Reconciliation, the 48-Hour Sale

Chris Bouneff

Well, that lasted long, didn’t it?

Bush Today: "I'll reach out to everyone who shares our goals,'' adding that "I earned capital in this election, and I'm going to spend it.''

Or, how about this: "I am fully prepared to work with both Republican, Democrat leadership to advance an agenda that I think makes a big difference for the country.''

So, let’s be clear, Mr. Bush. You’ll reconcile with anyone who believes everything you do is correct? I guess it’s “screw you” to the other 55 million who don’t.

Comments

  • dinah (unverified)
    (Show?)

    are you really surprised ? the man's motto is "stay the course"

  • (Show?)

    Surely no one is shocked by this. It's precisely what I was addressing, in a round-about way, with my post here last night, and what Kari addressed in his post earlier today.

  • The Prof (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Chris,

    Bush won. He increased his party's control of both the Senate and the House.

    What do you expect? If Kerry had won, do you think he would have said "Hey Republicans, now I'm going to implement your policies"?

  • (Show?)

    Well, here's unity for you:

    LITTLE EGG HARBOR, N.J. -- A National Guard F-16 fighter jet on a nighttime training mission Wednesday fired 25 rounds of ammunition that tore through an intermediate school. No one was injured.

    That's what NJ gets for going for Kerry, I guess. ;)

  • (Show?)

    I think Kerry was going to tap Holbrooke for a Cabinet post, maybe State, so that's one Repub more than Bush was/is willing to consider. Hell, that's one non-wingnut more than Bush - Powell's looking to get the boot!

  • (Show?)

    What do you expect? If Kerry had won, do you think he would have said "Hey Republicans, now I'm going to implement your policies"?

    And so it begins, the distortion and spin of what we say in order to make it appear insane, so that they can dismiss it.

    No one -- no one is running around arguing what you say they are arguing. It isn't about Bush implementing the policies of the Democratic Party. It's about Bush, Incorporated pretending they have an overwhelming mandate to impose their grandest schemes upon a country in which nearly half of voters failed to give them their support.

    Try again, prof, this time without the lying.

  • (Show?)

    Well there you go. Just like his campaign, he'll reach out to people who are already on his side. That's easy! Try something difficult for once.

    One of the many reasons for this war was because it's so incredibly unlikely that folks will unseat a sitting president during wartime. It's just an insurance policy. It worked. I'm not sure how many people voted for Bush as opposed to those who just - at the last minute - voted against changing our Commander in Chief in this "War on Terror" (or as I like to call it - this "Joke on America"). That's not to say that terrorist threats aren't real - obviously they are. But he's got people so scared. This country managed not to be invaded for a couple hundred years - even during a two-front war (not counting Pearl Harbor - wasn't a state yet). I don't think it's going to happen again in the near future. They're too busy beheading people in Iraq. Y'know, since we've stuck our hand in the beehive over there.

    So, OK, I'll give him that - he's got the mandate for fighting this ridiculous war. The sooner we fight it and get out of it the better. But what he cannot see that as is a blank check to do whatever the hell he wants.

    The one thing he has to realize is that the same percentage of folks voted for John Kerry as voted for the guy who BEAT HIM in the popular vote in 2004. And MORE people voted for his opponent than the guy who lived at 1600 before he did and who easily could have been elected to a third (fourth, fifth - coulda been the next FDR ;-)) term AND more people voted for his opponent than for his FATHER. Nevermind that approval ratings from election day have 47% of folks saying that this country is going in the wrong direction. This is not an overwhelming mandate. This is not Reagan/Mondale 1984 or even Bush/Dukakis 1988. It's not. This is a new world we're livin' in folks, and he needs to see that. We HAVE to work together or we're just going to fall apart. Unfortunately, most of the states that agree with each other aren't close enough to cecede together. ;-)

    On his hot button issues in that article - I was driving down the road today thinking about Social Security and how, when I retire, it won't be there. It wasn't going to be there anyway because of the Boomers, but now it really won't be there - if we privatize it in this horrible economy we may as well just flush it down the toilet. I wonder, if when he privatizes, he'll give us young folks an "opt out." I thought "Oooh, I'd opt out - I mean, that's 7% more money for me!" But then I realized that I'd be screwing the seniors who need it NOW. It's lose/lose. Where is Al Gore and his lockbox when you need him?

    And simplifying the tax code. Hmm. I don't need it simplified. My tax software does it all for me. I wonder what that really means - simplifying the tax code.

    But my biggest questions have to do with the social issues.

    Bush's numbers may reflect some sort of mandate, but they do not reflect full support. The majority of Americans are pro-choice to some extent. There are so few that believe that it's wrong 100% of the time. The majority of Americans support stem cell research - on new lines, not just existing ones.

    So... I would be happy if he didn't destroy EVERYTHING (money we can get back - it'll take time, but we can do it) - and if he just reached out to the other side on these two issues. It's not like he's running again and it's not like Cheney has any aspirations. There's no one to pander to. But there are lives to save. Existing lives. I just hope he gets that - before it's too late.

  • Chris Bouneff (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Prof:

    If Kerry had won, I expect he'd govern a lot like Clinton. The Rs would do everything in their power to bring him down, yet Kerry would have found common ground and proceed from there. Maybe that's a weakness among Dems. They often really will work on a bipartisan basis. Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of Bob Doles and Mark Hatfields out there on the R side who work the same way.

