BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Genie
Date: 11 Nov 04 - 02:21 AM

Quote (Bev & Jerry) -"Bev and Jerry - Voting machines without paper trails were banned in California earlier this year - way before the election."

B&J, the news reports I heard right before the election said that some counties/precincts in CA were still using paper-trail-less electronic machines, but voters had the OPTION of demanding a paper ballot if they didn't want to trust these machines.

One voter in such a precinct reported seeing a woman of about 65-ish ask for a paper ballot, saying that she had been told the machines might not be reliable. Then she noticed two different stacks of stickers. One was bright, shiny, and big, saying, "I voted - electronically!" The other was much smaller, dull, and nondescript, reading simply, "I voted." The woman asked if she could have one of the snazzy ones and was told, "No. Not if you choose a paper ballot. Only if you vote by machine." The observer said the woman then gave in and agreed to use the machine so she could have the prettier sticker.


dianavan, I've wondered the same thing, too. Not just about Edwards and Kerry, but about pretty much the whole Democratic party (except for Russ Holt and a few others). Airamericaradio.com (and it's broadcasts on AM) and many internet supporters, investigative reporters and authors, such as Greg Palast and Bev Harris, have been screaming about the unreliable, corruptible machine votes for YEARS, but the Dems just let the media get by without giving it the attention it deserves.   It's kind of like the way Gore and the Dems dropped the ball in 2000 by not demanding a hand recount of the entire state of Florida in the first few days after the election. Had they done so, Gore would be President. And had the Dems made the voting PROCESS the issue it should have been, they'd have been in position to demand an investigation of the 2004 election the minute so many suspect phenomena appeared.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 09 Nov 04 - 08:11 AM

The spin begins, that's right, and of course this thread is a part of it.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: dianavan
Date: 08 Nov 04 - 10:41 AM

From the post - "The memos consisted of a series of e-mail messages between technical support personnel and sales representatives at Diebold discussing problems with their machines. The messages seemed to advocate Diebold representatives falsify security demonstrations for elections officials, as well as outlining security flaws in machines which had already been implemented in election precincts around the country. As of 2003, 37 states had contracts to use Diebold machines. "

Bev and Jerry - California rocks. This should have been a message to the other states. If Edwards is such a hot shot, lawyer - why did they let this election go through knowing that they would lose? I don't get it?

d

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 11:09 PM

Voting machines without paper trails were banned in California earlier this year - way before the election.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Genie
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 10:44 PM

McGrath, the electoral college will never be thrown out. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to do that, and there would be TWO MAJOR obstacles to that:
1. 2/3 of the Senate would have to pass the amendment. That would mean 17 states could block the amendment if their Senators opposed it.
2. IIRC, 3/4 of the State legislatures would have to ratify the amendment if it passed the Senate (and House). That means a mere 13 states could block its passage.

The smaller population states -- AL, ID, MT, SD, ND, DE, RI, NH, ME, HI, NV, NM, WY, UT, VT, etc. -- would never let it pass the US Senate, much less their state legislatures.

The only thing that MIGHT be done is what Colorado voted on this year, which is for individual states to assign their own electors proportionally or by Congressional District, the way Maine does.


CORRECTION: Earlier I said, "...FAVA -- the fair voting act -- was passed in order to avoid people's votes being lost or thrown out by outdated machines (e.g., punch card machines that didn't always punch all the way through). Its intent was to allow quick, but, more importantly,fully accurate vote counts. Problem is, it was a badly designed bill, and Congress failed to FUND it."
Actually, that's "HAVA" -- the Help America Vote Act. The "Voting Rights Act" was passed as civil rights legislation decades ago and aimed at making sure minorities voting rights were not abridged.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 12:34 PM

The flaws are well known- and by Diebold too.

A Court Case

Wally O'Dell, of Diebold

More

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 10:04 AM

"Second place counts for nothing" - it did for Bush back in 2000. And it would have for Kerry, if a few thousand votes had gone to Kerry instead of Bush in Ohio.

Actually when you look at how close it was, and how only a few thousand votes could have made all the differecnce, and landed the States with a second winner who got less votes than the loser, perhaps the pressure for electoral reform will be from the Republicans now.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: GUEST,Fronk
Date: 07 Nov 04 - 09:33 AM

BJ:

Did he do that after the election? Why?

