any attempt to reach across to the "blue" areas of our country?

He has no need to now. The Republican Party controls the House, Senate and White House--they can pretty much get away with any hair-brained scheme they want. If he is actually going to try and "Unite" the country, then he may--but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Do you feel that this election was good for America, either

NO- too divsive

or YES- great voter turnout


Any election, where the losing candidate gets 55 Million votes, is a bad election in the sense of unity within this nation. We are divided, almost down the middle, and this election has shown that.

On the other hand, it could be a good election in the sense that people will go out and vote--maybe these people have realized that their vote counts.

I have something to had to my previous response of this question. Did anyone else notice how, towards the end of campaigning, all of the negative ads attacking Kerry stopped attacking Kerry and started attacking all liberals elected to the Senate? It stopped being "John Kerry wants to ban the Bible" and started being "John Kerry and the liberals in Congress want to ban the Bible." They demonized an entire political perspective. Like everything John Kerry did was wholeheartedly supported by every liberal in Congress, and vice-versa. Like we all think exactly alike.

It's one thing to attack your opponent - it's another to attack anyone who believes a fraction of what they do. These ads clearly put to rest the notion that George Bush has any inclination at all to reach out to liberals, when he's spent so much time demonizing them.

"He's a liberal senator from Massachusetts... heh heh heh." Honestly, I can't believe he thought this was an insult and I can't believe that 51% of the voting populace bought it. It would be like someone calling me a "liberal student from Ohio." Um, yes, I'm liberal. Yes, I'm a student. Yes, I'm from Ohio. What is your freakin point?!

*sigh*

If you have strong feelings against GW, can you support him after the campaign he ran?

If i had strong feelings against GB I would still support it. I am an American citizen and no matter who is in the WH I will support them. Not always their policies though

Do you think he will make any attempt to reach across to the "blue" areas of our country?

Of course he will. He is going to help the next Republican, who ever it is to become president. So i believe he will reach to the blue areas very hard.

Do you feel that this election was good for America, either
NO- too divsive
or YES- great voter turnout It was a great diversity and voter turnout. Now we can see who the Americans truley support.

I don't see it. He still sounds like the same old "my way or the highway" Dubya to me. Here he is reaching out in his first press conference:

That sounds like he's saying he's going to reach out to all the people who already agree with him. How is that reaching out? How is that uniting those of us who strongly disagree with his policies? I don't know how many different ways the question can be asked but what people want to know is what HE is planning on doing to help close the gap. So far he's either not comprehending the question, or he doesn't realize it's his duty as a leader to do such a thing. Or maybe he does understand but he's purposely skirting answering the question because he plans to continue alienating people as he's always done.

Continue? Well, if he continues his current strategy of reaching out he can expect to continue failing at it.


Even the lowly press corp? How big of him. Here are my predictions regarding his 'reaching out' to the WH Press Corp: they are going to get half the access and twice the condescension from him as ever. It's not just that he doesn't know how to answer questions or that he feels they deserve some payback for reporting his screw ups, it's that he feels he shouldn't have to explain himself to anyone. Not that his 51% of supporters ever expect him to account to them for anything anyway but how long does he think they can silence the other 49% who felt he should be fired from his job?

I don't know how much political capital he thinks a 2% majority can buy but at the rate he's going it's going to be spent before his next term even begins.

More examples of what I mean:

Maybe they thought he was kidding.

He seems worse than ever to me.

If you have strong feelings against GW, can you support him after the campaign he ran?

I can support Bush only in the most limited way, if at all. Without rolling over, lofting all fours in the air and playing “dead bug,” I can't support what is shaping up to be a right-wing agenda.

Do you think he will make any attempt to reach across to the "blue" areas of our country?

Wednesday was interesting. Cheney spoke first and talked of a mandate. Then Bush talked about earning the support of those who voted against him. The next day Bush talked about spending “political capital.” These were mixed messages, but my guess is there will be little attempt to work with Democrats or even moderate Republicans. Did Bush flip flop from Wednesday to Thursday?

Part of the problem is that Bush’s “true believer” supporters don’t seem interested in compromise. As I drive around I see Bush yard signs still up (as well as a few for Kerry). I guess people are inclined to take victory laps, but this doesn’t facilitate healing.

Other evidence of lingering hostility (likely to boil over into 2008) is the continued labeling the defeated Tom Daschle as an “obstructionist” and Hillary Clinton as another “east coast liberal” Last night on CNN’s Capital Gang host Mark Shields aptly observed that the always grumpy Robert Novak was a “sore winner.”

But it’s not just the Democrats the right targets. Arlen Specter is now targeted over comments opposing the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Specter’s Comments

National Review’s Negative Article on Sen. Specter

Whether Democrat or Republican, liberals and even moderates seem ripe for political target shooting.

Do you feel that this election was good for America, either

I think it was a combination of the two.

NO- too divisive

The election was too divisive. There has been some debate here about when it started. I would say that it all began with the 1987 forced resignation of U. S. Speaker Jim Wright, continued with Newt Gingrich and the “Contract for America,” Clinton’s impeachment and the current charges against Tom DeLay. The divisiveness is like being on a merry-go-round that won’t stop.

or YES- great voter turnout

While the divisiveness was bad, the record turnout was good. Approximately 114 million people voted. Some pundits, like Charles Cook, predicted as many as 135 million voters. While the election set a record, it was at the low end of estimates.

I support the President in his efforts to get Iraq done and get our troops back.

I support the President in his efforts to improve job growth in the US.

I support the President in his efforts to bring alternative fuels to market and reduce our dependency on foreign oil.

I support the President in his efforts to improve education and bring educational opportunities to all citizens.

I support the President in his efforts to balance the budget.

If the President does the above, I support him. If he tries another Iraq or other similar grand scheme, nope. And if all he does is suck up to his wealthy base, then no support whatsoever.