    That's what I hate about Bush, and why I can't buy into his way. I initially was with him on Iraq, and when it became clear he made a tremendous error, he dismissed people like me. He also refused to see me and my issues, which is unlike any president who's been around since I've been alive.

    He takes a two-point win as a mandate to do his agenda and only his agenda, and others be damned. He seems to truly want unity, but he's unwilling to do anything to foster it. He doesn't hear the call of the 55 million who voted against him.

  • (Show?)

    for John Kerry as voted for the guy who BEAT HIM in the popular vote in 2004.

    Obviously, I meant 2000. Oops.

  • (Show?)

    Well, here's another interesting one:

    "The Republican [Arlen Specter] expected to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee next year bluntly warned newly re-elected President Bush on Wednesday against putting forth Supreme Court nominees who would seek to overturn abortion rights or are otherwise too conservative to win confirmation." - AP

    "We'll have to see where he [Arlen Specter] stands," said Cornyn, a close friend of Bush who worked to get all of the president's nominees through the Senate. "I'm hoping that he will stand behind the president's nominees. I'm intending to sit down and discuss with him how things are going to work. We want to know what he's going do and how things are going to work."- AP

    Interesting. Another Republican telling another Republican, it's our way or no way.

  • (Show?)

    Arlen's covering his ass, and good for him. McCain, too. They stand to reap the spoils of what is left of the Republican Party after it implodes on itself in a maelstrom of alienation.

    Arlen also knows that that race he just emerged from was a lot closer than it would have been if Pennsylvania wasn't dog-tired of its Senate leadership.

    Of course, it's Santorum who's going to reap the whirlwind of a battle-tested Joe Hoeffel next time. To which I say, good riddance.

  • the prof (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I don't think I misrepresented the original post at all, b!x. Not do I apprecaite being called a liar. Cool your rhetoric.

    Here's exactly what was written:

    Or, how about this: "I am fully prepared to work with both Republican, Democrat leadership to advance an agenda that I think makes a big difference for the country.''

    So, let’s be clear, Mr. Bush. You’ll reconcile with anyone who believes everything you do is correct? I guess it’s “screw you” to the other 55 million who don’t.

    What Bush said is what any winner says: Ok, now I've won, I believe more people voted for me than voted for my opponent, and I take that as a signal to implement what the agenda I ran on. He's not saying "screw you," he genuinely believes his policies are right, and he believes that's why he was elected.

    I don't agree with the policies that Bush is proposing, but I find it neither surprising, political unwise, nor morally repugnant that, as the winner, he's decided to implement his agenda.

    If he doesn't have a mandate, let the Democrats stop him. If they cannot, apparently he does have a mandate. Mandates are in the eyes of the media and the public.

    Two responses on the Clinton point, Chris. First, you forget the first two years of Clinton. The one who, as his first major domestic proposal, proposed gays in the military, then tried to create national health care fashioned by a small cabal headed by his wife (sounds like anyone we know?).

    The Clinton you remember is the one who had to run to the middle, triangulating Republican policies, post the 1994 disaster. He was forced to do this by political pressure, not because he was somehow reaching out to a Republican opposition after a non-majority win in 1992.

  • the prof (unverified)
    (Show?)

    cc: one other comment.

    Isn't a good thing that Republicans are taking on Social Security? Is there anyone here who really believes that the current system is not in need of serious change?

    There are bad things that this Administration may try to do, but I don't think partially privatizing Social Security is one of them.

    And if you think this is a massive screwup, then let them screw it up! Get them next time!

  • dragonballyee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You missed the next sentence: Let me put it to you this way. I earned capital in the campaign, political capital. And now I intend to spend it. It is my style. - Good grief. The rest of the press conference was more of the same http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/04/politics/04BUSHTRANS.html

    I am a new Philly resident and saw Hoeffel's campaign up close. I really hope that he keeps up the momentum he has for the next 2 years and ousts Santorum in a landslide. I'm gonna be here on the ground working, hard, to do just that.

  • (Show?)

    They have to run Hoeffel again, if only so that a new candidate doesn't have to start from jump with name ID, campaign organization, ground knowledge, etc.

    That's how we got wins here in Oregon where we got them, and how we got them nationwide. Melissa Bean in Illinois drew 43 percent her last time out against now 18-term Congressman Crane. This time, she cleaned his clock just as bad. Same for Betty Komp in the District next to mine.

    That's what mitigates a lot of this insanity for me - we're laying the groundwork for a juggernaut in '06 and beyond, and Hoeffel stands to reap the benefits as part of that advance force.

  • Suzii (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Here's the part of the press conference that keeps sticking with me (thanks for the link, dragonballyee):

    Q. Thank you, Mr. President. How will you go about bringing people together? Will you seek a consensus candidate for the Supreme Court if there's an opening? Will you bring some Democrats into your cabinet?

    A. Again, you violated the one-question rule right off the bat. Obviously you didn't listen to the will of the people.

    First time through, I thought, "there's a mandate for a one-question rule?" then figured out: This guy thinks he'll be in trouble with the electorate for finding a justice whom everybody likes?

    Count me bewildered.

connect with blueoregon