F

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 06 Nov 04 - 10:38 AM

One does have to be a bit suspicious when the man who owns the company who make the machines (which have no paper trail) has been quoted as saying "I'll do anything to get Bush re-elected" !

Here, in California, our secretary of state declared machines with no paper trail illegal.

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: GUEST,Fronk
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 11:58 PM

Oh. Now the new evil Republican machines cheated them out of an election.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: frogprince
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 11:52 PM

Just caught some Bush lackey talking to Bill Moyer on the tube; dark shaggy beard; I came in in the middle and have no idea of his name; he sat there with his "bare" face hanging out and stated that
    "THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY"
of Americans have just shown their support for Bush. I kid you not.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Genie
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 11:40 PM

First, Fronk, it doesn't matter who asked for the machines. They are the antithesis of fair and accurate vote counts, and actually ILLEGAL by some states' constitutions, because they don't permit a manual recount (or any kind of recount, for that matter).

Second, I don't recall the Dems ever requesting electronic machines with no paper trail.   FAVA -- the fair voting act -- was passed in order to avoid people's votes being lost or thrown out by outdated machines (e.g., punch card machines that didn't always punch all the way through). Its intent was to allow quick, but, more importantly, fully accurate vote counts. Problem is, it was a badly designed bill, and Congress failed to FUND it.

As I understand it, many of the electronic machines were initially designed without paper trails -- probably to save a few pennies. Once those machines were manufactured, RETROFITTING them was much more costly than it would have been to include the papertrail in the first place.   States balked at the additional expense. (Kinda shows where "our" priorities lie, doesn't it?)

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: GUEST,Fronk
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 11:14 PM

Wasn't it the Democrats that cried and sucked snot for newer more modern machines 'cause the old evil Republican machines cheated them out of an election?

Fronk

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Genie
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 11:09 PM

3.5 million is not all that significant when about 33% of the votes were cast on electronic machines with "proprietary code" (acessible to no one in the government) and not accessible to confirmation or recount, and when Democrats were much more likely to have to wait in line for 1 to 10 hours just to vote (and thus more likely to give up and go back to work).

The call for audit of 34 states' voting machines' codes

In any event, Kerry got more votes than any other Presidential candidate in US history besides G W Bush, and Bush's victory -- even if not by fraud -- was by the smallest margin, percentagewise, of any incumbent seeking a second term.

Genie

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: GUEST,Fronk
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 10:49 PM

I will take my "delusions" over your couching in the corner, everybody is picking on us reality any day.

Why not admit you lost and proceed to figure out what you did wrong? Much more productive.

Fronk

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: GUEST,Fronk
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 10:46 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 05:56 PM

sheesh

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 03:59 PM

Liberals threw everything they had at Bush.    100's of millions in 527's, hollywood endorsement, rock stars touring with Kerry, the shameless main stream media, 60 minute hit pieces, forged documents by CBS, false weapon stories by New York Times, Michael Moore and Farrenheit 911, Clark Book, Woodward Book, all the other books, George Soros, John Stewart, Barbara Streisand, Bruce Springstein,....

AND KERRY STILL LOST!!!!!!!!!!!

Will all that going against him, 3.5 million is significant.   You can argue semantics, but I think the mainstream media gave Kerry 10 ponts in pro Kerry coverage. You can argue if there was a mandate, but Bush coat tails brought in more seats in Congress in 2002 & 2004.

I am really glad that most of you think second is not bad, and this election doesn't prove anything.    Continue thinking in that same direction.   Don't ever change.

2000 may not of been a mandate for Bush, but the 2002 election saw huge gains for republicans.   ditto for 2004.    12 years ago the democrats controlled the senate, house, presidency and governorships. Today they control none of those.   The Senate is 55 to 45 and getting worse in 2006 when the democrats have more seats to protect.   And you think you are doing well.   Don't ever change.

I hope 2 million democrats move to Canada.   It will remove 2 million from the welfare ranks and incrase the republican margin to 5 million next election.   Sounds like a win win to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 03:43 PM

Kim- we are getting on. This is getting on.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Kim C
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 03:41 PM

Bush won the election.