It depends on what he tries to do. I'm expecting the Demo minority to be real pains in the tush, requiring quite a bit of compromise to get them on board anything.



Great voter turnout, yes, good for country. I'm grappling with a lot of irrational and maybe not so irrational feelings right now, feelings of suspicion. So to keep mind and soul together, I'll stay with the YES answer to this one.

Some analysts think the division is on moral grounds, not economic or other grounds. Maybe so, and maybe it's good for this country to continue the debates on moral grounds. We seem to need to examine morality closer to determine common areas. For example, is stealing more tolerated than homosexuality? Why is this so when the stealing impacts more citizens in a direct way? Is the intolerance of homosexuality itself immoral, and is the tolerance of stealing immoral as well?

This country has a lot more talking, thinking, and introspection to do before the split on morality can be resolved.

No. I simply cannot. I am ashamed at what political campaigning has become: Kerry tried taking the high road while Bush, Rove, and co. slimed him with everything from the ludicrous "he voted for 350 tax increases" claim to the whole Swift Boat saga. Part of it was that Kerry didn't call a spade a spade, but the other part appears to be that campaigning from the higher ground no longer works anymore. It seems the public has been so dumbed-down that it wants slogans, solutions, and policies that can fit on a bumper sticker. Nuance and complexity? Screw 'em.

This blog entry I stumbled across, though meant as a joke, speaks volumes about why the Dems got spanked on 11/2/04.



If a man spit in your face repeatedly, then asked you for a $20, would you give it to him? And if the man can take the $20 from you and suffer the same consequences just as if you had given it voluntarily, why bother asking at all?

Bush himself said that he will work with those who share his goals during his first press conference in...how long? If his radical right-wing agenda just won him the presidency, what makes you think he'll change it?

Personally, I don't think he has this "mandate" or "will of the people" he keeps referring to. I think we're fighting a cold Civil War right now between the coastal states and everyone else. It's not gonna change anytime soon. But right now, he has the power over all states, and as he said in that same press conference, he's gonna use it.

On a semi-related note, if Bush keeps using the phrase "will of the people" at least once in every press conference or speech he gives from here on out, I will be very afraid. The other well-known world leaders I know who repeatedly used this phrase in their speeches didn't come out too well in the history books either.



I think both. As Stephen Colbert joked about on The Daily Show, it was because of this divisiveness that people came to the polls to support their guy. Democrats (present company included) saw Bush as a threat to peace and an idiot. Republicans saw Kerry as a Massachusetts tax-and-spend, terrorist-appeasing liberal (I know someone's going to complain I'm using a straw man argument, so please tell me how you saw him if you didn't like him). Neither side wanted to see the other guy in the White House.

But like I said above, only 3% of the public seperated Bush's "mandate" from a "man-divorce." I truly hope that the Senate Democrats will filibuster until the Republicans are forced to make compromises on their plans. We are just five votes away from losing that as well.

I completely agree. George Bush relied on "bumper sticker" slogans, and
half of the country found inspiration in that. The literacy level in this country
has greatly diminished over the decades, and the fact that GWB got re-elected
speaks of people's inability to assimilate information intelligently.

Kudos, AM. Very similar to my thoughts. I support our country and the president is a vital position in this country. our parties and politics are not so divided that there are not things that we have mutual interests in getting done.

Both Eeyore and AuthorMusician bring up the same valid point: Whether we can support the President depends entirely on what he does. Another pre-emptive war based on bogus evidence? No way in (heaven or) hell. More intrusive and civil rights-denying practices on our own citizens ala Patriot Act--you've got to be kidding.

Let Mr. Bush show us the allegedly compassionate side of his alleged conservatism. Let him show that he does give a damn about children born into and living in poverty in this country.

Let Mr. Bush abandon his empty rhetoric about Homeland Security and actually enact measures to keep our borders safe and inspect the incoming cargo on our seacoasts.

Let Mr. Bush flesh out his so-called No Child Left Behind so that the teachers can do their jobs.

If the President decides to just push the same agenda that he has for the past four years, what incentive is there for others to support him?

As is often the case, PE has got to the heart of the matter.

The education program Bush pushed in Texas taught students how to take a test, not how to think. Often in extraordinary efforts to get good test scores, more able students were left unchallenged. The Texas model was based on punitive action, and had not only students but school personnel from the superintendent on down on pins and needles. Some educators may disagree, but I think learning best takes place in a relaxed atmosphere. In Texas the mandates came from the state, but the burden of finance fell on local school districts.

Given the Bush mindset of punitive action, I can't see how the national model will ever look much different than the one he pushed in Texas.

I can support Bush's educational efforts IF he redraws them to something that stresses positive outcomes. Otherwise, I predict one of the elements of Bush's legacy will be one of the most severe teachers shortages in national history.

In summary, my support for Bush will be, at best, limited because--election results aside-- I predict a continuation in the second term of policies that failed in the first term.

If you have strong feelings against GW, can you support him after the campaign he ran?

Sure I can. I voted for him. He wouldn't have been my first choice, but as compared to Kerry I like him a lot, and I like the campaign he ran. Nothing wrong with it, save his weak performance in the first debate..

Do you think he will make any attempt to reach across to the "blue" areas of our country?

Sure, but that doesn't mean he's going to govern as though you guys had won and I hope you don't expect that. He might even need to reach across the aisle... and slap somebody silly. Certainly that's likely to be the case on judicial appointments.

Do you feel that this election was good for America, either

NO- too divsive

or YES- great voter turnout

YES, it was good. The right side won, and by a good enough margin that we won't have to put up with the same "selected not elected" baloney, though the looney fringe will continue to spin implausible conspiracy theories. And thank God Kerry was gracious enough to concede, and graciously so, when the result became clear. Because of that, I respect him a little more than I did.

