PDA

View Full Version : GOP given clear mandate by Americans



Bill
03 Nov 04,, 11:23
GOP GAINS as of now:

+4 seats in the senate, for a 55-44-1 majority.
It appears that for the first time in 55 years a senate leader will go down in defeat.......Tom daschle. He is trailing by 9000 votes with 97% of the precincts counted.
If he loses that will be +5 seats to the GOP, for a 56-43-1 majority.

+3 seats in the house, for a 232-202 majority.

Marriage has now been defined as 'between a man and a woman' in ALL ELEVEN STATES it was on the ballot on. A 100% clean sweep.

And of course, the granddaddy of them all, Mr. Bush is re-elected by a clear 51% plurality of the American people. The first time a US president has won a plurality margin since 1988(when his father did it).

Yes, the right has been given a CLEAR mandate from the American people. Gay marriage has been rejected, John Kerry and the DNC ultra-liberal plank has been rejected, and retreat from the war on terror has been rejected.

The SINGLE most telling thing about this election?

When you increase turnout........the GOP wins BIG.

The American people have spoken.

This next four years is going to be great.

PS....just had to post this here too. :)
What's up guys.

tarek
03 Nov 04,, 15:23
As events have unfolded, this shift in American society has not been given the attention it deserves. Republicans now are the majority party, seems ot me that Democracts ought to reevaluate the issues and policies they championed.

Seems to me that American society (and yes I realize I'm taking a liberty because US society is so diverse as to give pause to any who seek to use the term to describe it as a monolith), realize the challeneges present and ahead and far from the usual criticism of it being arrogant and aloof.

Fonnicker
03 Nov 04,, 15:40
As events have unfolded, this shift in American society has not been given the attention it deserves. Republicans now are the majority party, seems ot me that Democracts ought to reevaluate the issues and policies they championed.

Seems to me that American society (and yes I realize I'm taking a liberty because US society is so diverse as to give pause to any who seek to use the term to describe it as a monolith), realize the challeneges present and ahead and far from the usual criticism of it being arrogant and aloof.


Let's not forget, this country is about as evenly split on the issues as it can be. Bush will win, but by a very narrow margin. It's a quesiton of priority. Dems, IMO, feel it is more important to address the issues at home, rather than launch a war on Iraq. They are completely in favor of fighting terrorism, but feel the GOP (Bush) has lost track of the goal and is going in the wrong direction. The money spent in Iraq could have been put to use at home. Had we recognized that Iraq did not pose an immediate threat and allowed the UN to continue to pressure and watch Saddam, eventually we could have garnished some world support. Instead, we now own the financial burden alone. On top of it we have lost credibility due to our handling of it. i.e. prisoner scandals, lack of proclaimed WMDs, refusal to be held accountable to the world court, and an increase of terrorist activities rather than a decrease. Top members of AQ may have been captured, but the terrorist recruiting numbers are growing. Their reach is growing. AQ is aligning with organizations they previous weren't associated with. We claim that the war is over, that now we only struggle to subdue insurgents. I got news for you. Our brand of warfare is over. We are now fighting their brand of warfare. The war isn't over. We've lost more soldiers since the war ended than we did when it was in full swing. No, we're fighting their war now.

Even once we leave, Iraq will not be stable because the terrorist in the ME will always consider the Iraqi government nothing more than a puppet state to US interests. It doesn't matter if it is true or not, that is the perception. A great portion of the terrorist attacks in Iraq are aimed at the Iraqi Naitonal Guard, and at the Iraqi police and officials.

It is a long way from over. My fear is that Bush will leave Iraq prematurely, just as he did Afghanistan, in order to launch his next assault. This coming from a man who in the 2000 race vowed that he would not lead a nation-building administration.

tarek
03 Nov 04,, 15:54
Fonnicker


Seems to me that you are disregarding the fact that Kerry's message that he would continue to wage war in Iraq and continue to wage war on terror - his message that he would do it better than Bush, served to turn off the public, they simply could not discern the difference between the two on this pivotal issue - "I'll do it better", is not the message the public could get behind -- I would suggest to you that both Democracts and Republicans are alive to the economic mess that is looming. Outside the US, the Palestine issue requires resolution and it requires that the US be more assertive, more proactive.