The South lost the Civil War.

Can we just get on with it now?

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Genie
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 03:39 PM

katlaughing
"The Wall Street Journal points out, Bush's victory was "the narrowest win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916."
Thanks, Kat. I was going to post that, but ya beat me to it.   I think, in fact, it's the narrowest margin of victory EVER for an incumbent's re-election.

"My Rog says all of those people who based their voting on "moral values" don't have a clue about economics, etc. He believes the other shoe is about to drop; that Congress will not go along with a lot of what dumbya wants because they already have a HUGE deficit to deal with, plus all of the other grandiose schemes he wants to spend money on. Rog points out that dumbya really hasn't had much of his agenda passed by Congress. He believes it is going to all come crashing down on him. I mean, for instance, he wants to spend something like 2-3 TRILLION revamping Social Security so that young people can put some of their money in private savings accounts, yet he says nothing about where THAT money will come from.

I hope Rog is right. I want to believe there are enough Dems. and moderate Republicans who are tired of the right-wing power grabs, who will keep this smarmy bastard in check."

Kat, it's not just the Dems and MODERATE Repubs who are angry about Bush's economic agenda. He's being severely chastised by true fiscal CONSERVATIVES, too.   Bush is NOT a CONSERVATIVE, except maybe on issues like gay marriage. Cutting taxes may seem conservative, but not when it results in driving up huge deficits. Bush is in favor of a church-controlled state, states' rights only when it suits his agenda, and undermining Constitutional rights like habeas corpus and the right to a speedy trial and most of the Bill Of Rights except for the 2nd Amendment.

   

Fronk
"If Kerry had won by a margin of 1000, The Democrats would be shouting from the rooftops about how Kerry has an overwhelming mandate because he won a clear and concise victory over the evil Republicans."
If they did, they'd be just as wrong as the Republicans are now.

"But when Bush wins by millions, It is still not a clear and concise victory."

First, Frank, we'll NEVER KNOW how wide Bush's popular-vote margin was, even if the electoral vote is right. (We don't even know THAT since 40% of the votes were done on electronic machines, most of which are TOTALLY UNVERIFIABLE.) Even where the black box machines were not used, the votes will NEVER be counted in most states. Once they decide (by projection) who won the races, just about every state STOPS COUNTING. 38% of Floridians voted ABSENTEE -- including military and civilian overseas voters and including a lot of Democrats who didn't trust the black box machines. Those votes have NOT been counted and probably won't be unless someone successfully sues to make Florida do that.

Second, it's the PERCENTAGE that counts, not the raw number. The official tally so far shows the margin to be a little over 1%. (Approx. 49% voted for someone other than Bush.)

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Genie
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 03:36 PM

Great spin job, Kaleb!      The flip side of what the Repubs are bragging about right now!
To summarize:
More people voted FOR Bush than for any Presidential candidate in US history.
AND
More people voted AGAINST Bush than for any Presidential candidate in US history. §:-D



brucie "... America will survive the blunderings of this man because America is NOT its President; America is its people. Yes, many bought into the 'fear' that was generated by 9/11 and nurtured by the Bush administration. However, people eventually come around, and I think that means a few million who voted for Dubya for the wrong reasons. He'll be gone in four years. America can handle that. "

Maybe not, brucie. There's already talk of Bush appointing John Ashcroft to the Supreme Court -- possibly without needing Senate confirmation. If he also gets to replace O'Connor, Ginsberg, and Stevens with far-right leaning judges (and I DON'T mean "strict constructionists" or true conservatives), civil rights legislation and federal entitlement programs are likely to be set back for decades.
Unless the major media are re-regulated in some way to prevent their consolidation in the hands of a few mega-corporations, I fear that the populace will continue to be taken in by "the big lies" and thus will continue to vote, in many cases, against their own self-interest.
As long as all three branches of our government are in the hands of the corporatist neo-cons,
1. Voting rights will never be implemented. (States won't count all votes, and blatant abuses of people's right to vote will continue, including unequal access to voting sites and the use of "black box" voting which gives a corporation the complete control over the vote tally.)
2. There will be no "fairness doctrine" requiring a TV news channel to give air time to "the other side" when they present one side of an issue.
3. The radio and TV news media will continue -- at best -- to be driven by the bottom line, treating the news as ratings-geared entertainment and not even trying to inform the voters about the issues. (So, politics aside, if a lie or distortion about a candidate "sells," they will go for it. If discussing candidates' hair styles entertains the audience better than giving them facts about their voting records, guess what gets covered.)