Please, Iz, anybody would have conceded. Nixon conceded in '60 with much more evidence of election fraud. Only internet bloggers are contesting this election.

I guess you and I were watching different campaigns and different debates,
because in my non-partisan opinion he (and his campaign) were completely
LAME. When compared to Bush even Kerry looked like the better candidate.
But, that's water under the bridge.

Where do we go from here? Well, wherever Bush decides to take us, the
die-hard defenders of his will suffer the consequences just like the rest of us.
So, raise those flags high, Bush supporters!

I do not believe that George W. Bush truly cares what the people think of him.
He lives in his wonderfully protected world, free from all the negative effects
his decisions have created.

If he tries to bridge the gap that has grown wider over the months, I'll be very
surprised. The way it looks now, it's "keeping the course" that he is
concerned with, even if that course runs us all straight into the eye of a hurricane.

While I agree on some aspects, I can't let aspects of this post go without responding. It is true Democrats have been bitter and are cause for the a good divide, But the very conduct and handling of the iraq war in the months and weeks before the battle began by the president is clearly a main reason he is so unpopular among Democrats.

To be fair, I do not think you can say bush and the republicans have been innocent.

Also, you said bush ran a far cleaner campaign. But how then do you explain the Swift boat ads and his refusal to condemn them specifically? I know they weren't from him directly, but funded by prominent texas republicans, with ties to karl rove, you can figure it out I am sure. Also, do not forgot, Bush attacked kerry earlier than any president has ever attacked a challenger. Also, even conservative commentators like joe scarbrough, and sean hannity admit he ran the most negative campaign for an incumbent; just look at all the attack ads and his webpage; it was more about john kerry than his presidency.

However, The democrats did attack bush for 2-3 years, and while bush was critical of mr. kerrys record, all i heard from kerry was attacks and little of his own vision and direction he wanted the country to go in.

So while I agree in general with what you are stating, particulary about some people wanting to do anything they can to harm the president in any way, shape, or form, I also think you are giving bush too much credit. I just do not think it is accurate to say he hasn't been a divider period.

However, when you look at the nancy pelosi and tom daschle's of the congress, you can see perhaps why he has been hesitant to reach out; but he is the president not them, its more on him to reach out than vice versa.

Hmmmm....I have to think about that...... Yes, I think I need to disagree, and for the very reason you state. He is the President, therefore the onus would be on the Democrats as far as the need to reach out. Consider the following analogy...if you aren't getting along with your boss, is it up to your or your boss to mend things? Most would say that would be your task--you need to get along with your boss more than he needs to get along with you. That's the way the hierarchy works. However, most would also say that a good boss would reach out to you. So, I'll carry that part of the analogy forward as well. It really comes down to who wants to get things done. If the Democrats want to get anything done, they need to reach out to the President to do it. They need to make a choice...be a party of obstruction (yes, I certainly admit the Republicans have played that role in the past), or come up with an agenda that both parties can move forward on. The Republicans are in a similar situation...they can propose legislation that doesn't leave room for a Democratic compromise to score political points, or they can also come up with an agenda that both parties can move forward on.

FWIW...I DO think Bush will do that. Rhetoric and the Iraqi war aside...he's been doing that as President (if you doubt this, please tell me what conservative principle the Dept of Homeland Security follows), and did it as governor in Texas. Plus, the pure politics of the situation demand it....Bush will not be able to accomplish anything without working with the Democrats. The question really comes down to....are the Democrats willing to work with the President? It has become practice for the minority party to be the party of obstruction. If you're happy with that, fine...I didn't like it when the Republicans did it, and I don't think its good on the other shoe either. As I said earlier (in this thread, I believe)--expectations are key. Bush is not going to put forward a Democratic agenda. That's just not going to happen. Does that mean he's not willing to compromise? No. Compromise will probably mean working with the Democrats crafting solutions to issues that are important to all Americans. Currently, it looks like the issues will be Social Security, and the tax structure. Don't expect a raise in the minimum wage, unless it is packaged with passage of issues that are higher up in the conservative agenda.

Which kind of brings an interesting twist to the debate here. I think "Will you support the President" is far too broad a question (in fact, its probably mainly rhetorical). The real question is 'which issues could you support the President on, and which issues would you be willing to compromise on to get other issues passed'? The answers to that question would be the base needed for a bipartisan agenda to occur.

I completely disagree with this. he is the most powerful person in the world. He also today has the power to dominate the political process. Real reaching out would send a clear message as a leader of the United States that there is an attempt to mitigate partisanship.

That would be a choice of leadership and he holds the position that could do the most in this country to promote political harmony. You posted on another thread that this is Bush's MO, I sure haven't gotten that impression from this administration.

I don't think Bush has to reach out across the political aisle. But in reality he needs sixty votes in the senate to get anything done.

I think he will focus on his unrevised political goals and figure out how to get those 60 votes to come to him.

Dubya doesn't have to make the first move, but he should. He seems to forget the public servant part of his role when he deals with the Congress. While it does not suit a man who would be emperor, bipartisanship is indicative of a statesman.

But if I were a Democratic legislator, I would check his hand for a joy buzzer before I shook it. His bipartisan proposals, as brought up by NiteGuy regarding No Child Left Behind and Medicare Prescription Program for Seniors, are known to contain surprises (funding restricted to testing materials for NCLB, and hidden costs not divulged to Congress for the Rx program until after the measure was passed, as well as not negotiating the pharmaceutical costs with the drug companies).

You're walking on swampy land when you work with the President on legislation.

Do you think he will make any attempt to reach across to the "blue" areas of our country?

