I have been reading over and over that this was a huge victory for George Bush. Was it? Bush came very close to becoming the first President to not be re-elected in a time of war. Yes, he got the most votes of any candidate in history, but more people voted. Yes, he won the popular vote by close to 4,000,000 votes, but that is still only by about 3% or so. What is extremely interesting is that in New York City, the birthplace of the new "War on Terror", roughly 3 out of 4 voters voted for Kerry. According to the New York Times, in Manhattan and the Bronx, President Bush got 16.7% of the vote. I know that in the City of Chicago just over 1 million people voted. Just over 800,000 of them voted for Kerry. There have been some maps showing "Red America", but these are highly disproportionate when population is taken into consideration. Yes, Bush won, but was it a huge victory?


What I find interesting about the election results is the fact that just about half of the country is looking at the other half and wondering, "What were you thinking?!" This country appears to be severely divided.

The Bush Administration seems to believe it has been given a mandate. Based on the voting results would you say that this is true? Why?

Do you believe that a severe divide exists in this country? If so, what do you believe Bush will do to unite the country?

The Bush Administration seems to believe it has been given a mandate. Based on the voting results would you say that this is true? Why?

I guess I'm cynical, but I don't really think any president has ever had a mandate. The Democrats are saying that he doesn't, but what is the standard for reaching a 'mandate'? 60% of the vote? 75%?
The Republicans are saying that he does have a mandate, and it's true that no president since Coolidge has been re-elected and gained seats in both house of congress. And he did get a much larger popular vote spread than Bush v Gore got in 2000.
But is it enough for a 'mandate'?

I think the term really has no meaning, for especially these days, the opposition will disavow any supposed mandate of the incumbent party, so what's the point of wasting oxygen about it?

Do you believe that a severe divide exists in this country? If so, what do you believe Bush will do to unite the country?
If we went by the popular vote total, one could say that we are indeed less divided than in 2000. But this time around the opposition is more vocal and better funded, so who's to say? I don't think we're any more divided, just more polarized.
I don't see GW doing any more or any less than Kerry would have done. We can hope for bi-partisanship, but I'm not holding my breath.

The Bush Administration seems to believe it has been given a mandate. Based on the voting results would you say that this is true? Why?

Mandate is an overused term. Bush won the election with an all-out popular vote. The Republicans gained seats in the house and the Senate and Bush never has no future election hanging over him. He should be quite pleased and he is in a position to try to implement more controversial elements of his program if he wishes to tackle that chore.

Do you believe that a severe divide exists in this country? If so, what do you believe Bush will do to unite the country?

This is being explored ad nauseum in other thread so I'm going to pass on this one here.

Yes, although not a huge one on face value.

To say that the there is no "mandate", discounts the continuing loss in the Senate and the House, and the retention of the White House that could be responsible for 3 Supreme Court appointments in the next 4 years. Pretty powerful stuff.



There has always been a "severe" divide in the Country, if there wasn't there would be 3, 4 or 5 major parties, not just 2. IMO, the reason we are constantly hearing now of this "severe divide" is that the balance of the division has shifted.

The Democrats that once held the South in a firm grip, have barely anything left of it. States that were always 10 - 15 percent point "locks" are now only 2 or 3 point "leaners".

The Dem's have a real chance in the next 4 years to become a dominant power again, especially in moderate States, but my guess is that they will continue to try to define the moderates instead of redefining themselves

The Bush Administration seems to believe it has been given a mandate. Based on the voting results would you say that this is true? Why?

It wasn't exactly a landslide. While more people than ever voted the Republican candidate in, more people than ever also voted for the Democratic candidate. It was enough to be decisive, period.

Do you believe that a severe divide exists in this country? If so, what do you believe Bush will do to unite the country?

Yes, there is a severe division in this country, and I don't think Bush gives a rat's behind about it so long as he can pursue his agenda with the Republican Congress and the predominantly conservative Supreme Court. I don't think he is willing in the least to understand the reasons for this division, either. He just dismisses it with whatever leftover campaign label that comes to mind. But we're here, and we are now willing for the Commander-in-Chief to hoist himself on his own petard.

Many of us are in the mood to say, It's Bush's mess--now he can show us just how he's going to clean it up, or not. The less Bush determines to recognize and include other viewpoints and the more he depends on his yes-men, the harder things are going to go for him.