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Genie
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 03:30 PM

brucie, the first definition of "mandate" given by Merriam-Webster is:
1 : an authoritative command; especially : a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one
2 : an authorization to act given to a representative

The way the term is commonly used in politics, it implies a lot more than just that you were elected to office. It's closer to definition #1, related to words like "comMAND" and "MANDatory." It's used pretty much to mean "the people" AS A WHOLE have endorsed your platform or that they trust your leadership strongly enough to follow you wherever you lead. When the populace is pretty evenly divided, nobody has a mandate.

BTW, Bush spoke of the "political capital" he had "earned" way back before 9-11-04, despite a marginal electoral victory (secured by the intervention of the SCOTUS) and losing the popular vote. When he first took office he told associates he, unlike his father, was going to spend that capital while he could.


Ebbie
"...Bush and his cronies don't typify moral values- they didn't come within a mile of them. Why more people didn't see that is beyond my comprehension."

It's the media, Eb.   Way too many people get their "news" from talk radio and/or TV news and commentators. Over 90% is far right leaning and not concerned with the truth. TV news cares mostly about ratings and is mostly fluff, superficial coverage of issues, and treating political elections like a football game or horse race instead of helping people make informed decisions.

Like Dubya himself, a lot of the voters DON'T READ.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: GUEST,Kaleb
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 03:30 PM

More people voted against G.W. Bush than have ever voted against a sitting president. Will of the people, eh?

-Kaleb.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 01:25 PM

I don't know, Genie. Judging from the amount of taunting and jeering and name calling that is being done by people who support Bush in the media, as well as here in the Mudcat in the wake of the election (you may use whichever definition of "wake" you prefer), it looks more to me like they just enjoy feeling superior to other people.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 10:09 AM

Fronk, you are spinning BS.   The Democrats would not consider such a small victory a "mandate". Of course won by about 3 million votes, but you fail to take into consideration that there were about 113 million votes cast. You sound like the souless Sean Hannity who held up a map and said "look at all the red" as if the election were a landslide. Of course he would not look at the numbers or take into consideration the population of the red states.

Look, nobody is jumping off rooftops. If anything we are energized and prepared to keep our voices heard.   You can delude yourself into thinking it was a cakewalk and the world loves you man. You would be living in a fantasy world if you do that, but it that is what it takes you to get through the day - enjoy yourself!

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Peace
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 10:01 AM

I mean you have lotsa bulls#it and nothing of substance.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Peace
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 10:00 AM

Ah, Fronk, yer talkin' to hear yerself.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: GUEST,Fronk
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 09:59 AM

If Kerry had won by a margin of 1000, The Democrats would be shouting from the rooftops about how Kerry has an overwhelming mandate because he won a clear and concise victory over the evil Republicans.

But when Bush wins by millions, It is still not a clear and concise victory.

That's how the sore looser Democrat liberal elite spin works.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 09:51 AM

Genie,

You sure got that right! And the media just kept spinning the same propaganda. The major news networks are owned by corporations such as GE and we know the Fox network is completely taken over by Right-wing nuts.

Even the major newspapers are spinning the same stuff.

The only solution is to find alternative news reports that bypass the lies and spin of major media. I've turned off my TV.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: katlaughing
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 01:31 AM

The Wall Street Journal points out, Bush's victory was "the narrowest win for a sitting president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916."

My Rog says all of those people who based their voting on "moral values" don't have a clue about economics, etc. He believes the other shoe is about to drop; that Congress will not go along with a lot of what dumbya wants because they already have a HUGE deficit to deal with, plus all of the other grandiose schemes he wants to spend money on. Rog points out that dumbya really hasn't had much of his agenda passed by Congress. He believes it is going to all come crashing down on him. I mean, for instance, he wants to spend something like 2-3 TRILLION revamping Social Security so that young people can put some of their money in private savings accounts, yet he says nothing about where THAT money will come from.

