[AP] White House Claims Mandate for Bush Agenda

[No Worries]

A shocker!!!!

White House Claims Mandate for Bush Agenda (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20041104/D8654IUG1.html)
Nov 4, 10:23 AM (ET)
By JENNIFER LOVEN

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House claimed a second-term mandate Thursday for President Bush's agenda to keep taxes low and revamp Social Security, appealing to Democrats to help bridge America's political divide after a bitter election.

"The American people spoke clearly about the agenda they want for the next four years," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Bush reached out for the broad support of Americans on Wednesday, even those who voted against him.

"I might point out that his arms are only so long, it's important for others to reach back as well," McClellan said. "We expect there will be Democratic leaders that want to reach back as well."

Bush took congratulatory calls from the presidents of Iraq, Afghanistan, Poland and Russia and the prime ministers of Israel and Italy, and convened a meeting of his Cabinet. Staff turnover is common in a president's second term, but McClellan deflected questions about Cabinet departures.

After months of minimizing his exposure to journalists, Bush planned a news conference to outline his second-term agenda. Top priorities include nudging Congress forward on producing a budget and on intelligence reform legislation. On his own domestic agenda, the list includes retooling Social Security, making health care more affordable, and streamlining the tax code, McClellan said.

Bush also invited campaign workers to the White House for a thank-you celebration.

His second term secured, Bush asked the 55 million people who voted to oust him from office to get behind him.

In a jubilant victory speech Wednesday that came a full 21 hours after the polls closed, Bush outlined the goals he plans to start work on immediately and pursue in the next four years, a period he termed "a season of hope."

He pledged to keep up the fight against terrorism, press for stable democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, simplify the tax code, allow younger workers to invest some of their Social Security withholdings in the stock market, continue to raise accountability standards in public schools and "uphold our deepest values and family and faith."

Other items include reforms to the nation's intelligence community, halving the record $413 billion deficit, expanding health care coverage, a constitutional ban on gay marriage and moving "this goodhearted nation toward a culture of life."

"Reaching these goals will require the broad support of Americans," Bush said as he asked Sen. John Kerry's disappointed supporters to back him - even though many of his proposals are anathema to those who opposed his re-election.

"I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust," he said. "When we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America."

Bush also has pledged a full-court press with Congress, where a continued GOP lock on both houses makes getting his wishes granted easier, but not guaranteed for a lame-duck president.

The disputed 2000 election left Bush without a mandate, but he governed as if he had one. The White House made clear Wednesday that it believes that mandate did not elude Bush this time, when he became the first presidential candidate since 1988 to win a majority of the popular vote, 51 percent.

"President Bush ran forthrightly on a clear agenda for this nation's future, and the nation responded by giving him a mandate," Vice President Dick Cheney said, introducing Bush.

Even before the election, aides started work on a new budget, and the administration is preparing to ask Congress for up to $75 billion more to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and operations against terrorism. The figure indicates the wars' costs, particularly to battle the intensified Iraqi insurgency, are far exceeding expectations laid out early this year.

Another sticky item could be a Supreme Court appointment, with Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 80, suffering from thyroid cancer. Time and energy also will be consumed dealing with the inevitable rash of Cabinet departures, likely to include at least Secretary of State Colin Powell, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson.

Still, Bush is sure to spend the remaining days of his first term and much of his second dealing primarily with the same issues that have dominated the last three years - the anti-terror battle, the war in Iraq and the economy.

In Iraq, where more than 1,100 American soldiers have died and a violent insurgency continues, Bush must seek to fulfill his pledge to turn the country into a model democracy for the Arab world and bring U.S. troops home. He campaigned on a claim of superior ability to lead there, but without describing precisely how he would accomplish either goal.

But first, some time for rest after a grueling, bitter campaign. After the Cabinet meeting, Bush was headed to the Camp David presidential retreat in Maryland for a long weekend.

[Oski2005]

I don't get this. We hear "let's work together and bridge the gap" but then when it comes time to business that means, "do what we say" instead of "let's meet somewhere in the middle."

