home

Poll: No Mandate for Bush

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Jan 17, 2005 at 11:26:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that Bush enters his second term without a mandate and amidst continued division:

President Bush will begin his second term in office without a clear mandate to lead the nation, with disapproval of his policies in Iraq and with the public both hopeful and dubious about his leadership, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The president has claimed a mandate from the election, but the poll found as much division today as four years ago over the question of whether Bush or Democrats in Congress should set the direction for the country

Less than 45% of those surveyed approve the direction in which he is taking the country. 55% disapprove of the way he is handling social security. 58% disapprove of his handling the war in Iraq, and only 44% say the war was worth fighting.

< Martha Stewart Weighs in On Booker Decision | Kennedy vs. Cuomo for NY Attorney General? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Poll: No Mandate for Bush | 78 comments (78 topical)
    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#1)
    by scarshapedstar on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 12:58:36 AM EST
    What's really fun is that, unlike the "no pharmaceutical corporation left behind" medicare sham, AARP is actually opposing Bush's new "let old people starve" initiative. How low can ya go?

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 02:10:34 AM EST
    "with the public both hopeful and dubious about his leadership" They have plenty of reason to be dubious. Don't see much reason to be hopeful, though.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 02:26:29 AM EST
    So the very papers that previously opposed Bush now say - after he has won the largest vote total ever - that he has no mandate. Makes sense, I guess, as long as we don't think it through. I'll try.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 02:32:13 AM EST
    after he has won the largest vote total ever - That's right, don't think it through, since you'll find that this largest vote total ever actually resulted in the smallest margin of re-election for an incumbent president in 90 years...

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:47:08 AM EST
    Somehow, I suspect that identical polling numbers with a reversed election result would not have resulted in this post. THe only mandate that matters is the electoral vote total. The rest is commentary.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:08:38 AM EST
    et al - Democrats beware. From the article: "But the public also wants cooperation from the Democrats. At a time when Democratic leaders are preparing to challenge many of Bush's major initiatives, nearly seven in 10 Americans agree that Bush's victory means that congressional Democrats should compromise with him -- even if it means compromising on their party's principles. Only one in four said Democrats must not compromise on things they find objectionable," Ernsto - You keep on forgetting that he was the first President to win with an actual majority since 1988. scar - As a young person you need to understand AARP as it will be seeking to control the world you finish growing up in, and grow old in. AARP is basically a part of the Demo Party, and one of the largest insurance providers in the world. View anything it says through those lens.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#7)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:21:16 AM EST
    The electorate delivered the executive and legislative branches to the republicans. One could also argue, knowing an appointment was likely, the judiciary as well. It’s not a mandate I like but it looks like a mandate to me.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:25:15 AM EST
    That means when the country's in the toilet in 2008, the GOP will take responsibility for it, right? "We had control of all three branches of government, the enormous corporate media, and spent huge chunks of money we didn't have, and the country's still a disaster...we're so sorry." Do ya think?

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#9)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:30:55 AM EST
    “That means when the country's in the toilet in 2008, the GOP will take responsibility for it, right?” Well, since it is a mandate the electorate will need to take responsibility for any consequent damage and ill will.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:47:08 AM EST
    "No mandate" for GWB, who duly received a majority of the votes in a proper election, yet somehow a mandate for Democrat party obstructionists who are clearly in the minority. I challenge any reader here to present a better example of Orwellian leftist hypocrisy. Bring it on!

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:00:12 AM EST
    But the public also wants cooperation from the Democrats
    Are these two separate entities? Don't they mean that the 52% wants cooperation from the 48%? I don't know the historical stats on margins of victory, etc., but when 42% of folks think you're leading the country in the wrong direction, 35% of whom vehemently oppose your policies and 25% of whom also think the democrats should strongly oppose legislative compromise, does common sense tell you that you have a "mandate"?? Put another way, if you're the CEO for a corporation and almost half of the Exec Committee has voted no confidence in your leadership with 40% moving to replace you, and you retain your Chair by a mere 10% advantage, do you feel authorized to then declare a mandate for the Corporation based on the Exec. Committee's confidence in you???

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:01:33 AM EST
    I challenge any reader here to present a better example of Orwellian leftist hypocrisy
    Could you define it??? Then I'll try.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#13)
    by glanton on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:16:47 AM EST
    Have to agree somewhat with pigwiggle here, as things continue to spiral further and further into the murk, and more and more people die for no other reason than because Dubya is President and Congress is his lapdog, the electorate itself shoulders much of the blame. I say 'somewhat' because we have a misinformed electorate, after all. What's a voter to do, after all, if he/she thinks Saddam was behind 9/11? Or that health care costs are the fault of trial lawyers? Or that... well, never mind. You get the idea.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:31:14 AM EST
    I challenge any reader here to present a better example of Orwellian leftist hypocrisy A Clean Air Act that actually makes it easier to pollute A Healthy Forest Initiative that intends to cut down many trees

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#15)
    by glanton on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:37:48 AM EST
    Ooooo, Oooooo, I've got one! How about a "No Child Left Behind Act" designed to wreck the public school system?