I bought a Tracy Chapman CD Wednesday. I really like her a lot. While listening to it on the car radio, I noticed how much her song “Subcity” relates to this topic. Bush has said he wants to be the president of “all the people,” including those didn’t vote for him. Does this include the people Chapman mentions in her song? Bush must reach out to PEOPLE, not just across the aisle to Congressional Democrats or to the “blue" states. Somehow I doubt he can or will even attempt it. The second term will cement Bush's place in history as a presidential failure. While this song was written at the end of the Clinton administration, its word are even more relevant as the current President and Congress attempt to control spending and reduce deficits.



”Subcity” lyrics

Do you think he will make any attempt to reach across to the "blue" areas of our country?

I'm not too sure that it's George W Bush's job to "reach accross" the board. The last time I checked, the losers of a national election were the one's who need to reach across the board. America has spoken not just Presidentially but on all representative levels they choose to elect Republicans to majorities over the last two major elections and by those standards I think that we should be asking to see the Democrats reach across to us and parlay for their goals. Not vise-versa.

Do you feel that this election was good for America, either

Yeah I do. I believe whole heartedly that America was and is facing a lot of major new policy decisions and we needed maximum turn out to show the will of the people... or YES- great voter turnout.

Edited to add: I heard Randi Rhodes on Air America the other day making your same point BoF...I didn't buy it though. I think to be blunt that sometimes being the best Presdient for Liberals means making the best decisions for them whether they like them or not...Like Ronald Reagan.

Eeyore,

I think we're in agreement, just focusing on differing semantics. I certainly agree Bush should reach out...especially after he's specifically said he's going work to earn the trust of those who didn't vote for him. Hopefully not just lip service....as to what you think he will do, I also agree. Bush won't change his agenda, and he does need some Democrats on board for it to pass. That's what will create the need for reaching out and compromising.



Not exactly a sentiment or expression that leads to productive conversation or effort. Exactly how much, or why, should the President work with those that have this sentiment? There will be those he can work with, and those he can't. Those that can't, won't get any of their initiatives addressed. Bush will be able to gather the support he needs from the others.

No johnlocke,

When I say history, I'm talking about 25 or so years from now, when historians will write dispassionate accounts of his presidency based on release of previously classified documents, etc.

Bush receiving a decent place in history will depend on his ability to heal wounds, and in actuality, rather than rhetoric, become "President of all the people." In my opinion the victors are not being magnanimous and that will hinder Bush. Bush is the one who should "reach" across the aisle. As a Democrat, I don't want to "crawl" across with tin cup in hand.

I think the point that J. Locke was making [good to see you back btw!], is that the American people have fairly convincingly voted in favor of a Republican agenda, not a watered down Republican agenda. So it is up to the Democrats to work with the President, per the request of the electorate. I think that's what he's getting at.

CP

I have seen a lot of back and forth on who should be the first to offer concessions, Bush or the Democrats. I think that at the end of the day when you look at reality Bush must make some concessions if he expects to get anything done in his second term.

There is absolutely no difference between November 1st and November 3rd for those of us on the left side of the political aisle. We didn't stop caring about women's rights, civil liberties, the environment, equal rights for all people including homosexuals, the fact that soldiers are dying in a farce of a war, being fiscally responsible, or any number of other issues overnight.

The fact that the election occrurred also didn't change the fact that Bush has run up the largest deficit in history, plans to spend more money with no plan to fix the problem, has virtually ignored domestic issues for the last four years, dismantled environmental legislation in favor of corporations, still isn't doing so well in Iraq and wants to roll back the clock on a lot of social issues.

This illusion of political capital or a mandate is just that, an illusion.

It would be very easy for the Democrats to sit in congress and filibuster policies we don't like for the next four years and there isn't too terribly much the Republicans can do about that. If we vote as a bloc they simply don't have the numbers to overcome . Would that be the best thing for the country? Of course it wouldn't be. However, anyone that thinks we are just going to roll over on our beliefs because a mere 51% of the country picked the other guy is mistaken.

If Bush would simply moderate some of his positions I could probably support him on some issues because it would at least be some progress. In fact as shown in another thread I do want to support him on Social Security. But until Bush stops spending money like we have unlimited funds, stops trying to turn back the clock on social issues and actually starts trying to address the problems in this country instead of pandering to extreme supporters he will not get our support - count on it.

BoF is exactly right about how history will judge this president. He managed to win a second term, but unless he decides to change a great deal of the things he did in the first term it will be a lame duck presidency on the domestic side of the fence. Bush does have an opportunity here, and I wonder if he will fall victim to the quote someone coined for Arafat: "He never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity".

If the Democrats would simply moderate some of their positions I could probably support them on some issues because it would at least be some progress.

The Democrats lost, they have to reach across the aisle, to the victors go the spoils.

CP

In war maybe CP not in politics. It is exactly this kind hubris that really angers those on the left side of the aisle. As I just wrote in my post, what of all of the numerous and very divisive issues has changed since the election? Exactly nothing.

If those on the right side of the aisle expect us to just give up and say, "darn you guys beat us why don't you go ahead with all of the things we didn't agree with, we'll be in the corner sulking" reality is going to be a cold slap in the face.

The Democrats don't have to moderate their positions because they aren't expected to be the driving force in legislation for the next few years. Clearly Democrats and Republicans are never going to see eye to eye on something like abortion, but as Hobbes has said a few times there are issues that we could work with you on. Will the Republicans choose the moderate route on those issues, or will they make it a "my way or the highway" deal? The latter will most assuredly fail.

What interest do the Democrats have in selling out a little bit if Republicans are going to walk around with the "we won, bow to our will, we have a mandate" attitude.

As I said, the minority is still powerful because of the filibuster and we still do head some important comittees. By the way a lot of people are talking you'd think the congress was composed of 75% republicans, it isn't. There are no spoils of war and if the Republicans would like to get anything done in the next 4 years it would behoove them to stop thinking that way.