[JayZ750]

Originally posted by No Worries
a constitutional ban on gay marriage and moving "this goodhearted nation toward a culture of life."

Will he give this up already. It's a state issue, not a constitutional ban issue. I wonder if they really wanted to say "godhearted"?

[No Worries]

a constitutional ban on gay marriage

overturning roe v. wade

bankrupting social security in addition to the federal government

Bring it on!!!

[ima_drummer2k]

Man, he's acting like he won the election or something!

[Mulder]

What they should have heard from the people was not a mandate but TWO distinct voices, one that was 3 percent louder than the other one.

Here's a perfect American government for you: Shades of Grey.

When there are two sides to an issue, try to find a workable compromise and go with that. Given, if the right is in power they can take a issue from their prospective and then make some modification to appease the other party. Despite what pundits on both sides of the aisle say, there are very few black and white issues out there.

However, if there is an issue where there is no common ground and you can leave it as is (ie Gay Marriage or Abortion for the Right or Gun Control for the left) just leave it alone.

I truly don't believe this is the case for these issues though. Gun Control for example. I would like to see no guns legal except for actual hunting rifles for ordinary citizens and semi-automatic hand guns for home protection. Period. You want an M-16? Join the freaking Army. However, I understand that not everyone thinks like that, so I would be willing to compromise on letting people have as many genuine hunting rifles and handguns as they want as long as we very heavily restrict automatic weapons designed for combat. There is no need for anyone to have an AK-47. ROXRAN would probably disagree. But I can bet you that we could have an intelligent conversation about the issue, in which, ROXRAN could educate me on different types of guns and why he feels thy should his right to keep and come up with some kind of workable compromise. I don't want to violate what he feels is a constitutional right. Why violate the liberties of some to appease the moral compass of others?

Otherwise, we just end up swinging this country wildly from right to left and back again.

I know it's a pipe dream. So what, I can still hope that people can try and work together in government.

[StupidMoniker]

Originally posted by Mulder
I understand that not everyone thinks like that, so I would be willing to compromise on letting people have as many genuine hunting rifles and handguns as they want as long as we very heavily restrict automatic weapons designed for combat.

Automatic weapons have been very, very restricted for 70 years. It just isn't an issue.

[GreenVegan76]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
Man, he's acting like he won the election or something!

One outta two means a mandate, I guess.

[ROCKSS]

Originally posted by Oski2005
I don't get this. We hear "let's work together and bridge the gap" but then when it comes time to business that means, "do what we say" instead of "let's meet somewhere in the middle."

How can you say that already. It sounds like he`s trying to do his part, lets see if he`ll walk the walk.

[ima_drummer2k]

Originally posted by GreenVegan76
One outta two means a mandate, I guess.
So I guess the winning candidate is supposed to adopt the losing candidate's platform?

[giddyup]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
So I guess the winning candidate is supposed to adopt the losing candidate's platform?
Of course! Read here: http://bbs2.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86232

[4chuckie]

Bush campaigned for all these things why is anyone shocked he is planning on doing them?

Oh that's right many are use to unfulfilled election promises and plans.

Let's see what W can do in 4 years (and at least 2 with both houses behind him). SS needs fixed and if he can simplify the tax code that is a good thing. Fighting the war on terror is a given. So I love he says what he intends to do. if he does them great it makes us a stronger country, if he doesn't it gives some ammo to teh liberals in 2 and 4 years.

[Chump]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
Man, he's acting like he won the election or something!


this is a major problem we see with republicans. 'scoreboard' is all that seems to matter to them. winning is everything and no matter what, winning means getting to do whatever you want.

it doesn't work that way

you cite that Bush got the most votes a president has ever recieved, that is true, but the most votes were also cast AGAINST a president ever.

Bush only won Iowa, New Mexico and Ohio by a combined 158,082 votes. That difference will come down after all the votes are counted.

I think it will be a huge mistake for Bush and the republicans in congress to act like they have a blank check.

