Posted on 11/04/2004 5:55:35 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
It has been 60 years since Republicans were this strong in Washington. While ideological conservatives do not make up a majority of the House or the Senate, they are a strong majority of the reasonably solid Republican majorities that do exist. President Bush should be able to get much of his program through, and Republicans will then be held accountable for it in 2006 and 2008. Previous legislative disappointments could be attributed to Democratic obstruction. There will still be Democratic opposition, of course, but the excuse will be less plausible.
But the suggestion is being made that for Bush to go full speed ahead with a Republican agenda would be somehow untoward. In the hours after it became clear that Bush was going to win reelection, some liberals complained that Bush was going to conduct himself as though he had won a landslide, not a majority of a few points. After all, he had governed confidently after winning with a minority of the vote last time.
After the 2000 election, I myself briefly took the view that Bush should respond to the closeness of the result, and the post-election wrangling in Florida, by leading a national-unity government. He should give Democrats important Cabinet positions, scale back his tax cuts, etc. A colleague changed my mind. Her argument was, essentially, that I was wrongly assuming that the country had voted for half a Republican government. Half the country had voted for a Republican government: a different thing. For Bush to move left would make some people happier, or at least less unhappy, about his presidency (although it could also project a lack of confidence in his own legitimacy in the office). But it would make many other voters a lot less happy. Why not give the country a taste of Republican governance, and see if they liked it enough to give Bush a bigger vote next time?
Accountability requires choice, and choice implies the exclusion of some possibilities. It can therefore be "polarizing." Perhaps Bush could have governed in a way that left the country less polarized — although that is not as clear to me as it seems to be to others. But while gratuitous offense and incivility are always to be avoided, political harmony is not an important goal in its own right. It is not more important than setting pro-growth policies, defending unborn human life, or providing for the common defense. Conservatives who thought Bush should try to accomplish those goals were not wrong to pursue them even at the risk of inspiring some bitterness.
Even, yes, in a time of war. In thinking of models for successful wars, we probably think too much of World War II. Other wars have witnessed a lot more contentious debate about tactics, strategy, and war aims. Would Bush really have bought support for his strategy on terrorism by surrendering on taxes or judges? He surely believed that changing his economic policy would have resulted in a weaker economy, which would not have helped his ability to fight the war, even politically. If liberals maintain that they would have supported Bush more heavily on the war if he had met them halfway on these issues, they are saying more about their own pettiness than his.
When Republicans say that the American people have decisively spoken in favor of the president and his policies, and when Democrats say that it wasn't as decisive as all that, they are both, of course, making moves in the mandate wars. Presumably intelligent Democratic politicians will know full well, when bills come before them, whether they are really running big risks in saying no to the president — mandate or no mandate. I'm not sure this "mandate" business means much: Look at what Clinton's second-term mandate got him. (Okay, maybe hold that thought.) Or Reagan's. Or Nixon's.
The point can be put in a way that makes it sound menacing, or gloating, but it is also plain fact: The president doesn't need a "mandate" if he has Congress, and this one does. Govern away.
Saw Donald Trump on Fox and Friends this morning. Asked what you do when you have defeated your opponent, do you make nice, extend an olive branch...etc... He said CRUSH THEM. ~I Agree~ .. The Senate must seize on this opporunity, and NOT squander another session trying to be liked by the likes of Pelosi, Kennedy, etc. Everytime a hand was extended, the bit and spit. So.. GOVERN ON PUBBIES!
What I hear coming from the dems is, to my mind, hilarious. They are saying, essentially, you won so you had better reach out to us and give us some power or we will continue to pout and obstruct. They sound like 7 year olds.
They know we don't have to reach out, that they need to compromise or be dismissed.
As I recall, Bush has a much more decisive victory that Clinton EVER had.
I SURE DON'T REMEMBER ALL OF THIS "DIVIDED NATION" & "UNITY" LOAD OF C R A P WHEN HE WAS ELECTED. Does anyone?
Every time I hear the drivel about we have to be more accomodating to them, I think to myself "come toward the light."
No. In 2000 when Bush won (and yes, he did win), the media and RATS went on and on that Bush didn't have a mandate and needed to reach out to them. In 2004, he does have a mandate and their saying the same exact thing.
Now they appeal to the goodness of George W. Bush - a goodness and compassion that is foreign to them.
It is somewhat galling after their non-stop insults and attacks on him and his agenda.
Good Article ~ Thanks!
We have to give Specter the hook, quick.
Be polite and smile, but get the agenda into motion. Change cloture rules in the Senate and get conservative judges on the bench.
If deep inroads in the courts are made early, the mass of the electorate will forget all about it in four years. Only the crazoids will rave about the long-term consequences. Weaning the nation from the myriad of social entitlements is a long-term project that will take time and deliberation.
It will also be necessary to secure judicial rulings that certain relics of leftist machinery in government are unconstitutional before going forward with dismantling. We'll want full participation from all branches before implementation of hot-button changes.
The war on terror is critical. But some issues, like the appointment of decent judges who follow the constitution, are even more important. In fact, these two things go together, because Bush has a duty to defend our families and our country just as he has a duty to defend our unborn children.
The Democrats have torn up our traditional society and tried to destroy it. Bush's job must be to repair it. There can be no compromise on issues of right and wrong, good and evil, life and death.
Yes, they need to get out of the way of reform. That is the clear message of this election. Their loyal opposition and input into the construction of legislation is welcome. But obstruction by witholding cloture is like taking the ball and going home when one is losing.
You can bet, though that they'll save their hot-air for Supreme Court nominees. I'm hoping Bush will pick really well respected strict constructivists, and fight like hell if they try to Bork them.
If they had won there would have been no talks of not having a mandate, no talks of "healing divisions"
As expected its just the usual set of tricks they pull when they lose. Hopefully the republicans won't fall for it this time.
Precisely. They either work with this Administration or they spend 4 years on an ash heap.
Excellent! May it be so.
Political unity, indeed, is not an important goal in its own right. In fact, I view our country as UNITED. Yes, we have strong disagreements between the right and the left. But millions of us got out to the polls and voted. We woke up the next day and, for the most part, accepted the results. America rolls on, the greatest nation on earth.
Political disagreement is not the same thing as national division.
No. Clinton was the "end of gridlock." When they have power, we're obstructionists; when we have power, we're a divided nation and owe it to them for the sake of "unity" to do things their way anyway.
There is a good portion of Kerry's voters who are beyond hope, totally obsessed with their hatred of Bush, but there are many people who voted for Kerry who did so because they were swayed by the Democrats' rhetoric or unhappy with the situation in Iraq, but who earlier admired Bush's handling of the situation after 9/11. By standing true to what he believes in but in a non-arrogant way, Bush can win some of those people over.
I've never seen Bush as arrogant.
Remember after his first election, when the opposition's collective jaw dropped because Bush had the "nerve" to put into action the things he had campaigned on?
To them that was arrogant.
You can't please people like that, nor should you have to.
They lost.
We won.
And the president has been given a green light to move the conservative agenda forward.
He'll do it as he has all along, govern in a compassionate-conservative way that keeps America's interests front and center.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.