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#16)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:45:16 AM EST
    “after all, if he/she thinks Saddam was behind 9/11? Or that health care costs are the fault of trial lawyers?” One would hope the Sadam=9/11 folks don’t vote. However, I’m going to take exception with your second statement. There are clear defined and reasonable arguments which implicate willing lawyers and litigious patients.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:49:16 AM EST
    Posted by: James Robertson on January 18, 2005 05:47 AM Somehow, I suspect that identical polling numbers with a reversed election result would not have resulted in this post. Yes, I'm sure that, if the election hadn't been stolen by the Repugnicants yet again, FReepertrash, Litlle Green Fascists, the Idiot Rabid Doggie and quite a few others would have put out a similar post. Probably quite a bit more profanity in it, though... also, those examples above were showing us examples of Orwellian rightist hypocrisy, not Orwellian leftist hypocrisy. There are no examples of the latter that aren't unsubstantiated smears by the media whores...

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:58:00 AM EST
    Speaking of Orwell...."Iraq is our enemy, it has always been our enemy, it was never our friend, big brother said so, so it must be so, and so it shall be."

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#19)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:01:38 AM EST
    “Yes, I'm sure that, if the election hadn't been stolen by the Repugnicants yet again” Proof? And I’m not interested in links to half-baked conspiratorial websites. I guess if you repeat something enough…

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#20)
    by Al on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:02:31 AM EST
    Bush clearly won with a little over half of the popular vote, and a nation bitterly divided almost exactly right down the middle between those who adore him and those who can't stand him. That is not a mandate, and everyone here knows it.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#21)
    by glanton on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:05:38 AM EST
    pigwiggle: Oh, but the Saddam=9/11 people do vote, and you know it. Unless everyone who listened to the Prsident and the Vice President conflate the two for a year and a half stayed away from the polls. Unless Fox News viewers don't vote. "There are clear defined and reasonable arguments which implicate willing lawyers and litigious patients" First of all, hopefully you know on some level that helath care costs have a helluva lot more to do with the drug companies and the insurance companies than with frivolous lawsuits. To argue otherwise is naiive at best, disingenuous at worst. (Which is Dubya?) Second, all the current anti-litigation claptrap fails to take into account the vast numbers of legitimate lawsuits, where real medical malpractice occurs.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#22)
    by nolo on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:14:23 AM EST
    Piggwiggle, according to a pre-election Temple University poll, "More than 40 percent of likely voters in Pennsylvania believed Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing or carrying out the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and 69 percent of them favored Bush."

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#23)
    by nolo on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:16:23 AM EST
    Moreover, pigwiggle, Bush made every effort to capitalize on this misperception during his campaign.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:20:04 AM EST
    mfox writes - "But the public also wants cooperation from the Democrats Are these two separate entities? Don't they mean that the 52% wants cooperation from the 48%?..." No, what it means is that 70% , 7 out of 10, want the Demos to comprimise with Bush. Aren't you capable of reading simple English? And only 1 in 4 said the Demos must not comprimise. What this means is that many people who voted for Kerry said: Election over, I lost. Now let's quit fussing and get on with it. It also means. Democrats. If you obstruct, you are not doing what I want you to. kdog - Countries do business based on self interest, not friendship. (:Tom:) - Keep the mantra going if it makes you feel better. But it changes nothing. Greg Z & glanton - For years and years the Demos frghtened old people by calling them up and saying if the voted for "X" they would immideately lose their Social Security and medicare. Is that a good enough example?

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#25)
    by glanton on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:39:24 AM EST
    Jim, Yes, the Dems have engaged in dirty pool when it comes to Social Security, you say true in regards to the scare tactics. Let's get something straight. I'm not upholding Dems as heroes, by any means whatever. But 1)they could easily have made those calls and said that the GOP is trying to dismantle Social Security, and that the benefits of their children and their grandchildren are being exterminated; and 2) (more importantly for the purposes of this thread) the lie that Social Secutiry benefits are going to be immediately revoked has been debunked. The Orwellian examples given by Greg Z and myself are far from debunkned, they are instead public policy and trumpeted by the MSM on their own terms. So which lies are currently more dangerous?

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#26)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:56:42 AM EST
    glanton- “To argue otherwise is naiive at best, disingenuous at worst.” Naïve, perhaps. I’ve posted this here before, but one more time. My wife is a physician and has told me that around 20% of the test and procedures she performs, on the medical wards, are to cover her butt in the case of a lawsuit. When performing emergency medicine she estimates it’s closer to 50%. In the way of a disclaimer, I’m not for further regulation of anything, i.e. award caps. I think regulation is likely responsible for the price of drugs and insurance, not simple greed. “fails to take into account the vast numbers of legitimate lawsuits, where real medical malpractice occurs” I agree. However, these legitimate lawsuits are often paraded around as resulting from some altruistic benevolence of lawyers. There are a number of legitimate lawsuits that will never be picked up because of the low return for the lawyer. Additionally, class action only benefits the lawyers. This ‘legitimate lawsuit’ angle is played for the benefit of the voting public and has little to do with the real concern, profit. Again, I think profit is a reasonable and valid motive; don’t dress up this pig for my benefit.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:57:49 AM EST
    pigwiggle: Oh, but the Saddam=9/11 people do vote
    Damn straight they do. And I'll bet they're disproportionately conservative, evangelical and pro-life (oddly enough!).