Lets face facts, there is going to be no leaving Iraq, once Iraq has stabilized, US bases in Iraq will ensure that the Iranian and the Syrian and any other mischief makers will realize the consequences.

Fonnicker
03 Nov 04,, 16:11
Tarek,

I don't dissagree with you on that. Kerry said that he would fight the war on terror better. He also said that he would continue the war in Iraq. Only because we had no choice. We can't leave now. That's the point. We can't abandon the Iraqi people now that they have no infrastructure or stable government to fall back on. The Bush campain managed to spin Kerry's message. They turned his view of Iraq into his view on terrorism. Kerry vowed to continue the war on terrorism; to hunt down terrorists. GOP made it seem like Kerry would abandon the war on terrorism, when Kerry was perfectly clear that he would not.

What scares me is what is on the horizon. N.Korea and Iran pose a far greater threat than Iraq did. They both have nuc. programs. How can we impose a military campain on Iraq and not on Iran and N.Korea? Bush outlined his axis of evil. Are they next? If so, to what degree? Will we allow the UN to handle these situations, or will we go against it again?

tarek
03 Nov 04,, 16:44
Fonnicker

I don't think it's a question of Spin - recall Kerry also said of iraq that it was the "wrong.... - and recall the comment about support the spending bill and then not supporting it.

I think Kerry campaign were simply unclear or inconsistent about the core concerns Iraq, terrorism and even their economic program -- I think the public were unable to discern any real sustance to these messages . And what you have is the party support and a margin of those who decided one way or the other.

The data specifics are not out but I think that once they are presented we may make the case above more forcefully.


What about Iran and N. Korea? -- Honestly, I don't know and I think most of te voting public did not have these issues in mind - these issues did not make in to the general debate.

Fonnicker
03 Nov 04,, 16:50
Fonnicker

I don't think it's a question of Spin - recall Kerry also said of iraq that it was the "wrong.... - and recall the comment about support the spending bill and then not supporting it.

I think Kerry campaign were simply unclear or inconsistent about the core concerns Iraq, terrorism and even their economic program -- I think the public were unable to discern any real sustance to these messages . And what you have is the party support and a margin of those who decided one way or the other.

The data specifics are not out but I think that once they are presented we may make the case above more forcefully.


What about Iran and N. Korea? -- Honestly, I don't know and I think most of te voting public did not have these issues in mind - these issues did not make in to the general debate.


I could be wrong, but Kerry supported the spending plan and the authority to go to war, but noone thought that Bush would use it to go to war unilaterally. If he doesn't take action in Iran and N.Korea, then he is a hypocrite and his justification for invading Iraq falls again into quesiton.

Bill
03 Nov 04,, 17:09
"Bush will win, but by a very narrow margin."

Ummmmmm........huh?

Declaring that Bush will win by a 'very narrow margin' after he just got done winning by a CLEAR majority(garnering more votes than any President in US history) and swept his whole ticket into office with him is, um, not exactly a ringing endorsement of your ability to comprehend basic facts.

Bill
03 Nov 04,, 17:12
"I could be wrong, but Kerry supported the spending plan and the authority to go to war, but noone thought that Bush would use it to go to war unilaterally."

You're wrong. He voted for the authority to invade Iraq, but voted against the funding for the operation.

"I voted for the 87 billion, before i voted against it". - J.F.Kerry

If you want to know what really sunk kerry, it's his military record. The man was a fraud, and was booted from the USN. SBVFT tore him up early in the election cycle, and he never recovered from it.

And BTW, there are 30 nations that've commited troops or support to Iraq. Not exactly unilateral, is it?

"If he doesn't take action in Iran and N.Korea, then he is a hypocrite and his justification for invading Iraq falls again into quesiton."

Jesus, one war at a time bro. Let us finish this one first, would ya?

smilingassassin
03 Nov 04,, 18:58
51% of the popular vote, solid hold on the senate and Ohio practically locked up its not as close as even we on the right predicted. Bush won big.

smilingassassin
03 Nov 04,, 19:00
I could be wrong, but Kerry supported the spending plan and the authority to go to war, but noone thought that Bush would use it to go to war unilaterally. If he doesn't take action in Iran and N.Korea, then he is a hypocrite and his justification for invading Iraq falls again into quesiton.

So let me get this straight, we were wrong for going into Iraq, but now that we went in without France, Germany and the UN we are now supposed to go it alone in Iran and other nations?