Edited to add: History will not write about this congress, nor will they probably even be mentioned. You won't see Nancy Pelosi's name in a high school history book in 12 years, but you will see George W. Bush's name. History will write about this president and any failure to solve today's problems will be placed upon his shoulders. That is historical fact, it has happened with every president. That also puts the ball and the obligation to compromise squarely in his court.

If you have strong feelings against GW, can you support him after the campaign he ran?

No. Never. And I will never support anyone like him in any way. I will do everything possible to discourage everyone I know from supporting him, or any neo-conservative becuase I feel it is in both the world and this poor twisted nations best interest to do so.

Do you think he will make any attempt to reach across to the "blue" areas of our country?

We have had four years to judge. I don't need to say anything.

Do you feel that this election was good for America, either

NO- too divsive

or YES- great voter turnout

Both. The american people willingly voted Bush back into office so we are doomed... however, I honestly believe that the more people pay attention, the more they will see the truth and perhaps not vote for someone like him again. The hightened voter turnout gives me hope. But not much.

When the President uses a Democrat (or fellow Republicans) to enact legislation with the "surprises" he provided in No Child Left Behind or the Medicare Prescription Drug act to the point that the people he was working with feel "used" (and deceived), what do you call it, dry ground? I called it as I see it, swampy, probably thanks (again) to our dear friend Karl Rove.

I think that George W. Bush is basically a decent guy, but any decency he has is overlaid with the plans of Karl Rove and others in his cabinet. In The Price of Loyalty former Treasury Secretary O'Neill talks about a meeting where President "W" was expressing reservations about the massive tax cuts in the light of the recession. Both Cheney and Rove chimed in, pooh-poohing those reservations, Cheney adding, "It is our due."

So perhaps I should say that it's not Dubya's treachery, but the way his cabinet members wrangle issues until the good intention becomes a cynical exercise which is admirable and actually helpful in name only.

PE, that clarification seems to provide both the avenue for compromise, as well as more constructive debate. It would seem, then, that you feel that Bush might be willing to compromise, but that others in his circle have been working against that effort. Fair enough. The key, then, would be for Bush to work around those who had been obstructing, would you agree? In the example you provided, it would also seem that some of that obstruction should have dissipated on its own--ie, they had 'their due' last term, plus there is no need to worry about reelection this time. Also, I think that Bush, realizing the need for compromise, might not let such talk now sway his opinions as much.

I guess we will shortly see, eh?

The million dollar question Hobbes is will he see it that way? While I'll agree that if you got Bush into a bar he'd probably be a decent guy to have a beer with, but as a president he is not one man, he is the culmination of all of his staff. He hasn't shown us that he doesn't trust them and I don't see him cleaning house with second term appointments, unless staff members want to leave (as Ashcroft did) they aren't going to get kicked out. It would be completely illogical to assume that people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove, etc are going to change their positions and have an overwhelming sense of compassion for the Democrats. These guys are hard core politicos and they didn't get to where they are by being nice, they got there by stabbing the other guy in the back first and always going for the throat.

If you are relying on Bush to go around his staff, that isn't going to happen. I am willing to bet you money that he believes he has a mandate and political capital as much as every right wing talking head says he does and holds the same opinion that many people here do - that the Democrats should come begging for table scraps. He will find out he is wrong when he doesn't get much accomplished.

The whole concept of to the victor goes the spoils came from politics CJ. That's what the theory was when Presidents were first able to choose their own Cabinent. If you voted for a liberal to left-wing Democrat, and he/she won, would you be happy to see a moderate agenda put forth? Of course not. I'm not saying that the Democrats should submit however, they need to moderate themselves.

Ditto to all those on the left side of the aisle expecting the Republicans to say, "Well we just won a fairly large majority of the Senate, picked up seats in the House and won the Presidency fairly convincingly, we need to work with the Democrats."

America has rejected the Democrat's agenda fairly soundly, the Republicans would not be doing the right thing if they watered down their agenda with the Democrats rejected one.

CP

Are we talking about the same George W. Bush Jr. that's been running this country for the past four years?

Because if we are, what exactly in his demonstrated style of leadership would make anyone think Bush has any in "reaching out" to Democrats, liberals, progressives, moderates or anyone else that isn't a white Christian conservative?

Here's what I expect from four more years of George W. Bush: PAIN

Conservpat, John Locke and others have made it clear as glass that they neither expect nor want Bush to make any effort to be gracious in victory. They want to see a Republican agenda pushed and if it's pushed down the throat (or in some orifice) of Democrats to get it done, then so much the better. I don't see any desire for bringing the counry together. The Faithful don't want reconciliation. They don't want compromise. They want it all and they want it now.

Message received on this end, fellas. Expect no favors and no mercy.

IF there were statesmen in Washington, the Democratic leadership and the President would sit down and discuss what issues they could work together on. But statesmen are in short supply in the era where the likes of Tom "The Hammer" DeLay run things on Capitol Hill. Sorry about that Hobbes, but despite the Chuck Hagels, Christopher Shays and John McCains in Congress, there are precious few Howard Bakers or Everett Dirksens left in the Republican Party.

The dilemma for conservatives is with the Democrats reduced to being only a nuisance on procedural issues like tying up the President's judicial nominees, is that what do they DO when they aren't the minority party anymore? What do conservatives do when they are firmly in power?

Oh sure, they can always rail about the "liberal media" and Michael Moore, but with control of the White House, Congress and Supreme Court, the dominance of right-wing radio, the popularity of Fox News, the glut of right-wing authors, the ascendancy of conservative think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, the prominence of conservative evangelicals and so on, the right has won.

Congratulations. No more whining about what you would do if you had the Big Chair. Now you do. Even more than Ronald Reagan in his prime, it's a Republican World and we just live in it. Now the challenge is can you lead?