[Trader_Jorge]

Bush won a greater percentage of votes than Clinton ever did. Remember that, liberals. He was the only candidate in 16 years to get greater than 50% of the vote. This is percentage terms, Chump, not simply raw votes. That, my friend, is powerful.


MANDATE

[insane man]

the notion that he won a greater percent is ludicrous. that is simply because there wasn't any viable third party candidate.

[Chump]

Originally posted by Trader_Jorge
Bush won a greater percentage of votes than Clinton ever did. Remember that, liberals. He was the only candidate in 16 years to get greater than 50% of the vote. This is percentage terms, Chump, not simply raw votes. That, my friend, is powerful.


MANDATE


I think you forgot to mention that Bush will have won by the lowest margin of the popular vote (3.5M) of any winning incumbent since Truman (2.1M, and back then only 50M voted)

You also forgot to mention that Bush will have gotten the lowest percentage of electoral votes (54%) of any winning incumbent since Wilson.

Ignore 58.8 Million at your own risk

[ima_drummer2k]

Originally posted by Chump
Ignore 58.8 Million at your own risk
Ignore the majority of American voters at your own party's risk.

Who is acting like they have a blank check? All he is doing is saying that he is going to do the things he said he would during his campaign. The same campaign that the majority of Americans voted FOR.

It's funny how people on the left have spent 4 years moaning about how Gore should have been President because he won the popular vote (by a smaller percentage than Bush did this time around) and now that Bush has won the popular vote (again, by a larger percentage than Gore did in 2000) all the sudden the winning percentage isn't high enough?

:confused:

[Oski2005]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
Ignore the majority of American voters at your own party's risk.

Who is acting like they have a blank check? All he is doing is saying that he is going to do the things he said he would during his campaign. The same campaign that the majority of Americans voted FOR.



Of course he's going to try and do what he promised. The point is that he's asking Democrats to just roll over and give him everything he wants. That's not how it works, he's not a King, he's the President.

[DonnyMost]

The path is 100% clear now for the Republicans to run their party into the ground.

One foot in the grave, and one foot on the pedal... yeeeeeehooooo!!!

[underoverup]

Winning the popualar vote creates a mandate? :confused: This is a poor first step in bringing the country together.

"I have gained political capital and I intend to use it" --Bush

Sigh :(

[Oski2005]

I'd bet everything I own that if Kerry had won, he wouldn't be calling it a mandate, he'd be looking for compromise.

[4chuckie]

Originally posted by Oski2005
I'd bet everything I own that if Kerry had won, he wouldn't be calling it a mandate, he'd be looking for compromise.

Yeah cause he couldn't do anything himself with 2 republican houses.

[underoverup]

Originally posted by 4chuckie
Yeah cause he couldn't do anything himself with 2 republican houses.

:confused:

[ZRB]

The Democrats should make a huge fuss immediately! Don't let this statement go!

The ONLY chance this nation has of surviving is a strong Democratic party. When I say "strong," I mean "loud." We need to oppose the Neocons at EVERY turn. Pump out the angry pundits, take over the news cycles, and dominate the media the way the Cons have the last 8 years. That way, when the Republicans complete another disastrous few years, we will be ready to make gains in the Senate and House, while setting the Party up for a takeover in 2008.

Short of impeachment, Bush will be in power for four years. After he's through, I think even a lot of "Moral (ha ha ha) Folks" will see that modern Republicans are the most corrupt, money-driven, uncaring, and all around disgusting political body in American history. By the way, I'm not refering to all republican voters, or even all the politicians, as there are still a few decent ones left. I'm talking specifically about the bigot-filled distortion machine that is currently relying on ignorance and hatred to maintain power.


It will do the Democrats, and Democracy in general, no good to provide any support or unify behind the leader of this party. We need to remain polar opposites of the Republicans. We need to keep this country divided, and grow our progressive base.

Right Wing Conservatism and Democracy don't match. It's time for America to decide what it wants.

Come on Democrats, time to live up to your name!

[4chuckie]

Originally posted by underoverup
:confused:

A democratic president would have his hands tied with 2 republican houses. He would have had to compromose on everything to get iniatives through congress so he could sign them.