The Bush Administration seems to believe it has been given a mandate. Based on the voting results would you say that this is true? Why?

Huge victory? Probably not, not in terms of pure numbers at least. It was however a significant victory to be sure for President Bush and the Republican Party. Just scanning through the results, it would appear that there is little for those on the other side of the aisle to cheer about. The Democrats were pretty soundly thumped in this election. Of that there can be little question.


Do you believe that a severe divide exists in this country? If so, what do you believe Bush will do to unite the country?

I think there is, but I think it's something that can be rectified for the most part. There are those on the extreme left, many of whom post here, who will never accept Bush or care for anything he does. They know who they are. But, while they may constitute a significant portion of the AD Community, they represent a very small segment of America as a whole. The vast majority of Americans, including many who voted for John Kerry want President Bush to succeed and it is that segment that Bush needs to reach and work with.

This week in Ohio I met some of that segment. When the election results became clear, one Kerry supporter (my camera man) looked me in the eye and said, "Ok, you guys won, you're in control. It is up to your side now to lead." He was absolutely right. By accepting the mantle of victory President Bush and the Republican Party accepted the challenge of leading America to better days. We talked the talk and now it's time for us to walk the walk. President Bush and the Republican Party do indeed have a mandate of sorts now, perhaps not in the sense of percentages of votes though. The mandate is more in the form of a challenge by Americans to them to lead and do the right thing. There can be no excuses for failure and Bush and the Republicans in Congress better understand that. They have two years to do the right things or they'll get hammered in 2006. I believe they will rise to the challenge and lead America. And, if they do that, Americans will follow them and support them and that will unite our nation. To coin a phrase, nothing breeds success like success.

The Bush Administration seems to believe it has been given a mandate. Based on the voting results would you say that this is true? Why?

I would say that the House and the Senate is clearly more republican that it has been in years. Although this has occurred, i am not 100% certain that it has been given a mandate, due to the fact that there are still some republicans in the house that Dosen't necessarily agree with his policies. All and All he does have a clear lead in the house and Senate and i believe he can get a majority of the bills passed though.

Do you believe that a severe divide exists in this country? If so, what do you believe Bush will do to unite the country?

There was a divide when the election did occur. Although it is still evident that a divide may exist i think that since Kerry Conceded America is clearly being brought together. This is one of the only wartime presidents to be re-elected by such a large number. It would of been my assumption that Kerry would of won because of these new voters. But i guess i assumed wrong.

The Bush Administration seems to believe it has been given a mandate. Based on the voting results would you say that this is true?

Not by the most remote stretch of anyone's imagination.

Why?

To the dictionary and me, a "mandate" (unless you're talking about dinner, drinks, and a ballgame) means "a clear authorization or direction". To consider a vote as a mandate I would think you would need a bit more than 1% over half - that barely counts as a "majority". To me, "clear authorization" does not mean that half the country is actively - passionately - opposed to ever move you make.

The Republican Party overall fared a bit better than the president, but the party iteslf is severly divided, with many opposed to (and many more dubious about) significant positions taken by the Bush administration - including a number of members of Congress who were elected or re-elected this week. Party loyalty has made many of them - temporarily, I hope - White House whores. Calling this a mandate for the Bush administration is a sad, delusional joke. "Political capital" is one of the most Orwellian coinages of the most ridiculously Orwellian administration this country has ever known.

Do you believe that a severe divide exists in this country?

Absolutely.

If so, what do you believe Bush will do to unite the country?

Absolutely nothing.

The Bush administration is not remotely interested in "unity". If anything, they have been promoting and pursuing ever more divisive "wedge issues" in an effort to pander to the most extreme members of our society. The word "compromise" no more exists in their lexicon than does the word "compassion". We can look forward to nothing more than four more years of "with us or against us", four more years of "my way or the highway", four more years of hatred, intolerance, hubris, and arrogance. It could well be the death of the country - which, maybe, is what we deserve for so seriously abandoning and egregiously perverting our values and our ideals.

You are obviously young. I am sure older people, like Wertz, can tell you that LBJ did not run in 68 because of the unpopularity of the Vietnam War. Truman also refused to run in 52 during the Korean War. Those who considered Iraq the number one issue voted 3-1 in favor of Kerry. The Iraq War most likely prevented Bush from winning in a landslide.

If you are referring to the war on terror there were incumbants who were defeated during the Cold War.

