A mandate is in the eye of the beholder. Just ask Mr. 43%:
Posted on 12/14/2004 6:08:27 AM PST by Clive
President George W. Bush is hounded by lib-lefters around the world who, in their usual frantic and fanatical way, claim he somehow "split" his nation in two.
Bitter -- and irrational -- because playactor Democratic presidential contender John Kerry didn't win -- the lib-lefters insist Bush hasn't a legitimate right to be president because he won only 51% of the popular vote.
Yet, here's the truth -- Bush's popular vote was the highest number of votes ever won by an American president.
He beat out the sappy Kerry by 3.5 million votes. A hefty endorsement by any measure.
In Canada, Liberal Paul Martin won with just 38% of the popular vote, yet no one claims he "split" our nation in two.
Let's look at the numbers of the last four races to see just who can claim the most legitimacy to have been president:
In 2004, Bush picked up the aforementioned 51% of the popular vote, Kerry 48%, and Ralph Nader 1%
In 2000, the much-disputed election, Bush garnered 47.87% of the vote; Al Gore, 48.3%, Nader, 2.7% and Pat Buchanan .5%.
In 1996, Bill Clinton was re-elected with 49% of the popular vote, Robert Dole won 41%, and Ross Perot, 8%.
In 1992: Clinton won just 43%, Perot 19.9%, and George Bush Sr., 37.38%
So, if Democrats and the Lib-Left believed Clinton won a legitimate mandate to govern the U.S with just 43% in 1992, and 49% in 1996, why can't they agree Bush won just as much, or even more legitimacy in 2000 with 47.87% and in 2004 with 51% -- something Clinton could not dream of attaining?
Democrats are hardly in a position to squabble.
Perhaps they're simply bad losers who can't bear to think average -- Middle America -- is smarter than they.
Bush, is, of course, the first president of the 21st century and the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York City and the Pentagon make him the first wartime president of this century.
That he immediately took up the mandate to fight world terrorism puts him in an entirely different light to Clinton who, for seven years, repeatedly avoided giving much credence to earlier terrorism such as the devastating bomb blast in the parking plot of the World Trade City and the assault on the USS Cole.
Perhaps if Clinton had paid attention to these earlier attacks, 9/11 might have been averted.
But, Clinton, a serial adulterer, had more frivolous, if enjoyable, things on his mind.
OK, Clinton was an engaging type, but the lib-left set seem to forget he suffered the disgrace of impeachment and having to turn in his licence to practise law.
Looking back in chronological order at the last century, the first president of any note was Republican Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt, who took office in 1901 at the age of 42 on the assassination of William McKinley. A warrior politician, he gained his reputation in the Spanish-American War in 1898.
We had to wait until 1933, for another outstanding man in the White House, Democrat F. D. Roosevelt, who stirred the destitute with optimistic words during the Great Depression.
When Roosevelt died in 1945, vice-president Harry Truman took his place. Initially no one thought much of Truman, until he suddenly brought the Second World War to a quick end by dropping the atomic bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and later responded to Josef Stalin's takeover of Eastern Europe with the 'Truman Doctrine' -- no more Soviet encroachment into the western democracies, and the establishment of the Central Intelligence Agency and NATO.
We had to wait until 1981 to see a fourth great president and that was Ronald Reagan, who, together with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul, set out to destroy the colossus of Soviet Communism, and did.
Some might ask where Democrat John F. Kennedy fits into these rankings. Sadly, Kennedy, man with great promise, spent only two years in office before being assassinated.
A terrible tragedy, and we will never know what Kennedy might have accomplished.
The bottom line,though, is so far Bush has done extraordinarily well.
At the end of this century, while few of us will be around to witness it, don't be surprised if Bush, too, doesn't rank as one of the great presidents of the century.
-
He was off to a good start - tax cuts, pro-gun, willing to fight communists...
A mandate is in the eye of the beholder. Just ask Mr. 43%:
i agree.
dubya, who has a purpose, and makes his stands known, will rise into the upper tier of presidents.
clinton will eventually sink to the bottom as time passes on and newer generations of historians without ties to them evaluate him fairly.
dubya will rank above the elder bush.
Perhaps if Clinton had paid attention to these earlier attacks, 9/11 might have been averted.
The more think about it, Bush is more like Teddy Roosevelt.
decided = decidedly
And don't be surprised if he doesn't. He's done some great things; but, he's also propped up economic policies that are destroying the economy from the ground up. If he doesn't get his head out of his behind, that will define him. Saving a guy from an enemy bullet while impaling him with your own sword don't make you a hero.
He's on track, but a lot can happen in the next 4 years. Let's not put the cart before the horse.
The great Presidents are the ones who defy the conventional wisdom at the time. They are willing to take some risks your average politician would never dream of. In other words, everything Bill Clinton wasn't.
By "George" I think he's got it!
(That is a funny saying, I wonder where it comes from, anyone know?)
Reagan could go right next to Abe..
At the end of this century, while few of us will be around to witness it, don't be surprised if Bush, too, doesn't rank as one of the great presidents of the century.
It is very possible. If President succeeds in any or all of major tax reform, reform of Social Security, or in cutting the budget back, then along with his foreign policy successes, a high rating among our Presidents is a distinct possibility.
And even more than President Reagan, he has the tools he needs in a Republican House and Senate, and the strong popular rejection of the leftist Senator Kerry. Now it is time for vision and hard work.
Let us hope that it might be so.
You bet he could!!! Ron was the man!!!
I miss him, cried at his funeral, makes me hate liberals more.
Flights of idle speculation masking a mean-minded taunt at Liberal election losers is a total waste of time and reveals a unbecoming mean streak that many of us want nothing to do with.
I would agree with you on your point. However, GWB is getting off to a rocky start. I am still dumbfounded as to his stance on immigration.
If we get attacked again and immigration flaws are cited, you can kiss the great legacy goodbye. The story will be that we were hit worse than pearl harbor on 9/11/01 and still did not have the gumption to do what was necessary to protect ourselves.
As far as domestic issues are concerned, tax reform and social security reform are two huge issues that he must tackel, not to mention the waste fraud and abuse in the federal system.
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.