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:59:31 AM EST
    All this is just background noise. Bush says (I don't know about believing) he has a mandate, the light is green for another four years, and he is determined to step on the pedal and go. He already said that the election cleared the slate on his or his administrations accountability concerning Iraq. The only thing he will not say as he steps on the pedal is, "Suckers! Watch my smoke."

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#29)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 09:01:43 AM EST
    To the likelihood of ‘9/11 voters’; it takes an ugly polarized election for the left to see the beauty of a republic, fine. Democracy is tyranny of the majority; a constitutional republic can guarantee liberty. Up with states rights, down with centralized power.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 09:09:44 AM EST
    Pigwiggle, I don't disagree entirely with your point but re: your quote below:
    My wife is a physician and has told me that around 20% of the test and procedures she performs, on the medical wards, are to cover her butt in the case of a lawsuit. When performing emergency medicine she estimates it’s closer to 50%
    As a patient, I WANT the doctors to do the 20% and the 50% so I DONT have to sue them because my life or my children's is FUBAR. I would be very surprised if you or your wife could say that this "unnecessary" testing has never saved a life. Also, re:
    Additionally, class action only benefits the lawyers
    I beg to differ, unless your only talking about financial gains, which are generally not the reason people sue ("Gee... how can I get some money ten years from now?"). Not to minimize money or nitpick your statement, but surely you didn't mean it literally???

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#31)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 09:24:23 AM EST
    mfox- “As a patient, I WANT the doctors to do the 20% and the 50% so I DONT have to sue them because my life or my children's is FUBAR.” Your assumption is these tests and procedures are needed. The point is they aren’t, they are superfluous in every respect other than to say ‘look, I did EVERYTHING I could’. The probable effect is added cost, which was my point. Certainly the added testing did save some lives, but how many are lost due to the prohibitive cost of healthcare? Also, we know that some test do have associated risk; cost/benefit, it’s all speculation anyway. “I beg to differ, unless your only talking about financial gains,” I actually edited out the ‘financial’ before I posted. Every time I hear about new health risks of one drug or another I wait for the recruitment ads. ‘You may qualify to participate ….’. Perhaps the illusionary financial gains are why some sue, I can’t say.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 09:27:17 AM EST
    Up with states rights, down with centralized power. amen, pigwiggle. at this point, it no longer matters who voted for whom. we got gw for 4 more years, so i have to agree that it is time to roll up our sleeves and get to work. do i think that democrats should subjugate their own core values in order to appear like they are playing well with others? absolutely not. i think that's the problem with the democrats - we've gotten so careful and put so much faith in our focus groups and have spent so much time wringing our hands, we have forgotten (or become unwilling) to fight for what's really important. and fight we must. btw, to whomever intimated that approval ratings are meaningless... oh yes, they mean little. unless the party in charge wants to stay in charge.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 09:39:57 AM EST
    Pigwiggle, Is "not doing everything you could" valid grounds for a suit or does actual harm have to occur due to a Doctor's failure to utilize a diagnostic tool. I can't argue with your wife's perception, but I have in mind many, many anecdotal instances of people's lives being decimated due to what I would certainly call sub-standard care (which is often correlated with low-income as it turns out). Re: Recruitment ads for lawsuits - I feel that as long as the drug companies can market drugs directly to the public unimpeded by their lackeys the FDA, there will be a lot more (Pointles, as you put it) class action lawsuit recruiting.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#34)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 09:52:12 AM EST
    “Is "not doing everything you could" valid grounds for a suit or does actual harm have to occur due to a Doctor's failure to utilize a diagnostic tool.” I’m not sure what valid grounds are. My wife talks about ‘standard of care’ as the legal standard. The real issue would seem to be negligence, willful or otherwise. Anyway, put an injured or hopelessly sick person in front of a jury and see who they identify with; maybe the insurance company? It is an easy decision for most; a faceless corporation with deep pockets can afford to set up an otherwise helpless person, no matter who’s at fault. Impartiality is the problem.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#35)
    by Adept Havelock on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 10:06:56 AM EST
    Only a right wing ideologue would attempt to present a 1 (albeit percentage) point win as a mandate. Try bragging about a one point win next time your playing your sport of choice...unless of course it happens to be Hockey or Soccer. Then see how long it takes to be laughed off the court.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 10:08:17 AM EST
    I fully appreciate the dilemna of care providers as well as your comments, pigwiggle. Call it perceptual, however, I just don't see jury awards to "undeserving" patients as a large percentage of total paid out. Similarly, I feel Dr's. should have some protections from lawsuits if they performed at a mimimum acceptable standard, but that should be decided by a jury as the insurance companies and HMO's clearly influence a treatment plan. Regardless, not to belabor this small component of the "Bush Mandate", but you can't convince me that HIS plan will have ANY EFFECT on my health care costs, now or for the forseeable future.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 11:26:12 AM EST
    Adept H - From the dictionary: "Mandate: 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 " Note the lack of any requirement for a majority, much less a super majority. et al - The Demos lost. They lost the Presidentancy, they lost seats in the House and in the Senate. Now debate is good, and I would hope that we have plenty of it. But if the Democrats keep a vote from being taken, they will clearly bear the anger of the American people.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 11:48:50 AM EST
    Now debate is good, and I would hope that we have plenty of it
    PPJ - doesn't Bush's declaration of a mandate pre-empt the notion of having plenty of debate?? BTW:
    Debate: to talk about something at length and in detail, especially as part of a formal exchange of opinion
    Yeah, right. I'm waiting.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#39)
    by nolo on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 12:04:37 PM EST
    pigwiggle, "standard of care" is an important concept in all negligence cases, not just medical malpractice cases, because you have to show a violation of the relevant standard of care in order to establish that there was negligence in the first place. "Standard of care" is just another way of saying "duty," which is the first of the four elements (duty, breach, causation and damages) you need to establish in order to prevail on any tort claim. For your files, the standard of care to which doctors are held is this: they are expected to do what an ordinary doctor of similar training and skill would do under the same circumstances. No more, no less.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#40)
    by nolo on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 12:10:54 PM EST
    Anyway, put an injured or hopelessly sick person in front of a jury and see who they identify with; maybe the insurance company? It is an easy decision for most; a faceless corporation with deep pockets can afford to set up an otherwise helpless person, no matter who’s at fault.
    Insurance has alwasy been treated as a big third-rail in personal injury litigation. The rules of evidence prohibit even the mention of insurance in personal injury cases. Telling a jury that there's an insurance company that'll pay for it all is a one-way ticket to a mistrial (and, quite possibly, contempt sanctions). The same thing would happen if a plaintiff's attorney tried to play on the jury's sympathies by saying that her client had no insurance (or if a defense attorney did the same thing).