Upon further review (that's a football reference for those of you out there too intelligent to watch football), perhaps the "big victory" will happen in the weeks following the election. It will happen as the liberal elites of the Democratic Party continue their own party's self-destruction. We have people like Jane Smiley explaining the Democratic Party whooping as happening because the 58 MILLION voters who voted for President Bush were too stupid to vote for Kerry. Oh man, now there's a "healing theme" for you.... That's a real winning attitude, just run around and tell the largest number of people ever to vote for a single candidate for President that they are stupid. Now, if I had said something like "The Democrats think you are too stupid to live your own lives without their guidance" before the election, many would have screamed "attack!!!" here in this forum. So I won't say that, I'll let the Democrats say it instead. Apparently to the "intelligent elite" the concept of compromise and working together means "you do what I say" and given that, I see little room, and frankly absolutely no reason to cooperate with the extreme hysterical left. Let them stamp their feet and throw their little temper tantrums and hold their breath until they turn red... <- Liberal holding their breath (Clever no?). Meanwhile, there are Democrats out there I believe that are willing to work together. We just need to find them. While we're looking, it's kind of fun to watch the implosion of the far left. Kind of like a collective Howie Dean scream.

I know you have had a lot of fun with your post, Aquilla , especially with the cute emoticons.

The fact remains that President Bush got--what?--3% more of the vote than John Kerry got--hardly a mandate. The fact also remains that Mr. "I'm a uniter, not a divider" has during his watch not only polarized the electorate with his wedge issues; he has plunged the nation into more debt while over 1,000 troops have died in a bloody debacle that in no way resembles the Iraq of May 2003. While Bush promises not to hold a draft, the stop-loss policy is reinstating soldiers in their 50's and in one instance, 60's to "stay the course."

Meanwhile, Care International and Doctors Without Borders are pulling their humanitarian operations out of Iraq, and Hungary, the Netherlands and Poland are slated to pull their troops out of Iraq next year.

Now I'll grant you that a lot of liberals figure President Bush is stupid and that his supporters are either stupid or ill-informed. Part of this is due to the President's failure to master spoken English sufficiently to hold more than 3 press conferences prior to the election (the 4th press conference he held this week). Another part of this feeling is due to the strategies of Karl Rove, such as spreading the rumor that John Kerry was going to ban the Holy Bible if he were elected--now just who was showing a lack of respect for their core constituency with that little gem?

Any President who passes massive tax cuts during a time of war has a really skewed idea of what "sacrifice" means, especially when that same President has refused to even once honor the return of the fallen at Dover Air Force Base. Would it be too much of a sacrifice for him to do so?

And yet, Bush appears to have gotten the most votes. It all depends on the way you spin it, I guess. And Karl Rove appears to be a far better spinner than anyone the Kerry campaign employed.

Well about the only response I have to such a post of yours is that is about the kind of response I would expect from you and Bush. Of course it is a perfect example of trying to reach out to the other side and make peace.

With sarcasm like that it is going to be a long 4 years, but why should I come to expect anything differently from the compassionate conservative.

Having a 2% majority does not erase the 49% that have been loudly protesting this man and his policies for the last couple years. It may look great on paper but nothing has changed. He'll swagger and smirk more than before but his perceived mandate won't change the way he runs the country. He didn't have a mandate before and yet he felt confident enough to attack another country that was no threat to us or anyone else. He did this against the will of millions of American's, the majority of the UN Security council, and the rest of the world. He bullied Congress into giving him the authority and pretended he would not abuse it. They were stupid to believe him.

What changes everything is the fact that he is no longer constrained by the worry of re-election. He's got four years to carry out any harebrained scheme he wants and there is no one to stop him no matter how insane things may get. He controls all branches of the Government and he's going to take full advantage without worrying about polls, oversight committees, International Law, the Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, or anything else. You people who elected him couldn't impeach him now even if you wanted to.

So now we all get to sit back and watch what happens when you give a reckless, power drunk man the reigns to the worlds only Superpower , eliminate any restraints and erase the carefully constructed checks and balances that are supposed to exist.

It's not the mandate that makes him dangerous, it's the absence of any safeguards to protect us from what he may do with it that people ought to worry about.