[ima_drummer2k]

Originally posted by Oski2005
I'd bet everything I own that if Kerry had won, he wouldn't be calling it a mandate, he'd be looking for compromise.
Did he ever mention compromising with the Republicans during his campaign? If so, I must have missed it.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
Did he ever mention compromising with the Republicans during his campaign? If so, I must have missed it.
You somehow missed it.

[No Worries]

Bush Pledges to Make Changes to Tax Code (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20041105/D865CN5O0.html)
Nov 4, 7:38 PM (ET)
By TERENCE HUNT

WASHINGTON (AP) - Contending Americans have embraced his conservative agenda, President Bush pledged Thursday to aggressively pursue major changes in Social Security, the tax code and medical malpractice awards, working with Democrats if they are receptive and leaving them behind if they're not.

...

Interesting how he did not mention his highest priority of all: a constitutional ammmendment to ban gay marriages. Democrats may be well served to force the Republicans hands on this issue.

[111chase111]

I don't think Bush will actually persue a constitutional ammendment to ban Gay marraige. It will never fly. It just sounded good to the base. Also, remember, he and Kerry had essentially the same position on Gay marraige - they were both against it and for civil unions.

Second, didn't Clinton claim a mandate when he won re-election? And he won with less than 50% of the vote. Why was it okay for him to claim a mandate but not Bush when Bush got a larger percentage?

Clinton Presidency (http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/20th/1990s/clinton.html) - no info on Clinton claiming a mandate but it does show the percentages by which he won.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by 111chase111
I don't think Bush will actually persue a constitutional ammendment to ban Gay marraige.
I agree. If the Democrats could force the issue though, Bush would have to walk his talk and face the consequences, good and bad. As an example of forcing the issues, the Democrats could form a 527 and mass mail issue kits to evangelical churchs and light the fire.

[StupidMoniker]

It's a shame that filibusters exist, otherwise the democratic party gould just take a 2 year vacation. Instead, I predict that it will be hard to get anything substantive to a vote.

[Batman Jones]

Originally posted by StupidMoniker
It's a shame that filibusters exist, otherwise the democratic party gould just take a 2 year vacation. Instead, I predict that it will be hard to get anything substantive to a vote.

I hope the Democrats vote against everything they don't agree with. I hope they make compelling speeches expressing their disagreement. Then I hope they say, "We could filibuster, but this is the government you voted for and we won't obstruct it." And then I hope the Republicans pass every bit of their platform.

[giddyup]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
I hope the Democrats vote against everything they don't agree with. I hope they make compelling speeches expressing their disagreement. Then I hope they say, "We could filibuster, but this is the government you voted for and we won't obstruct it." And then I hope the Republicans pass every bit of their platform.
Okay, when is the other shoe going to drop? What kind of shoe is it? What size? ... etc

[ima_drummer2k]

Originally posted by No Worries
You somehow missed it.
Well please fill me in then.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
Well please fill me in then.
Everytime Kerry mentioned working with John McCain.

[111chase111]

Originally posted by No Worries
I agree. If the Democrats could force the issue though, Bush would have to walk his talk and face the consequences, good and bad. As an example of forcing the issues, the Democrats could form a 527 and mass mail issue kits to evangelical churchs and light the fire.

Why would the Democrats want to force the issue? If they don't want a Gay Marraige amendment why push the President on it? Just out of political spite? And that's supposed to be a good way to run a country? I thought liberals felt that the Democrats were supposed to be the "grown ups" in Washington?

Once again, Kerry and Bush had the same position on Gay Marraige.

[StupidMoniker]

Originally posted by Batman Jones
I hope the Democrats vote against everything they don't agree with. I hope they make compelling speeches expressing their disagreement. Then I hope they say, "We could filibuster, but this is the government you voted for and we won't obstruct it." And then I hope the Republicans pass every bit of their platform.