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#41)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 12:18:47 PM EST
    nolo- “Telling a jury that there's an insurance company that'll pay for it all is a one-way ticket to a mistrial” Are you suggesting that juries don’t consider or know who pays the bill?

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#42)
    by nolo on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 12:26:16 PM EST
    pigwiggle, I'm saying that the parties are not allowed to say anything about it, and that juries are instructed not to consider it. What juries speculate on, especially in the climate created by "tort reform" and all the bad law and science people are picking up from the endless flood of bad forensic procedurals we've been seeing on TV lately is another matter.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#43)
    by nolo on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 12:31:49 PM EST
    One point on juries, though, that I find interesting -- I have yet to see or hear of a medical malpractice defendant agreeing to waive having a jury at trial. When given the option of a bench trial (which is decided by the judge alone) or a jury trial, med mal defendants (i.e., their defense counsel, who are always retained by the malpractice liability insurer) choose the jury every time.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#44)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 01:58:58 PM EST
    Mandate my a**. Getting my-Left-Behinders to believe that the dems are yankee liberals who want to sell abortion clinic franchises like Tim Hortons and put gay bath-houses next to every christian school is a far cry from enabling a consortium of machievellian PNAC speculators and thier perpetual war,"regime-change" fantasy.Whats wrong with Kansas?

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#45)
    by glanton on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 03:05:11 PM EST
    "To the likelihood of ‘9/11 voters’; [if] it takes an ugly polarized election for the left to see the beauty of a republic, fine. Democracy is tyranny of the majority; a constitutional republic can guarantee liberty. Up with states rights, down with centralized power" There's no rational discussion with some people. Wouldn't holsing the media accountable for disseminating false information about 9/11 and health care and Iraq (and on and on and on)be a more sensical solution than dismanteling the democracy itself? Not according to your friendly libertarian! Plus, he gets the added benefit of not having to admit outright that these last couple of election cycles (2002-2004) have ridden high and tight on a tide of pure media lies. But the only media lie anybody focuses on is the Dubya Air National Guard Story. Nobody has raised a finger against the MSM for spreading the lies that sold the Iraq Disaster, and now tens of thousands of people are dead, with more on thew way, thanks to our special brand of freedom. People voting under false pretenses is not an indictment of Democracy (which we don't have a pure form of anyway), but rather of the corporate media.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#46)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 03:14:13 PM EST
    Take of the tinfoil hat; they aren’t controlling your mind. “Not according to your friendly libertarian! Plus, he gets the added benefit of not having to admit outright that these last couple of election cycles (2002-2004) have ridden high and tight on a tide of pure media lies.” I got a great idea, lets have all the news outlets report what you think is appropriate. Spin the news to fit your preconceived notion of the world; show off your candidate as the only compassionate and rational choice. Please.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 03:24:56 PM EST
    mfox - Debate is good. Pity that the Democrats are, again, threatening to keep bills and nominations from coming to the floor of the Senate for DEBATE and voting. And the amusing thing is, the Demos are trying to justify this action by claiming that Bush doesn't have a mandate. Heck, if he doesn't, he should be easy to beat on the facts rather than taking the cowardly way out.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#48)
    by glanton on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 03:25:10 PM EST
    Good response, if it was to a different post that nobody made. I don't think it's too much to ask that the media dispel outright lies when politicans push them. Bush and Cheney making multiple connections between Hussein and 9/11. If just one television anchor with some clout had gotten up there at the right time and said, clearly and matter-of-factly, the two are wholly separate and the WMD's are no more than conjecture (look how little press Scott Ritter got during all this--if you didn't watch C-Span you didn't know who he was, and now NOBODY dares interview him)--if only one anchor had had the cojones to make such a true statement, widespread killings and deaths might have been preventable. But nobody did such a thing. This blood's on the media's hands every bit as much as Dubya's. (And a little coverage now and again for the Health Care Crisis isn't too much to ask either, is it?)

