McCain is pro-life and for school vouchers. Hmmm. If that makes him a liberal Democrat, you have one truly warped perception.
Agreed Bush doesn't need the Christian right anymore, he's done with them now that he's elected. Back to work!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Nation building Iraq connection with OBL Iraq WMD Clear Skies Initiative etc. Sometime I wonder if you have been paying attention.
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.
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
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.
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.