Me too.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by 111chase111
Why would the Democrats want to force the issue? If they don't want a Gay Marraige amendment why push the President on it? Just out of political spite? And that's supposed to be a good way to run a country?
If the Democrats don't push the issue, the Republicans would get a free ride on it. All of the good yet none of the bad.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by 111chase111
I thought liberals felt that the Democrats were supposed to be the "grown ups" in Washington?
Swing batter. Republicans position themselves as the grownups.

I can't see your reluctance wrt the Republicans following through on their campaign promises, not unless you are implicitly admitting that some of their promises were just cheap political posturing.

[ima_drummer2k]

Originally posted by No Worries
Everytime Kerry mentioned working with John McCain.
McCain is as much a Republican as Zell Miller is a Democrat. Besides, I thought McCain was voting for Kerry according to bbs inside sources.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
McCain is as much a Republican as Zell Miller is a Democrat.
McCain is pro-life and for school vouchers. Hmmm. If that makes him a liberal Democrat, you have one truly warped perception.

[mc mark]

Originally posted by 111chase111
I don't think Bush will actually persue a constitutional ammendment to ban Gay marraige. It will never fly. It just sounded good to the base.

Agreed

Bush doesn't need the Christian right anymore, he's done with them now that he's elected.

Back to work!

[underoverup]

I thought Bush opposed Man Dating? :confused:

[thadeus]

Originally posted by underoverup
I thought Bush opposed Man Dating? :confused: :D

[plcmts17]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
McCain is as much a Republican as Zell Miller is a Democrat. Besides, I thought McCain was voting for Kerry according to bbs inside sources.


So why wasn't McCain campaigning for Kerry then??
He stood there helping the same idiot who completely stabbed him in the back in south carolina four years ago.
shrub never talked about conciliation during the campaign and only brought it up as an afterthought on wednesday.
Apparently you feel talking the talk is the same as walking the walk.
He couldn't find the center of american politics if he tried.
His only care now is for the people who voted for him and likely no one else. He will keep bringing them up, as if they were everyone who voted, when someone questions him on wether his course is right for the nation.

I would say I was happy for the people who voted for shrub, but then I wouldn't be telling the truth.
You guys could care less about our complaining any more than I care for your gloating. Which says alot about the state of our country. Hopefully we will all find common ground before it gets any worse.

[ima_drummer2k]

Originally posted by No Worries
McCain is pro-life and for school vouchers. Hmmm. If that makes him a liberal Democrat, you have one truly warped perception.
I didn't say he was a liberal Democrat, I'm just saying he doesn't exactly speak for the Republican party nowdays. He voted for Kerry. Just ask Batman Jones. Besides, isn't McCain pro-choice?

Look, all I'm saying is that someone mentioned in this thread that if Kerry would have won the election, he would have compromised with the Republicans. I just don't believe that. I'm not saying he should or shouldn't. If I were a Democrat and Kerry won the election, I would hope that he would go forth with his agenda. I just don't see why now people are so shocked that Bush is going forth with his.

[Sishir Chang]

Numerically I don't see how this is a mandate. This was a close election both electorally and in the popular vote. Practically though with a stronger Republican Senate and House the President has more power now.

From a moderate and liberal standpoint what this is going to come down to is how much the Republican Congress decide they actually want to be a separate branch of government or how much they want to be a tool of the Executive.

I'm heartened by Sen. Spectors comments but how much weight those will have we will see.

I do think that the Republicans are in danger of overreaching on a very conservative agenda, particularly social, that many members of their own party will not approve of.

[DonnyMost]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
Besides, isn't McCain pro-choice?

Nope, pro-life.

Also pro-gun, pro-religion, pro-free trade, and he's given us no reason to believe he isn't fiscally conservative.

[DonnyMost]

Originally posted by Sishir Chang
I do think that the Republicans are in danger of overreaching on a very conservative agenda, particularly social, that many members of their own party will not approve of.

Exactly.

There is a whiff of backlash in the air.

[Sishir Chang]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
Just ask Batman Jones. Besides, isn't McCain pro-choice?

McCain has waffled on the issue. For most of his political career he was pro-life but during the 2000 campaign he backed out from that position by stating he wouldn't change things as they are with abortion.