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#49)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 03:48:20 PM EST
    But if the Democrats keep a vote from being taken, they will clearly bear the anger of the American people. Yeah, the anger of the American people who voted against them. So fricken what. The Republicans were never worried about this in the past and in the long run that strategy has paid off handsomely. By vigorously opposing the many disgusting attacks that Bush will launch on what's left of the New Deal safety net, the Democrats stand to gain back the support they lost when Clinton sold the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" down the river in favor of the big money donors. The problem since that time has been the DLC, which cannot run against the Republicans as anything but Republican Lite, lest they offend their corporate sponsors. They will continue to lose elections until this changes.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 03:53:15 PM EST
    glanton - WHY BUSH HAS A MANDATE One more time. Eveyone thought Iraq had WMD's. That includes all of the major intelligence agencies. So Bush, and all the big time Demos were on the same page. As was the media. Do you want me to repost all the quotes from Kerry, Clinton, Gore, Graham, Albrihgt, Berger, etc. So the comments you keeping making about the media, about Bush lying, etc., are just plain stupid. The public understands this. That is why Bush won, even if the WMD's were gone. And why he has a mandate.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 03:53:47 PM EST
    Above by me.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#52)
    by glanton on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:05:40 PM EST
    And again, for all your quotes, Jim, I repeat that there was scads of debate, internatioanlly as well as within our own country, during the runup to the war about what, if anything, Saddam had. It was not open and shut by any stretch. Do you know who Scott Ritter is? He and his entire weapons team stated again and again that as far as they were concerned 98% of the stuff had been dismantled or destroyed, and that the remaining 2%, if it existed at all, was probably in such a dilapidated state that it didn't matter one way or the other. But nobody with stroke interviewed Ritter at the time, and for all I know he's probably dead now. Yes, there was plenty of debate, but the result was predetermined before the 2000 election was even done. But the bigger point, *****the one currently at play in this thread***** is that the media did nothing to dispel the LIE that Saddam=9/11. That's what we're tlaking about here, after all.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:18:32 PM EST
    Ernesto writes - "Yeah, the anger of the American people who voted against them. So fricken what. ...." You should get into sales. Let me see. I just lost the sale. So what should I do... I know, let's pis*sem off even more. That'll bring 'em back. Ernie, the Internet has truly changed everything. In the past, the unimpeded MSM would have made a big deal out of this, betting that the public wouldn't be able to sort out the BS. Now, they can't because they are immediately nailed.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:23:54 PM EST
    glanton - If you believe Scott Ritter, who made a movie paid for by Iraq, then there is no hope for you. And please, try to be rational. The MSM also believed. Of course if, ifs and buts were candy and nuts... And I thought the post and thread was why, or if, Bush has a mandate. Silly ole me to read before commenting.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:24:23 PM EST
    um, glanton, i hate to argue (generally i am in agreement with the sentiments expressed in your comments). however, the thread is about the poll taken by the washington post and abc hich says (among other things); Less than 45% of those surveyed approve the direction in which he is taking the country. 55% disapprove of the way he is handling social security. 58% disapprove of his handling the war in Iraq, and only 44% say the war was worth fighting. (He referring to gw) so... i don't think it really matters what people in the country think that saddam or iraq was involved in 9/11. the bottom line, to me, is that more than half of the country dissaproves of the way he is handling the war in iraq. mandate, schmandate - it's all semantics. his approval rating obviously will not remain frozen at the same level as what he won the election with. another thing bush should be concerned with; Bush said in an interview last week with The Washington Post that the 2004 election was a moment of accountability for the decisions he has made in Iraq, but the poll found that 58 percent disapprove of his handling of the situation to 40 percent who approve, and 44 percent said the war was worth fighting.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#56)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:27:02 PM EST
    PPJ - well Scott Ritter was right about the WMDs. So was Blix. Just keep up the noise. There were no WMDs, They knew there wasn't any WMDs, and anybody who thinks there were, is either stupid or so partisan that the truth doesn't matter or both.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:27:41 PM EST
    Ernie: "The problem...has been the DLC, which cannot run against the Republicans as anything but Republican Lite...they will continue to lose elections until this changes." Yes, but changes how? When the DLC accepts that the American people do not want abortion on demand for 13 year old girls without their parents' consent...when they accept that Americans don't want higher taxes...when they accept that Americans do not want their sovereignty turned over to the UN? Etc., etc., etc... This thread provides ample evidence that the left arrogantly think they know better that you what's good for you. The election has shown that there is no mandate for that. America does not want the Dems' vision of the future. That is why the Dems must resort to court order and do an end run around the democratic process in order to force it on the country.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#58)
    by glanton on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 04:30:59 PM EST
    kelite: But you know, those polls mean nothing. It's not an election cycle and when 2006 rolls around, you can bet your bottom dollar that the MSM will be up to its usual tricks, obfuscating issues or compressing them into soundbites, and allowing misinformation to rule the day. Thus the reason for focusing on past instances of misinformation. We were broadsided by lies and half-truths last time. Will we be ready for them this time? Jim: You're right about one thing, obviously this thread is about the degree and nature of Bush's mandate. And how convenient that your attack on Ritter glosses the fact that he was 100% spot on in his analysis. Ah, the trials and tribulations of Cassandra!