Not if you think an eagle can fly only with a right wing. Not if you think the 49 percent that didn't vote for Bush don't matter. Not if you think everything that isn't advocated by Sean, Ann and Rush can be dismissed as liberal tripe. Not if you don't at least pay lip service to the idea of respecting the views of all Americans and not just your base.

I know whom on America's Debate will at least entertain another viewpoint different from their own. I know whose minds are open and whose are closed. I know who I could work with to get things done and who I wouldn't ask the time of day. I think George Bush knows which Democrats he can work with to make things better and who would only try to shaft him.

I don't expect Bush to suddenly display a real commitment to being bipartisan. I do think it's not a radical notion that the supposed Leader of the Free World to be willing to work with his own countrymen. Even those that didn't vote for him. Apparently, that's a quaint, passe notion around these parts.

Apparently in the process of bringing democracy and a political system to Iraq and Afghanistan where the voices of all the people are given equal weight doesn't work in this country anymore. Darn shame, don't you think?

Come back to this thread in six months and we'll all have a good laugh about all this booshwah about "reaching out."

Never happen. Not with this president. Not after this campaign. Not in this time we're living in.

Can I support the president? Can you give me a reason why I should?

I would call that the overstatement of the year CP, America has done no such thing. This president was re-elected by the second smallest margin by an incumbent in history. You didn't beat us 60% to 40%, so please stop implying that it was some sound whooping, it wasn't. In reality a few ten thousand votes in the right places would have made the difference between victory and defeat. Bush would have won the popular vote but lost in the EC, wouldn't that have been ironic?

Regarding congress, so they picked up a small number of seats - who cares? Again there was a lot of switching going on. Republicans picked up some Democrat seats and Democrats picked up some Republican seats, the congressional elections weren't anything near a landslide victory. Also it is important to look at which seats changed hands. For the most part there were very few shockers in my opinion. For example the R's picked up Zell Miller's seat, but does that really shock anyone? He should have just changed party affiliations a long time ago, he doesn't stand for anything I would consider Democratic values. But all that aside, we still have enough votes to filibuster anything we'd like to and the Republicans don't have enough votes to overturn the filibuster. Furthermore, forget about anything that requires a super majority unless it is a very moderate issue.

The thing I don't think you are grasping CP, is that history will judge this president, they won't be writing about this congress. They will write that Bush failed to pass his agenda and get anything done, they won't be talking about Democrats filibustering all of his legislation. Pick up any history book and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. So if this president wants to be remembered in a good light it would benefit him to moderate his agenda. Or he can choose to do the same thing he has done the past four years and he'll get absolutely nothing accomplished domestically.

Finally, whether or not you think the Democrats should concede, that simply isn't reality and I hope you aren't holding your breath. They are absolutely not going to give up the fight, and I would expect this will be a very unproductive Congress if all the president tries to do is push ultra conservative measures.

I think Bush has demonstrated this in his style of leadership...in fact, Nighttimer, it shows in some of the very programs you think us fiscal conservatives should be upset about (which we are, BTW).



Couldn't have said it better. However, where others see this as the cause for their pessimism, I see it as something that will absolutely force compromise. Because, I guess, I think that both Bush and the very people that those on the left think run his administration (Rove, etc)...want...maybe even need...the eagle to fly. Looking forward, what more is to be gained by trying to ramrod a far right platform through...failing, and then, as you said, pulling the usual rhetoric out of the closet and broadcasting it everywhere. They have the Presidency, they have both houses of Congress...what more do they expect to be able to get following that path? Our model of democracy inherently balances these things. The Democratic response to such actions would be 'look, you had the power, and you failed to get anything done. Why should we continue down that path?". This message alone would prevent the Republicans from getting any more power than they currently have. So, the only action left, even if solely for political motives, is to get as much done as you can. Doing that will require working with those on the left who can be worked with. Bush knows this...perhaps more importantly, Rove knows this...in fact, anyone advising Bush from a political standpoint knows this. Combine that with the fact that I think working with both sides is Bush's modus operandi, and I think it becomes fairly obvious.



No, I don't think it is. So far, Bush has said the right things. Obviously, it remains to be seen what is translated into action. But, I would think that at least saying the right things is a step in the right direction.



Yes, I can. It follows along the very lines of your argument. You should support him because he is your President. Does this mean that I expect anyone to continue to support him if all of his policies go against their philosophy? No. But I do think it should go far enough to at least give him a chance. As Bush said, this is a new term, and a new term is a new beginning. Let's wait and see what it's the beginning of before tearing it down. it

NT has it right- we owe this president NOTHING- I personally would not stand if he walked in the room- he dishonored Kerry with his swift boat ads- which were clearly linked to him, and clearly lies, he dishonored me by, through his surrogates, leading others to believe anyone that disagreed with him is "un-American" and that, somehow, is "christian values" are more important than others individual rights.

I am more angry with a politician than any elected official in my entire life- I find myself radicalized and emotional, over a proccess I have observed in the past and have been somewhat apathetic about before.

GW has ALWAYS said one thing while, in proper Orwellian fashion, doing the exact opposite "I want to reach out to others (read, do what I say or you are un-American)"- if he suddenly has a change of behavior- I will change that idea.

Usually, in my 40 years of life, have never judged anyone by thier personal choice in politics, thinking it a inconsequential part of one's personality.

I have found myself changed though in the last four years- I don't even want to hang around someone that voted for GW- to me, they are either ignorant, or just bigots, or religious zealots. Seems harsh, but I can't, for the life of me, see how someone can justify discriminating against gays by law to uphold your religious beliefs just seems plain evil to me. I can' see, how anyone that describes themselves as "conservative" are okay with GW spending like a drunken sailor, a daily assault on individual rights, etc etc can be anything other than a hypocrite.