McCain has had the benefit of becoming the figurehead of moderate Republicans but what hasn't happened is people from the left actually taking him on. McCain on most issues has been very conservative, both socially and fiscally, and if he ever makes it to a general election we'll see a lot of attacks on him from the left.

Look, all I'm saying is that someone mentioned in this thread that if Kerry would have won the election, he would have compromised with the Republicans.

He would've had to or else the nothing would get done.

Since 2002 the Republicans in Congress have pretty much given up on the idea that the legislative branch is supposed to be a check on the executive branch while their man is the pres. If a Dem was the Pres. they would thunder like Thomas Jefferson about the need for Congress to check the power of the Presidency.

Divided Government. Boy do I miss that.

[4chuckie]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
Look, all I'm saying is that someone mentioned in this thread that if Kerry would have won the election, he would have compromised with the Republicans. I just don't believe that. I'm not saying he should or shouldn't. If I were a Democrat and Kerry won the election, I would hope that he would go forth with his agenda. I just don't see why now people are so shocked that Bush is going forth with his.

So explain to me how Kerry convinces 2 republican houses to follow him and his beliefs.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by 4chuckie
So explain to me how Kerry convinces 2 republican houses to follow him and his beliefs.
You know this is really too easy.

Both houses would certainly remember that indeed they are fiscal conservatives and force the balanaced budget issue on Kerry.

[4chuckie]

Originally posted by No Worries
You know this is really too easy.

Both houses would certainly remember that indeed they are fiscal conservatives and force the balanaced budget issue on Kerry.

So all Kerry campaigning on was a balanced budget? What about all his plans (you know giving everyone the same healthcare congress has). His plans weren't free (nor did he have way to pay for them except by taxing people making over $100k each). How do you think he convinces the fiscal conservatives to spend money on his "plans" that he campaigned for?

Oh crap I forgot it's Kerry, what he says isn't what he does so never mind he prolly was campaigning on empty promises.

[Woofer]

Why is there any discussion? He claimed a mandate after he lost last time. A 200,000 vote swing in this election and he would have lost again.

[ima_drummer2k]

LOL. In 2000, Bush didn't win because he lost the popular vote. In 2004, he still didn't win because the margin wasn't big enough.

[No Worries]

Originally posted by 4chuckie
Oh crap I forgot it's Kerry, what he says isn't what he does so ...
Nation building

Iraq connection with OBL

Iraq WMD

Clear Skies Initiative

etc.

Sometime I wonder if you have been paying attention.

[Invisible Fan]

Originally posted by Woofer
Why is there any discussion? He claimed a mandate after he lost last time. A 200,000 vote swing in this election and he would have lost again.

If we do live in two countries, then there will be those who believe Bush has a mandate and the other half that doesn't. For those who do , the Democrats will appear as sore losers when legislation slows down. Most of the gaffes Bush says is for his constituency anyways.

[DCkid]

Man you guys are already out in full force. Take it easy! You got four whole years of Bush-bashing to look forward to.

PACE YOURSELF

:)

[Woofer]

Originally posted by ima_drummer2k
LOL. In 2000, Bush didn't win because he lost the popular vote. In 2004, he still didn't win because the margin wasn't big enough.
I didn't say either of those things. Nice try.
He did not win in 2000, the SCOTUS forced Florida to stop counting votes. In 2004 his claim of a mandate is ridiculous because the margin for him winning is tiny. Unless your meaning of mandate varies from the dictionary.

[AggieRocket]

Originally posted by 4chuckie
A democratic president would have his hands tied with 2 republican houses. He would have had to compromose on everything to get iniatives through congress so he could sign them.

That's not true. If Kerry had something worthwhile to offer, I am sure that the GOP majority would vote for it.

If you remember, when Reagan ( a Republican) was president, the House and Senate both had a Democratic majority, yet Reagan had no trouble passing anything.

On the flip side, when Carter (a Democrat) was President, the Democrats ruled the House and Senate, yet Carter had trouble passing even the simplest of legislation.