I hope Rog is right. I want to believe there are enough Dems. and moderate Republicans who are tired of the right-wing power grabs, who will keep this smarmy bastard in check.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Peace
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 01:18 AM

Hi, Ebbie. I know so many people harbour deep disappointment. However, America will survive the blunderings of this man because America is NOT its President; America is its people. Yes, many bought into the 'fear' that was generated by 9/11 and nurtured by the Bush administration. However, people eventually come around, and I think that means a few million who voted for Dubya for the wrong reasons. He'll be gone in four years. America can handle that.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 01:13 AM

CarolC, this is, for me, where the bitterest disappointment stems from. I really wanted to believe that we, the people, understood the machinations of the administration coupled with their lies and distortions and outrageously blatant untruths and that we would repudiate them. Talk about 'moral values'. Bush and his cronies don't typify moral values- they didn't come within a mile of them. Why more people didn't see that is beyond my comprehension.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Peace
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 12:59 AM

Well, by definition he does have a mandate.

Main Entry: 1man·date
Pronunciation: 'man-"dAt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French & Latin; Middle French mandat, from Latin mandatum, from neuter of mandatus, past participle of mandare to entrust, enjoin, probably irregular from manus hand + -dere to put -- more at MANUAL, DO

2 : an authorization to act given to a representative

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Genie
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 12:58 AM

CarolC. -- "For those of us who see the actions and policies of the Bush administration as being profoundly immoral, some of us thought that maybe this time, humanity was going to make a moral choice. We had this hope. And for those of us who feel that way, it is a big disappointment to see humanity (at least a slight majority of the people who voted in this election) is not yet ready to do that...."

That saddens me too, Carol, but I really don't blame the public, for the most part, as I blame the media -- TV and right wing talk radio, in particular and the machinations of Ken Vigury's propaganda machine.   They allowed Kerry's opponents to broadcast vicious lies and then gave them free air time on "news" programs. They painted Kerry as a liar, a cheat, a coward, a Communist collaborator, and as someone anti-religion. Even the "respectable" media let the ball drop on this one. They neglected to do the investigative journalism they needed to get beyone the "he said/they said" phase of the "Swift Boat Veterans" controversy. They would repeatedly air clips of Bush in his rallies misstating Kerry's voting record and proposals -- without pointing out the inaccuracies. E.g., they would show Bush saying "He's goind to raise your taxes," or "He wants France to have veto power over our military decisions." Then Republicans sent out flyers in some southern states saying Kerry would "ban the bible" and promote the "homosexual agenda."

This is part and parcel of why Bush's victory doesn't imply approval of his agenda over Kerry's. As the U. Maryland PIPA ["Alternate Universes of Bush and Kerry Supporters"] study showed, a majority of Bush's supporters DISAGREED with him on many policy issues but THOUGHT he shared their views more than Kerry did.   Some of this is ignorance and laziness on the part of the voters, but a lot of it is due to propaganda an media manipulation.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Genie
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 12:26 AM

Doug, there was a time when parties would back the same candidate for President more than once. Grover Cleveland won one term, lost re-election, and then won the next time around. Adlai Stevenson ran against Eisenhower in both '52 and '56, and Nixon came back from his narrow loss to Kennedy in '60 -- a situation in many ways comparable to Bush/Gore in 2000 -- to run for the same party in 1972 and win.

With today's media machine, though, I don't think anybody will ever be able to do that again, barring extraordinary circumstances. Even as early as the beginning of 2001, the radio and TV talking heads and comedians were spinning it as though Gore's "loss" to Bush was comparable to Goldwater's defeat by Johnson or Mondale's loss to Reagan. Even if Gore had wanted to go through another campaign, I don't think the media would have played fair enough for it to work -- especially now that Bush was a "war President." As for not being electable, Doug, he WAS elected -- i.e., had enough votes cast for him to elect him -- in SPITE of Ralph Nader. But Florida never counted tens of thousands of its votes, thanks to the Supremes.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Nov 04 - 12:01 AM

I think that one of the things (one of the many things) that people who would prefer it if GW hadn't won this election are soooo depressed about is this...