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 06:26:44 PM EST
    glanton - More on why Bush has a mandate. He was smart enough to not listen to Ritter. In 01, 02 and early 03, should the President and the Congress have believed Ritter, or the CIA and all of the other major intelligence agencies? Do you remember that Saddam was supposed to reply re WMD's, yet he dithered and finally put out what was basically a non-response? Have you read forgotten the Kay Report Especially the part that details: "With regard to delivery systems, the ISG team has discovered sufficient evidence to date to conclude that the Iraqi regime was committed to delivery system improvements that would have, if OIF had not occurred, dramatically breached UN restrictions placed on Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War." Do you not understand that this was a 1000KM missle? That would have threatened Israel and others in the region. And can you possibly understand that: YOU DON'T NEED A MISSLE UNLESS YOU ARE GOING TO USE IT. And that this alone was a very serious breach of the sanctiuons and restrictions. And do you remember what Kay said? "Second, we have found people, technical information and illicit procurement networks that if allowed to flow to other countries and regions could accelerate global proliferation. Even in the area of actual weapons there is no doubt that Iraq had at one time chemical and biological weapons. Even if there were only a remote possibility that these pre-1991 weapons still exist, we have an obligation to American troops who are now there and the Iraqi population to ensure that none of these remain to be used against them in the ongoing insurgency activity. Have you read Bush's 03 SOTU speech? The one I recommended you read? The one in which he clearly says Iraq is not an imminent threat. But, in which he clearly stated that we could not afford to wait, but would act preemptively. Because if we waited until the threat was imminent, it would be too late. That is why Bush has a mandate. Kerry and the Demos wanted a "global test." What the voters heard Bush say was: "To heck with that. I'll do what is necessary to protect you from being attacked. Not wait until it has happened, again." The American people are not stupid. They understood that Bush was doing his best while Kerry postured. They listened and looked and out of a tangled mess, they saw that Bush was their best hope.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#60)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:40:05 PM EST
    glanton, i can see your point. and when ppj clearly says;
    Have you read Bush's 03 SOTU speech? The one I recommended you read? The one in which he clearly says Iraq is not an imminent threat. But, in which he clearly stated that we could not afford to wait, but would act preemptively. Because if we waited until the threat was imminent, it would be too late.
    i wonder if misinformation is even needed. iraq was not an imminent threat? not even imminent (meaning not happening, but about to happen)? but we decided to attack preemptively... which means, according to ppj's and gw's logic, we should attack all countries who possess wmd's or have the capability to produce wmd's... so i guess even misinformation isn't needed. these guys just make up their own information to suit their own political agenda, and even when they are clearly not logical, their followers spout it as evidence of logic. truly fightening.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#61)
    by glanton on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:49:50 PM EST
    kelite: maybe you're right that misinformation isn't needed. but i somehow doubt if the Kay Report would have been enough to sell Americans on the war. When you're about to go to war, or want to go, you have a moral duty put the whole truth out there. sexing things up is a horrible crime against the electorate. that's what happened. come on. everyone remembers the runup to the war. there were all kinds of 9/11 conflations with Iraq, all kinds of scare scenarios that had no relationship to reality. sean hannity et all pimping the war 24/7:why not? such scum had nothing to lose, and to date, continue to have lost nothing. i just don't know if the rulers could have gotten away with it sans the media campaign.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 07:54:04 PM EST
    Not just polls in the US that is showing this up. Global poll slams Bush leadership With a bit of luck by the time this all blows over, (assuming were're not all radio-active dust), the neocon nightmare will have SNAFUed and FUBARed so comprehensively that even the US public won't let them near the seat of power for a thousand years.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 08:20:10 PM EST
    Dearest No Name - And all supported by links. As for you, you don't even have a name. What a guy? Girl? You are. kelite - Your commment/question regarding Iraq not being an imminent threat indicates that you do not know what Bush was saying. "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." 2003 SOTU eg. If we wait until the threat is imminent, then it is too late. When the suitcase nuke is in Seattle, there is nothing that can be done. So he chose to fight a preemptive war. That is why Iraq is first, and Iran will be second. If not invaded, then certainly neutralized one way or the other. These two actions should force Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, etc., to remove their support from the various terrorist groups. Look at how SA has been attacking those in their country. That would never happen without them understanding that their actions are noted, and will not be tolerated over a long period of time. Libyia has already thrown in the towel. And when these states withdraw their support from the terrorists, the terrorist will be easy to deal with. And no, this strategy does not mean that we attack everyone. And I think you are mature enough to understand that, and why it is true. So please, don't be obtuse and make inane statements. What you apparently favor is the discredited "criminal justice" approach where you play defense and, after the attack occurs, try to track them down like ordinary criminals. I say discredited because we tried that and all that happened was the attacks got bigger, with more Americans killed.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 10:46:17 PM EST
    Doctor Ace:When the DLC accepts that the American people do not want abortion on demand for 13 year old girls without their parents' consent...when they accept that Americans don't want higher taxes...when they accept that Americans do not want their sovereignty turned over to the UN? Etc., etc., etc... These are issues only to people who are going to vote Republican anyway. (More hype than factual actually, but that's another story.) That's the point I'm making, Democrats will not win unless they energize their base like the Republicans have with their traditional issues. For the Dems, this means issues like job security, the environment, college loans, health care, etc. etc. But they have signed onto the free market globalization cause and it has rendered them also-rans for the past 10 years. They will not become the majority again by trying to out-Republican the Republicans. They need to stand up for their base and go back to grassroots organizing, the old fashioned way...the Paul Wellstone way.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 10:56:53 PM EST