My grandfather broke some 30 year friendships due to thier support for Nixon, a man my grandfather KNEW IN HIS HEART OF HEARTS was pure evil. I asked him once, how he could do this over "just politics" his answer "Do you think Jews after learning that thier nieghbors had voted in the Nazis continued to be friends? Do you think, after these guys voted in this scumbag, escalated a stupid war (Vietnam) that led to my son's death, I could look them in the eye without spitting in it?, politics is never "just politics" son- it could get you killed and everything you loved and worked for destroyed". It is only now I see his point, nearly 20 years later.

THAT is what this political mean season has done to me.

Thanks for the thoughts and I completely agree. Once more Democrat's realize this then they will have more people vote their way. I for one voted for Gore in 2000 and was not happy when he didnt win. But my priorities changed after 9/11. My sister worked in the Merrill Lynch building right next to the former towers and I live in upstate NY, that really hit home for me and made me consider how to undercut these bastards once and for all. If you think Saddam had nothing to do with radical elements I suggest you do research for yourself and read this thread. I dont pin the SBVFT on Bush, this issue has been going on for decade's and didnt just pop up before the election, they where around during the primaries before Kerry was the known candidate, and Oniell has been at it with Kerry since the 70's. In fact the Bush administration believed that Dean would be the candidate they where going to run against, they had a plan lined up to run against him, yet the SBVFT where allready organized while the primaries where taking place, explain THAT ONE. Ive also read Kerry's testimony back then and watched the debate with Oniell and Kerry on the Dick Cavett show, BUSH WAS NOT BEHIND THIS. They are anti-Kerry not pro-Bush. Kerry brought this upon himself, and if you do proper research for yourself instead of reading snippets from the news you will know that their complaints are justified.

The people lashing out at this group and accusing Bush of "running the ads" plain and simply did not research the issue, there's no conceivable way that you can blame Bush for their existance. Of course Republican donor's are going to give them money once they knew Kerry was the person that Bush was going to run against, that's common sense. But to say that "Bush was behind the SBVFT" is just an un-informed lash out against Bush by the anybody but Bush crowd.

Goto DUMB (Democratic Underground Message Board) for that kind of rhetoric.

Im not attempting to paint anyone that voted for Kerry as an "idiot" because I understand many of their complaints, but some of them are plain and simply blind that listen to whatever the Democrat propaganda is. I know that the GOP painted Kerry as flip-flopping on every issue, but I know that he did not on all that they where accusing him of (though I believe he did in regards to Iraq). Most of the supposed "arguements" in this thread are just talking points from the DNC that dont face up to reality.

That is why I classify myself as a "moderate". I extract the fact's from the talking points and accumulate my own opinion balanced by other fact's from objective views. I dont set in stone my ideal from a single article without objectively looking at it from the other side of the issue. I also concede to arguement's that prove otherwise instead of brushing them off. Everyone is wrong at some point. Even a brocken clock is right twice during the day.

I know that many Democrat's are reasonable (as I quoted one of them) but this year the "face" of the Democrat's was a complete failure and utter nonsense which is why America rejected their garbage.

Do you think he will make any attempt to reach across to the "blue" areas of our country?

Instead of critizing him for "not reaching out" just look at the major senate vote's. The proof is in the pudding not the rhetoric.

Do you feel that this election was good for America, either

Yes but mainly for Bush's foriegn and economic policies, short of that I disagree with Bush on a wide variety of issue's. But at this time, I believe he is the right man for the job.

I view Bush as a great leader, he has the forsight of a man that know's what we are dealing with and know's how to deal with the enemy in long term affects, not just lobbing a few missiles here and there which equals basically nothing in long term affects. IF Iraq is successful then he will most certianly go down in history as the President that stood up to the radical's in the middle east and made major reform throughout the area, something that has not been accomplished by any other world leader. If Iraq plunges into civil war and the hard liners take over he will go down in history as the president that "lost" the second major war and created more power for terrorist's in the Middle East. All eye's are on the success in Iraq for both side's of the conflict.

Brilliance is always met with skepticism and bold plan's always have protests.

I'm not quite sure if this is true yet, but if it is, then you have your answer. You'll know what the next four years is going to be like. There will be no reaching out to "blue" anything. CIA Plans to Purge its Agency.

Yep, if this is in fact true it sure sounds like Bush has an interest in working with the other side


The problem Hobbes is that from what I have read and heard, Bush supporters that feel the way you do are in the minority. All one has to do is look at the speeches coming out of the White House to see that. When one uses words like "mandate" and "political capital" that doesn't exactly paint a picture of compromise.

I really do wish that the administration was interested in compromise, but from the evidence I have seen so far and from past history they are interested in nothing of the sort. So I really hope things turn out the way you see them, but I don't think they are going to.

On Wolf Blitzer’s Late Edition today Blitzer played this clip from Dr. James Dobson. Given Dobson’s rabid opposition to Arlen Spector as Chair of the Senate Judiciary committee, I think Dobson and others of his ilk will put emense pressure on Bush to toe a right-wing agenda. In fact, Dobson’s words are something of a threat to Bush and the Republican Party.



Wolf Blitzer: Late Edition, CNN, Sunday 11-14-04

Not only does Bush not seem willing to compromise, but I predict he will cave to pressure from the right.

I doubt that was the language used in the "orders". But I wouldnt be surprised if the administration is shacking up the CIA.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008601.php



They have the same article you posted on their website to. But added their own commentary.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/





To bad Bush cant get another term, I dont think pressure or threats about the next election is going to affect him much.

Yeah, it's really a crying shame that Bush can't become a monarch.

Dobson's words were probably addressed to Bush in the midterm elections of 2006 and the Republican party in general in 2008. I'm sure as a lame duck President, Bush wants as large a Republican majority as possible going into his last two years. Hopefully, Democrats will make some gains in the next two years.

