This isn't like a track race. The President has to pursue a politcal and legislative agenda for four more years, and to accomplish much, he needs at least some support from the opposition party. Sure he won, and sure that means he can try to push whatever agenda he thinks is appropriate. However, a mandate allows you to push some things you might not normally be able to accomplish, because such an overwhelming amount of the public is behind you that your opposition party doesn't dare oppose you very hard. That's simply not the case in the aftermath of this election. Did Pres Bush do well? Did the GOP do well. Of course. But did they do so well that opposition to their policies by Democrats in Congress is going to draw the ire of the American people in general? No.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

"No you do what those who put you in power asked you to do and you take the others sides view in your decision but in the end you do what you think is right. "

I think this is what makes the difference between a great leader and mediocre (at best) leader.

Those that can see the opposing view and accomodate there views into a meaningful agenda are those who are successful and great leaders. Those that simply want to reflect the views of those that elect them become leaders forgotten.

As for my "frag" example... Hmmm... Let me try to make a more direct route.

You have 48% of the voting population that did not see the presidents position as solid. And, he leads as if they don't exist... What do you think his effect on his ability to win in future? (OK, I know he can't run again... but, work with me here...) Better yet, what kind of an effect do you think it could have on his parties ability to continue it's success. Look... the Republican have an excellent opportunity to maintain control of the government... but, that can only be a reality if they understand that you can not deny the existence of the 48% that did not vote for there agenda. What is hard to understand about that?

I think what I'm trying to say is that tolerance is a crucial element of being a great leader. For you that doesn't seem to be a quality worth evaluating.

Now. when you talk about a big leap... here is a big leap... you to think that I'm wallowing in unfairness when you see my willingness to defend the balance of government... which is not exclusively defined in pro-Kerry or anti-Bush sentiment. And, yes... I give you points because you don't talk crap... because crap is too far above your level.

FWIW Joe Moya

Please give me what are the makings of a true mandate. Then give the last president who had a mandate.



Now your evaluation of me is off, a lot. Not only is crap above me but so is runny, green elephant diarrhea.

I am very tolerant but I guess it all depends on your definition of tolerance. So let me try to be tolerance.



What exactly would Bush have to do to be tolerant and not a biggo stink meany.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

What would constitute a true mandate? Well, that's tough... but what I will say is this. The makings of a true madate is not what we saw in this election... perhaps the Dukakis/Bush win could be a good recent example of a mandate of sorts... now that was an ass wooping in the electoral college (although the popular vote was 46% to 52% indicated a closer race). The problem with quantifing difference in voter mandates between elections has to do with the fact that in some instances there were third parties. This messes up the calculations. But, from a 2 candidate basis only... I have to say the Bush/Dukakis is about as close as I can come up with... maybe a political science scholar could come up with a bigger difference.

As for the concept of tolerance... If I had to define what President was the best example of tolerance... that would be Reagan. A true master of being assertive but understanding of the bigger picture. This is what made him so popular. What made Clinton so popular (whether we like it or not - he had very high popularity ratings) was the best economy in decades. I find the popularity that Reagan to be much more meaniful.

Ya' might note I pick a Republican as having the best recent definition of tolerance... so...perhaps your evaluation of me may be off as well.

What could Bush do to be a better leader... well, the Reagan model would be a good one to start with... unfortunately, I don't believe he has the capacity or willingness.

As for the comment about crap... hey... I didn't bring it up... you did. But since we are comparing crap levels... I see your 20 lbs of runny, green elephant diarrhea and raise ya' 40 lbs. - I like living on the edge.

FWIW Joe Moya

I am not sure I follow this Joe. It looks like the final count in Bush/Kerry will be more like 52-47, once all the votes are counted. This is not far from the 52-46 you point to in the Bush/Dukakis race. So how can this be a mandate?

Actually, I don't think the 1988 race was much of a mandate, since Bush didn't run on much other than the flag. That was not the case in 2004.

52-46% ... I don't know about those numbers... but I seriously doubt the final count will show a 2% vote for Nader.

If anything the final count typically goes up in favor of the Democrats simply because there are more Democrats than Republicans.

If I was a betting man... I would bet the final count will go 49-51 when it's done... at worse... 48-51 with a 1% to ALL third party candidates.

How does this differ than the Dukasis/Bush election... well, for starters that was also a electoral vote ass kicking. And, when you look county by countr differences, the vote differences were much more dramatic that this election. When you add to the fact that this years election had a record number of voters... the real numbers on both sides of the equation are much more dramatic.

When you look at this mandate stuff... it really is mute... Bush was Selected in the last election and still acted as if he was elected by some mystical popularity majority. So, if it's treated as a mandate... so be it. But, mandates with 48-49% percent of the vote still doesn't make it a mandate that will define support in terms that could be equated to those held by Reagan - perhaps one of the greatest leaders of our time.

FWIW Joe Moya

I have to agree with Reagan. He was a real vote getter and a real leader.

I am saying the final count will be right around 52-47. The late vote tends Republican since the absantee vote and the military vote both historically tend that way. This year may be an exception. We will see.

I won't address the Selected president stuff. He won fair and square. The media proved that in the aftermath of the election.

Total bullshit Tibbs.

You obviously have forgotten how republicans behaved after Clinton won.

You also obviously don't frequent any right wing sites to this day, or you would witness similar hatred from the right that you claim to despise so much. It's obvious you really don't mind hatred that comes from the right.

You can witness freeper hate towards all democrats this very day over at places like free republic.

Dude what are you talking about?

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.