Your post struck me as being specifically intended to inflame, so allow me to interject a bit of levity here, Aquilla. As you seem to be taking issue with Ms. Smiley's conclusions, I'd like to draw your attention to a "severe divide" in American politics which seems fairly well documented. In the book IQ and the Wealth of Nations, authors Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen provide a list of a state-by-state average IQ. Some good soul at Daily Kos appended how each state voted in the presidential election. I added the state-by-state color-coding myself.

State IQ Candidate
Connecticut 113 Kerry
Massachusetts 111 Kerry
New Jersey 111 Kerry
New York 109 Kerry
Rhode Island 107 Kerry
Hawaii 106 Kerry
Maryland 105 Kerry
New Hampshire 105 Kerry
Illinois 104 Kerry
Delaware 103 Kerry
Minnesota 102 Kerry
Vermont 102 Kerry
Washington 102 Kerry
California 101 Kerry
Pennsylvania 101 Kerry
Maine 100 Kerry
Wisconsin 100 Kerry
Virginia 100 Bush
Michigan 99 Kerry
Oregon 99 Kerry
Colorado 99 Bush
Iowa 99 Bush
Nevada 99 Bush
Ohio 99 Bush
Alaska 98 Bush
Florida 98 Bush
Missouri 98 Bush
Kansas 96 Bush
Nebraska 95 Bush
Arizona 94 Bush
Indiana 94 Bush
Tennessee 94 Bush
North Carolina 93 Bush
West Virginia 93 Bush
Arkansas 92 Bush
Georgia 92 Bush
Kentucky 92 Bush
New Mexico 92 Bush
North Dakota 92 Bush
Texas 92 Bush
Alabama 90 Bush
Louisiana 90 Bush
Montana 90 Bush
Oklahoma 90 Bush
South Dakota 90 Bush
South Carolina 89 Bush
Wyoming 89 Bush
Idaho 87 Bush
Utah 87 Bush
Mississippi 85 Bush

I am not, of course, suggesting that those who supported George W Bush are stupid. The statistics are.

Wertz

I don't know how much truth or validty that has, but it is pretty amusing.


The Bush Administration seems to believe it has been given a mandate. Based on the voting results would you say that this is true? Why?

Yes. A majority is a mandate even if its a small mandate. Bush won and by the law he is President and he does not have to do anything to 'make up the dufference' or 'mend the divide'.


Do you believe that a severe divide exists in this country? If so, what do you believe Bush will do to unite the country?

I'd go further and say that the whole of the western world is divided. America is split down the middle, and America and Europe are split asunder.

I don't believe Bush will do anything about this because for the rest of his time in office he doesn't have to.



I must also add though, in the spirit of honesty, that a part of me is glad that Bush got re-elected. I can't help it. I'm tired of living in the shadow of America's religious self righteousness and if GW Bush carries on the way he has been doing then it will only hasten the sentiment in Europe to greater autonomy and freedom.

Bush won 51 to 48 and fairly and squarely, too. (This time ).

And the turnout was relatively high for recent presidential elections, at 61%.

Which means he won 31% of the elecorate, compared to Kerry's 29%. Hardly the huge stamp of public approval the Bush administration seems to think it now has.

Gosh. Not quite a third of Americans who qualify to vote favoured Bush. Lucky him. I'm torn on this. Part of me thinks that if you don't vote, you forfiet your right to complain about politics. But at the same time, I can't help but think that the kind of mandate claimed by wining politicians only becomes valid when a majority of all voters, not just the ones who actually turn out, endorse a particular candidate.

I want to see a good deal more humility from politicians in first-past-the-post systems full stop. This aplies to Bush, certainly, but also to Blair, Thatcher, Reagan and all others that have "clear mandates" - because in my reckoning, none of them do (or did) have mandates quite so clear as they make out.


As for "I've earned capital in this election and I'm going to spend it"? It's a loan, George. The voting public have assessed your assets and decided to give you a time-limited loan against them. However you spend it, they will want to see a return on their investment., and they'll want it on their time scale, not yours.

Just a dumb Texan here but let me add my 2 cents anyhow. When you look at the fact that 22% stated moral values was their major concern and these voters went 4-1 for Bush and then factor in that approximately 70% of the voters in states where gay marriage amendments were up for vote voted for restricting the liberties of gays you can come to only one conclusion. There was a mandate for restricting the civil liberties of gay Americans. I thank nature's God that our founding fathers put in the Constitution impediments to tyranny of the majority.