    What you apparently favor is the discredited "criminal justice" approach where you play defense and, after the attack occurs, try to track them down like ordinary criminals. What you favor is bombing countries "just in case"...which is not only against international law (yeah who cares right?) but also makes us less safe. Your logic here demands that the proper response after the bombing of the Murrah building by Tim McVeigh would have been an Air Force bombing strike on upstate New York. As for screwing with Iran...it's not a good idea. Pan Am 103 was blown up by Iran in 1988 because we shot down one of their civilian airliners. We turned around and blamed Libya for purely political reasons.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#66)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 11:00:02 PM EST
    Your logic here demands that the proper response after the bombing of the Murrah building by Tim McVeigh would have been an Air Force bombing strike on upstate New York. I take that back. Actually, your logic would mean an Air Force bombing strike on any state that had a militia group or other potential threat to national security.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 11:04:12 PM EST
    Let me see. I just lost the sale. So what should I do... I know, let's pis*sem off even more. That'll bring 'em back. I think what the Democrats should have learned in the past 10 years is that they sure as hell aren't gonna win over their traditional customers with a cheap imitation of the stuff the other guy is selling.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#68)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 11:35:37 PM EST
    Clearly NEITHER party has a mandate and the American electorate felt compelled to go with the devil they know. It was a close race because the Democrats ran as Republicans on foreign affairs, abandoning their grass roots' internationalism and multi-lateralist approach. The Dems got exactly what they deserved and did a grave disservice to this country in the process. The amazing thing is that they STILL don't get it. Perhaps they need to lose in 2008 to fully grasp their current irrelevance in American national politics. If one looks back at American political history, it is times such as this when it is most fertile for a powerful opposition figure to arise. I assure you, Hillary Clinton it most definitely is NOT. Perhaps someone with the street-fighting panache of an Eliot Spitzer. Whoever it is, they've got to realize that the old rules need to go out the window. And that we all need to bear witness to the chronic opprobrium of the current administration - and those that let it happen. All we need is someone strong enough to just tell the truth and the people will follow.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#69)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:28:27 AM EST
    Posted by Lavocat at January 19, 2005 12:35 AM Clearly NEITHER party has a mandate and the American electorate felt compelled to go with the devil they know." UTTERLY UNTRUE. The election went to Kerry by landslide, but 28 states and 80% of the voters get NO PAPER TRAIL from their defective, illegal voting systems (sold to them by $Republican Bush-backers, sometimes with Democratic SecStates turning into Katherines like the legion of CORRUPT $R SecStates). We CAUGHT Triad, the main electronic voting company 'servicing' Ohio (actually, no one in Ohio except $R Bush-backers), manipulating every tabulator to be used in the Recount, and giving pre-established numbers to election officials "regardless of what the machines say during the Recount." That's all felonies, top to bottom, and by stealing Ohio, Bushliar was installed AGAIN, by extra-democractic means. Hundreds of thousands of voters were disenfranchized by not being enabled to vote (12 hour line waits, even 22 hour line waits were recorded). And those that did vote had their votes switched in great numbers. They did the same thing in 2003 in California's fake 'Recall' election, and were caught then as well. That we don't get our rights and the laws followed is not because we don't deserve them, or the laws are not just. We do; they are; but Bible and Brimstone Bush didn't invent the coup -- he just plays one on television.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#70)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 01:39:00 AM EST
    PPJ: "And when these states withdraw their support from the terrorists, the terrorist will be easy to deal with." HILARIOUS. When states withdraw their support from terrorists, from you, PPJ? Weren't you bragging with Rumsfeld about how WONDERFUL right-wing death squads were in Central America? How about withdrawing your support for the Vietnam war, which was terrorism on a HUGE scale. And how about the 100,000 Iraqis who have been killed for no crime and no 'support of terrorism' in their lifetimes? Oh well, they're collective-guilt terrorists, otherwise known as racially inferior. They're religiously inferior too, that much we've found out from the Hate-Crime-in-Chief. And they don't get even their dead counted -- they don't deserve no stinking human rights, no concern for the innocent Iraqi families, no electricity, no drinking water. You are a racist; it is racist. Racism has nothing to do with terrorism, except it embraces terrorism at every turn. The world didn't change on 911; it changed in 1945. The only way you guys win is through lies and cheating AND terrorism. It's the attempted branding of the ME, and it won't work, and that's also in the plan. Genocide = terrorism, and 911 wasn't genocide. Given the disregard for human rights, I don't think we can consider 911 somehow a unique terrorist act. It is no better or worse than Fallujah, and Fallujah was worse by several magnitudes.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#71)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 06:04:20 AM EST
    Ernie - Libya confessed, and your link is not a credibile source of anything. And as I wrote to kelite, you don't just bomb because you feel like it. What a stupid assumpation. I thought you smarter. "I think what the Democrats should have learned in the past 10 years is that they sure as hell aren't gonna win over their traditional customers with a cheap imitation of the stuff the other guy is selling." Hey, give it a shot in '08. Dean is available. Paul In LA - You're up to late, again. Does your employer know you are blogging on the job?