For those of us who see the actions and policies of the Bush administration as being profoundly immoral, some of us thought that maybe this time, humanity was going to make a moral choice. We had this hope. And for those of us who feel that way, it is a big disappointment to see humanity (at least a slight majority of the people who voted in this election) is not yet ready to do that. We had hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 11:00 PM

DougR - Why didn't Gore run? Maybe it was the same reason that Bob Dole never ran again. How come George Sr. did not try again?

Although you will never admit it, second place DOES count when the numbers are that high. Once again conservatives will bury their head in the sand and think all is just wonderful. 55million+ voices in opposition mean nothing to this guy. Bush's handlers somehow manage to hide this from the prez, and that is probably easy to do since Bush admits to not reading.

Tell me how this country is solidly behind Bush. You think he received a mandate to finish off Iraq and then keep marching? Oh what a lovely war! The Bush crew created an image of a terrorist threat and have people removing their shoes at airports so that they will feel more secure when they step on a plane, a plane with a cargo hold that hasn't been checked because Bush did not fund the program properly. There is no getting around it, 9/11 was a terrible strike against our country, but Bush and his fellow clowns let the criminals that were responsible get away and allowed their ranks to grow.   Our supposed "coalition" (don't forget Poland) is decreasing. The only ranks that are increasing in Iraq is that of the insurgents and terrorists.

So yes, what a wonderul "mandate" this jerk has. The idiot has 4 more years. Let me buy you a beer.

Face facts Doug, half the country sees through the lies.   In the past four years liberals have started to turn things around and finally wake up. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of work to be done. Let's see where things stand come mid-term elections and what kind of a "mandate" he has then when the 58 million+ who voted for him realize what they got themselves into.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 10:38 PM

Jon Stewart had a great take on this last night--- (I find all I need to stay informed is the Wall St Journal and the Daily Show)

Anyway, on the subject of Bush's making nice with Democrats and other liberals:

"Hey Baby I'm real sorry about how I treated you the last 4 years; please just give me another chance. You know I only beat you cause I love you."

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 10:31 PM

Ah, Doug, if only political parties had a crystal ball, and could determine ahead of time who is most electable in a given year. If they did and it was a pig, they would nominate him, be assured. :-) I mean either the Democrats or the Republicans would, without hesitation...so that pig's party bias (or his price) would be a pretty vital matter!

What I am saying is that those 2 parties have no shame. None, Doug, none. They are both capable of anything in their pursuit of power. Any lie, no matter how huge. Any trick, no matter how heinous. You are governed by scoundrels in the pay of bigger scoundrels.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: DougR
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 10:14 PM

Ron: If second place "means something" why didn't Democrats rally around Al Gore to run in this election? You folks bombarded us for four years about the fact that in you opinion he was, in fact, the elected president. Why wasn't he drafted for 2004? Why? He wasn't electible!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Genie
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 10:10 PM

DougR - "Second place counts for nothing, Genie. If you doubt that, ask Al Gore."

Ron O. is right, Doug. Second place - especially a CLOSE second - does count for a lot. (Do the Republicans ever feel like they are unimportant to the American people when they lose the Presidency, even if they have a minority in Congress?)
As for Gore, it was his choice to move out of the political arena for a while, partly because he thought the country would "heal" better if he did. Kerry, on the other hand, will return to the Senate, probably with more personal clout than he had before.


And you're right, Ron.   The media and politicians do tend to link terms like "mandate" and "landslide" and to use both a little too loosely.
The US voters didn't even come close to "overwhelming[ly giveing] a thumbs up to" Bush himself -- much less his political agenda.
The mere fact that we're "at war" would be epected to lead to the incumbent's re-election, if history is any predictor.   The media really should be commenting on how NARROW the margin was for a wartime incumbent.   Instead, they, too, like Rove and Ailes and Cheney, will be treating the 3,000,000 vote margin as some sort of "mandate" for Bush's "conservative" agenda, if not as a full-blown "landslide."

As Don Firth said, out of 114 million votes, that's hardly a "mandate." It's a "squeaker."