While Bush's victory may not be overwhelming those who voted for him and Republicans in the House and Senate have every right to demand a more conservative agenda. I am sure if the Democrats controlled all branches of government they would be shoving their agenda down our throats.

Aquilla does have a point. One major reason for the almost complete loss of the rural vote in the south and midwest is that many feel the Democrats have nothing but scorn for them and their beliefs and needs. If the Democrats don't learn this they will lose even more power in 2006 and the Bush Agenda will be unstoppable.


However that being said. The Kerry the ultral liberal from Massechusetts came within a 150000 votes of winning Ohio and being the President elect.
So as for Bush's Mandate.

"MANDATE MY A.."

Clear enough.


Is there a huge division in America? No not really. Limited choices in politicians who can think independantly, but we are only really divided on a few issues.

Yeah, but he also came within around 120,000 votes of losing Pennsylvania despite a nearly 400,000 vote margin in Philadelphia.

In any case, my point is that the "big victory" might indeed come in the aftermath of the election. Posts like we saw in response to my input indicate that all those really "smart people" are still pretty ticked off that they keep losing elections to us rubes on the right. And, since apparently an intellectual liberal is never wrong by definition, it must be those who didn't agree with them's fault. And that's fine if they want to continue to say things like that. We'll just move on and continue ringing up victories in elections.

The topic of this thread deals in part with healing the "divide" that exists among the American people and in addressing that divide I think it would be unwise to see it as a distinct split as opposed to a slope in the political spectrum. I think that people like Jane Smiley and some of the posters here represent the mainstream Democratic Party less than some in the Republican Party do. It is that segment of the Democratic Party, the "Reagan Democrats" (among others) that President Bush and the Republicans need to reach and work with, not the marginal far left wing. You're never going to get 100% agreement on anything, but I do think it's realistic to present an agenda that will be suppported by a large percentage of the American people regardless of their political party. In my opinion, this is the path that the Bush administration should pursue.

Real interesting um information there Wertz...seems familiar..now where have I seen that same data and argument used before...oh yes from this book......The Bell Curve
Yet what do I know just a dumb red state southerner..funny that I don't ever recall having taken a IQ test..how did they do it?! While I was sleeping? Is that what these alien encounters people are reporting having had in their sleep? Just Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen reaping IQ scores from their heads?


Well I don't even think it is just Mr. Bush's mandate to be bragging about is it? The Republicans in accordance to the voting results pretty much as a whole garnered a "mandate" This has to mean something other than just everyone in red states is stupid...maybe?

Well I can only honestly speak for myself and my family. I have a brother who is a born again Christian. He doesn't fit into any of the stereotypes either..is not southern..he is not rural..he was raised in Europe and has a European education..happens to be smart..lives in the NorthWest. I get along with him and his family really well and altho he lives in WA..I hope the blue authorities don't attempt to deport him! We see each other at least once a year and I don't really feel that great of a divide even tho his values/morals are so much different then mine.
I also have friends..who I happen to be having dinner with this evening who have to be the most conservative couple I have a personal relationship with and again we get along really well. We just don't really talk about politics..but I fell awful..I am in the husbands eyes "liberal" European and he always feels the need to apologize to me for his beliefs....that is sad I think and it makes me uncomfortable.
For example he told me over the phone he would be going deer hunting next week but he has to precede it with an apology.."sorry now you will really think I am a real redneck hick..but.." I just don't view people like this I guess ..in the divided way that apparently many Americans feel is how people exist.
I really hope we get over all this nonsense.

Aquilla



Will you? Thats a pretty bold statement on the basis of the last two elections where your party actually lost the first and only scraped through by a margin of a few percent in the second.

Given that the Republicans now have full control of the entire US government system* just who can they blame if/ when things start to go wrong? Clinton?




So what will it mean if they don't? That is after all the main accusation being made by the disappointed Democrats.. that GW Bush even before he had this 'political capital' was not inclined to any form of compromise so what makes any one think he is now going to try and bridge the gap?

Why should he even bother with these "Reagan Democrats" when he does not need them. He has the sort of carte blanche that most dictators can only dream of.

Do you really believe that you are now heading towards four years of healing?


* and what does that say about the so called checks and balances when a margin of a few percent can completely hand over power to one political agenda?


editted for spelling

As I have stated in other threads, Moif, the ball is clearly in the Republicans' court. There are no excuses for failure and failure is not an option. If the Republicans fail to lead in the next two years, they will get hammered in the mid-term elections in 2006. That is understood.