Who knows Vampiel, in four years you may be as sick of Bush as those of us who have suffered his combined governorships and presidencies for the past decade.

Sure. If he listened to reason, or if his decisions could crawl us out of any of the failures he's created during his last four years. I would support him if he showed success, you cant agrue with success. I'm not holding my breath, however.

As I discussed in this thread, his entire campaign was divisive. I believe that they do not appreciate opposing view points. Why reach across, when you always think your right?

Yes, this country needs to hit rock bottom. If his second four years are a repeat of his last four years, we are in for failures in the economy, Iraq and the war on terrorism. If the government doesn't keep up its huge amounts of spending, we might sink back into recession in a year or two.

In all seriousness, i understand why Bush wants to get these people out of there. How can he work with an intelligency agecny he doesnt trust? If these people leaked confidential information for purely political reasons than it is a betrayal of the President's and the CIA's trust. I would expect Kerry to get rid of any intolerant right wingers if he were elected. You can't put your faith in an agency that is trying to sabotage you.



CJ, the Dems have to meet the Presidnet half-way. Neither party should have to "cross the aisle" They should meet at the center. Its not fair to say that Bush should adopt more liberal policies to unify the country. If anything, the democrats should adopt some more conservative ones. The majority of the voting public chose the Repubs. They gave the Republicans the authority to shape public policy...not the Democrats. I am not saying that all the Dems should suddenly become conservative...just that they lost...and it is them who should make some compromises. I mean, you act like the Bush administration is divisive while the Democrats want to be unified. This isn't true. Both parties want things done their way and it isnt right to put the administration at fault in this issue.



i would hardly say we are anywhere near rock-bottom. Jobs are increasing, the economy is getting back on track and he war on terror is being run effectively. I am optmistic about Iraq and believe things are going to be alright.

Watching a CNN Special Saturday night about Saudi Arabia, it really opened my eyes to a lot of things. The feeling was generally that Saudi Arabia is changing...just at a slow pace. I think things are going to get betterin a couple years and it will be thanks to the dismantling of terrorism worldwide.

Job pacing is still generally lower than population growth. The GDP probably wouldn't be what it is today without government spending, or even the very generous interest rates granted by the Feds.

Even if we were immediately going to hop onto a Clinton like expansion tomorrow, Bush would have been the president whom it took the longest to get us there.

War on terror being run effectively? I still don't believe we have reduced terrorists capabilities to strike us, though that assesment is getting more and more subjective. I think Iraq, thus far, has been a sinkhole of american lives and money. The benefit to invading Iraq is not readily apparent to me.

If things are in four years as they are now, I feel justified in using the failure stamp. You can blame it on anything you want, 9/11, congress, liberal media, its still a failure.

You talk like 9/11 was a mere inconvenience. Come on. Billions were spent rebuilding the infrastructure...even more gone into defense and homeland security. Terrorism wasn't an issue in the 2000 Election. And 9/11 wasn't fit into the 2001 budget.

Lets get one thing straight about the supposed "Clinton like expansion." What happened during Clinton, was that he got the big hill in the sine graph. Our economy is a sine graph constantly going up and down. Usually the president's policies preceeding the new president shape the economy for the next couple years. So it wasn't all Clinton...it was some Reagan and some Bush Sr. I am not being biased here. Its the honest truth. If Republicans are voted in the White House for the next 40 years, you will see years of growth and years of recession. Its how our economy operates. Highs and lows.

The Bush administration is divisive and while I think that many Democrats are very angry at the moment, I think they could and would support Republican proposals if they were moderate in nature. I don't know how Kerry would have reacted and it really doesn't matter anyway because it would be pure speculation and it also doesn't matter since he isn't in power.

But as I was saying I see a pattern of payback politics developing here. I posted something about that CIA story earlier and just recently ran across this story related to science - Bush Victory Leaves Scars--and Concerns About Funding. The original article is on a paid site, the aforementioned link is an excerpt on Daily Kos.

I'd say that is pretty clearly a veiled threat - you opposed the administration, so don't expect funding for your research. I have a feeling that stories like this are going to become rather common. This all leads me to believe that the President has no interest in compromise but rather only in payback.

You talk like all that money being tossed around isn't good for the economy. Despite the talk that war doesn't help the economy, its usually excellent for it. Imagine all that money going into contractor hands because of increased government needs! All those new workers on the payroll fulfilling government instituted demand. In world war 2, nary a factory was left closed. They were continually pumping out goods for the war.

All businesses would do well if they all had infinite demand. Whatever company built the World Trade center would report record business if they had to rebuild fifty of them.

I would say that what clinton did during his years was decrease the deficit, lowering interest rates and encouraging investment.

Guess who ran up the deficit. And if Reagan is responsible for the economy Bush Sr. had, he must be responsible for the 91 recession. Though I agree that Reagans neglect for fiscal discipline jump started demand, it also got us into a huge mess later.

Certainly, eventually the economy will self correct. However, the president can speed up that time if he, I don't know, aims his tax cuts correctly. Luckily, I get UC Tv. around here, and even the conservative economic professor admitted that Bushes tax plan was not a stimulus package. Its a fallacy to assume that the lack of investment is due to a lack of capital.

But isnt it more likely that tax increases will decrease investment? This really is for another debate...but i just cannot comprehend how increasing taxes helps anything. Decreasing taxes gives people more money...more money to spend.

Not really. If there is a way to make more money, Business will find a way to produce the capital. They usually do that by either borrowing the money (and that is why its a good idea, when you want to make the economy grow, to make borrowing money affordable) or selling stock. A lack of investment is not created by a lack of capital, but from a lack of demand.

You hit on a key note here. It is, particulary, a good thing to decrease taxes in order to allow the economy to expand. However, a well aimed tax package will maximize the amount of demand, or money people will spend. You can read the general reason why the Bush tax plan does not do that