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#72)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 06:34:09 AM EST
    Lav, you are right that the Dems tried to run as Reps on foreigh affairs. It is also obvious that the majority were not fooled. TL, maybe it's time to have a thread just for Paul. Maybe he could respond to stimulating questions such as: Is it wetter in the water when it rains? If nothing is better than heaven and a ham sandwich is better than nothing, is a ham sandwich better than heaven? Why is the alphabet in alphabetical order? (Maybe because of that soing...)

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#73)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 07:06:15 AM EST
    Posted by pigwiggle at January 18, 2005 09:01 AM “Yes, I'm sure that, if the election hadn't been stolen by the Repugnicants yet again” Proof? And I’m not interested in links to half-baked conspiratorial websites. I guess if you repeat something enough… You mean, like if you keep repeating that the tax giveaways (oops, I mean tax breaks) to the rich created 5.5 million jobs (when in fact the job projections are almost 2 million short, and we have rarely kept up with employing new workers since Pinhead stole the office in 2000) helped the economy enough? You mean, like if you keep repeating that Social Security is broken enough? You mean, like if you keep repeating that we didn't go to war with Iraq because we thought they had WMD enough? You mean, like if we keep repeating that torture by American soldiers is just like frat hazing enough? There's lots more... Oh, and, yeah - the election was stolen again. When the secretary of State for Ohio is CEO of the company that produces the voting machines, and guarantees that he will deliver Ohio's electoral votes to the Torture in Chief, then plays around with the election rules, then doesn't allow any independent observers to validate that there is no voter fraud taking place, then impedes the recount processes so his fraud can be covered up, and these electoral votes give the Unelected Usurper victory - then, yeah, I think the election was stolen. Again. Every discrepancy in the voting in Ohio went in Putsch's favor - a statistical improbability so extreme that it practically shouts voter fraud. Funny how Repugnicants choose to ignore little things like that. Funny how those ethics just disappear out the window when a Repugnicant is shown that their masters lie, cheat and steal...

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#74)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 07:29:24 AM EST
    “You mean, like if you keep repeating that the tax giveaways (oops, I mean tax breaks) to the rich created 5.5 million jobs” Never said it. “You mean, like if you keep repeating that we didn't go to war with Iraq because we thought they had WMD enough?” Never said it. “You mean, like if we keep repeating that torture by American soldiers is just like frat hazing enough?” Never said it. “You mean, like if you keep repeating that Social Security is broken enough?” I’ve rigorously detailed my argument with research from viable economic establishments, including the Congressional Budget Office. This is exactly what I am asking you to do concerning your claim of a stolen election. In place of that I expect more of this “Torture in Chief … Unelected Usurper … “ “There's lots more...” I’m sure you can make up all kinds of crap. Do yourself a favor and get that fake conservative out of your head. He is making you look simple. “secretary of State for Ohio is CEO” This is just speculation and conspiratorial innuendo; do you know of actual evidence that the secretary of state used the position to tamper with these voting machines? “then doesn't allow any independent observers to validate that there is no voter fraud taking place” This is flat wrong. There were international election observers that found no wrongdoing. Elections are controlled at the county level. Why would a Democratic county be incapable of holding a legitimate election and further be unable prove in court that the elections were subverted? If the voter fraud is as blatant as you claim it would be trivial.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#75)
    by glanton on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 12:59:48 PM EST
    Maybe in your shwarped world, Doctor. But "repug" fits nicely in the world of this site, given its commitment to justice.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#76)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 04:38:08 PM EST
    (:Tom:) - I note you didn't provide the link pigwiggle requested. Undoubtedly because it doesn't exist. And while you complain about Ohio, consider the Governor's race in WA. Aftedr three recounts the Demon was FINALLY 129 votes ahead. So they quit counting. Now these 129 votes came from 87,000 provisional ballots, of which 13%, or 11,300 had not been validated. Now, since provisional ballots are votes that have some type of problem with them, do you think that if the remaining 11,300 had been validated, there might, just maybe, perhaps, be a change in the 129 number? Why it might have been more, or it would have been less. And that is why the Demos quit counting. Still want to talk about election stealing? BTW here's a link. I don't have to makes stuff up.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#77)
    by soccerdad on Wed Jan 19, 2005 at 05:37:29 PM EST
    Glanton - you should know by now (I'm sure you do) that Ace has no commitment to justice, or for that matter reality. The day they stop disagreeing with us is the day we will need to look in the mirror and wonder where we're going wrong. Btw PPJ you demanding links is the height of hypocrisy, but you have been sitting on that apex for some time now.

    Re: Poll: No Mandate for Bush (none / 0) (#79)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Jan 20, 2005 at 02:02:24 PM EST
    He hasnt got to the chapter where Ann discusses it in detail - give him time.

    Poll: No Mandate for Bush | 78 comments (78 topical)