Our electoral system is unlike yours Moif. We don't form a government from coalitions after the election, but rather form a government from the election then proceed to form coalitions to get things done after. Sometimes on a issue by issue basis. Just as an example I'll point to the selection of a Supreme Court Justice, and Bush may have the opportunity to select as many as FOUR to the court in his next term in office. Realistically it will take 60 votes in the US Senate to confirm an appointment to the Supreme Court. That means finding a candidate acceptable to not only all the Republicans, but to at least 5 Democrats as well. That's going to require consultation and an attempt to reach across party lines to find an acceptable candidate. Other issues on the agenda will require similar actions. If Bush is to be a successful President in his second term, he's going to have to do this sort of thing and he knows that.

This is an important point, Julian.

But that statement also represents George W. Bush when he is being the most honest with the country. He had no intention of saying that he was going to re-invest that capital for the good of the nation; he meant what he said.

Bush will spend that capital, much the same way he spent the capital of good will from other nations immediately after 9/11. Now it's deficit spending, literally and figuratively speaking.

You can give a kid a sum of money to take to the candy store; you cannot always control what the kid spends the money on.

Just to be clear here: I don't put much stock in IQ tests in general. I mostly posted that to try to lighten the tone a little as things seemed to be getting a bit personal.

That said, in calculating their averages, Lynn and Vanhanen claim to have based their results on a variety of factors - raw IQ data where it was available (largely through testing of primary school children), SAT scores, GPAs, etc. Where IQ testing was available for more mature subjects, they weighted the results based on age. To the extent that such things are an accurate estimation of anything, the results here would seem to be fairly scientific - and statistically accurate.

Apparently, I was IQ tested in the second grade (a former teacher later told me this), though I certainly have no memory of it. But, as I've mentioned here before, I don't tend to think that IQ tests measure much more than one's ability to take IQ tests. Oh - and for the record, I also live in a "dumb red state".

The Bush Administration seems to believe it has been given a mandate. Based on the voting results would you say that this is true? Why?

As John F. Kennedy said (far more humbly than W, I might add) joked "mandate, schmandate, the mandate is that I'm here and you're not." W can call it whatever he wants. He believes he was called by God to “bring democracy to the world”, too. Doesn’t make it so.

By the literal definition of the word, yes, he was “given” a mandate by achieving an electoral victory. It’s just a word. Funny thing, tho, George has a habit of mangling the language, and what a mandate means to him is probably a whole ‘nother thing. Bush may think the majority of the country is behind him, but as others have pointed out, 30+% of the eligible voting population is hardly an overwhelming endorsement.

Even Bush’s daddy demurred on declaring a “mandate”:

‘Nuff said.

Do you believe that a severe divide exists in this country? If so, what do you believe Bush will do to unite the country?

Well, this question has been done to death, so I will not add to the beating the corpse is receiving. I will say one thing, however.

I take offense at the slamming of Jane Smiley, who is a creative, brilliant author, and an intelligent woman with an MFA and Ph.D (translation: that means she’s edumucated). She did that horrible liberal thing; taught (gasp), as a professor at Iowa State University. She also won a Pultizer Prize for fiction.

Of course, she's no Laura Bush.

Also on the light side - I thought that this was interesting. Apparently, the super-educated are driving up the averages!
gallup election analysis

So, since this blue-state post-graduate-educated poster can't do a table, I'll summarize - Bush won college grads by 16, and 'some college' by 12. Kerry won post-grads by 6, and 'high school or less' by 8. Interesting.

The Bush Administration seems to believe it has been given a mandate. Based on the voting results would you say that this is true? Why?]

Bush governed as if he had a mandate in the first term.

If, by chance, he has a mandate, it should be issue specific—not a blank check. E. J. Dionne, Jr. of The Washington Post writers group puts it this way:



<snip>


The Washington Post Writers Group Article on Mandate

Do you believe that a severe divide exists in this country? If so, what do you believe Bush will do to unite the country?

Bush has sent conflicting statements, but the overwhelming evidence seems to be that he intends to use his “mandate” to push a right-wing agenda.

From the same article by Dionne:



Perhaps others will have more to do with uniting the country than Bush. More from Dionne:



I personally don’t expect much positive from Bush.