You put it well, Little Hawk:
"It's the equivalent of a captain who has 49 sailors who want him off the ship for good and 51 who want him to stay on saying, 'I have the full confidence of this crew!' "

I hear some media commentators hedging a bit by saying stuff like "In today's terms, that's a mandate."
Just as I've heard them for so long treat a 55%-45% victory as a "landslide as political races go."

What that really means is that WE ALMOST NEVER HAVE TRUE MANDATES OR LANDSLIDES in today's national politics, so it's UNUSUAL to have a margin of over 5 percentage points. I don't that fact justifies treating 40% to 48% of the voters as if their views were inconsequential.


petr, yes, Bush did act as though he had a mandate in 2000, as marginal and questionable even the electoral victory was. And I did hear the TV media tossing around ideas like "One could argue whether Bush really did have a mandate... " during Bush's first term.

And, yes, petr, the neo-conservatives -- not all the GOP -- do seem to be intent on breaking the social system. They want to undo the New Deal. Fiscal responsibility would undermine that effort. If they drive up the deficit far enough, pretty much all social programs will have to be scrapped.



John O'Lennaine "The winner of any presidential election has a mandate, but that mandate is only to be president.
It does not validify or cement advertised policies or campaign promises/threats.
Some may have elected him for one reason, others for a different reason.
Just getting elected does not mean that all he stands for is necessarily wanted.
Of course, this means nothing to Bush."

Couldn't've said it better myself!

E.g., the mobilization of the religious right may have been largely responsible for the 3,000,000 popular vote victory (The Repubs claimed to have gotten an extra 4,000,000 evangelical Christians out to vote this time, compared to 2000.) and pushed him over the top in both Florida and Ohio.   But that doesn't mean that's the reason MOST Bush voters voted for him. For some it was tax cuts. Many others said "Don't change horses...". And I'll bet there were a lot who chose Bush because of the lies and smears about John Kerry constantly being put out on radio and TV by Karl Rove's machine.   This hardly means most of Bush's supporters agree with his overall agenda -- much less the American public as a whole.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 09:27 PM

Here's an ineresting presentation of bush's future:

"Congratulations Mr. Bush. You are the lucky winner of utter chaos "

Hell to the Chief

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: GUEST,petr.
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 08:24 PM

one of the best lines I heard recently,,

dont change the horseman mid-Apocalypse


also,
I dont believe theyll need to bring in the draft.
after all if you can keep a large chunk of the population poor enough
and offer education and monetary incentives to enlist, (and landed immigrants can speed up their citizenship process by enlisting)
who needs the draft.

on the budget side, expect more cuts in domestic programs -
someone has to pay for all that military, and those tax cuts to the rich.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: GUEST,John O'Lennaine
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 08:22 PM

The winner of any presidential election has a mandate, but that mandate is only to be president.

It does not validify or cement advertised policies or campaign promises/threats.
Some may have elected him for one reason, others for a different reason.
Just getting elected does not mean that all he stands for is necessarily wanted.
Of course, this means nothing to Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 07:46 PM

Like I said, find me a politician who DOESN'T claim to have a mandate when elected. They're born liars.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Bobert
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 07:45 PM

Good point, ptr....

Bush lost the 2000 election and considered that a mandate?

Go figure???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 07:40 PM

Yes, that's exactly what I like about it too, Petr.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 07:37 PM

heck, Bush considered the 2000 election a Mandate. (Even Dick CHeney told Bob Woodward, any idea of maybe leaning towards the center because they didnt win the popular vote lasted only about 30seconds in the white house.
after that it was 'we won, full steam ahead')

and theyre looking forward to spending some of that political capital
maybe 2or 3 countries to invade, tie up some loose ends on the constitution.
I think the longterm GOP plan is to break the social system.
theyre sure not the fiscally responsible republicans of the past.

the good thing is that bush can deal with his own mess now.

Subject: RE: BS: Mandate, schmandate! Spin begins.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 04 - 07:24 PM

It's the equivalent of a captain who has 49 sailors who want him off the ship for good and 51 who want him to stay on saying, "I have the full confidence of this crew!"

BS, in other words. Self-serving BS. So is the smarmy talk by both Bush and Kerry about "healing the wounds". They and their parties are the very people who inflicted those wounds.