May You Live in Interesting Times...

[Sunstone]

I will first remind you, that 54% is not a mandate.

I think 54% is a mandate.

 

[YmirGF]

I think 54% is a mandate.

It is more than enough, that much is for sure.

 

[Ciscokid]

Your "team" had the ball for eight years and look where the country is. In the crapper. Just as matter of REASON, you might start to question whether your team really is what is best for the country. Unless... in your view... what is best for the country has nothing to do with people being able to feed and house their families.

The Republican party is a major disappointment in my mind. The only thing they're conservative on are social issues. The amount of money spent by the last administration is criminal.

Unfortunately I don't have confidence in a Democratic administration either. Look at the stimulus plan that Obama has on the table and tell me some of the items in there aren't BS.

We haven't had a fiscally responsible government for so long that I don't know if people know what that is anymore.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

The Republican party is a major disappointment in my mind. The only thing they're conservative on are social issues. The amount of money spent by the last administration is criminal.

Unfortunately I don't have confidence in a Democratic administration either. Look at the stimulus plan that Obama has on the table and tell me some of the items in there aren't BS.

We haven't had a fiscally responsible government for so long that I don't know if people know what that is anymore.

Spectacular post!

 

[Yerda]

We haven't had a fiscally responsible government for so long that I don't know if people know what that is anymore.

Out of interest, who was the last fiscally responsible administration?

What does governing finances responsibly involve, Ciscokid?

 

[Ciscokid]

Out of interest, who was the last fiscally responsible administration?

What does governing finances responsibly involve, Ciscokid?

Reagans administration did pretty good I think.

Governing finance responsibly would be to adhere to the same principles [from a Federal level] that we ask our citizens to adhere to. Don't spend money you don't have etc.

 

[Wandered Off]

Reagans administration did pretty good I think.

I was right there with you until you mentioned Reagan. Your prior post nailed it dead on, but it was under Reagan that our national debt really started to get out of control, IMO. We've been throwing future Americans under the bus ever since. He was right about the dangers of "tax and spend," but is it any more moral than "borrow and spend?" This stimulus plan takes that to a whole new level. I'm glad I'll be dead when our grandchildren get the bill.

 

[Yerda]

Reagans administration did pretty good I think.

I see. I don't know much about Reagan's economic policies to be able to comment. I hear they were similar to Thatcher's Conservative Party's approach - laissez-faire monetarism under the influence of Friedman and Hayek. That accurate?

Governing finance responsibly would be to adhere to the same principles [from a Federal level] that we ask our citizens to adhere to. Don't spend money you don't have etc.

Sounds reasonable.

 

[Ciscokid]

I was right there with you until you mentioned Reagan. Your prior post nailed it dead on, but it was under Reagan that our national debt really started to get out of control, IMO. We've been throwing future Americans under the bus ever since. He was right about the dangers of "tax and spend," but is it any more moral than "borrow and spend?" This stimulus plan takes that to a whole new level. I'm glad I'll be dead when our grandchildren get the bill.

Reagan probably wasn't the best choice, I was a kid when he was president. He did spend WAY too much on the military. I guess I was focusing on how much the government was blowing while he was in office. If you ignore the military part, he did pretty good. I think it's key that people wanted to see strength when Reagan was in office...Carter didn't spend much at all on the military prior.

 

[Frostbyte]

Reagan probably wasn't the best choice, I was a kid when he was president. He did spend WAY too much on the military. I guess I was focusing on how much the government was blowing while he was in office. If you ignore the military part, he did pretty good. I think it's key that people wanted to see strength when Reagan was in office...Carter didn't spend much at all on the military prior.

Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which helped win the Cold War, total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 from 23.5% of GDP in 1983. That's a real reduction of 10% in the size of government

The Wall Street Journal

I think 54% is a mandate.

Actually Obama got 53% of the vote, my mistake.

If by those standards, the following Republicans have all been elected by mandate, at least once, in the last century;

H.W. Bush
Reagan (in 84 got 58.8% and in 80 he beat Carter with a 9.7% margin of victory. Greater than Obama's 7.2% over McCain)
Nixon
Eisenhower
Hoover in 28
Coolidge (54.0% - 28.8%) in 24
Harding in 20
Theodore Roosevelt in 1904


The last democratic candidate with a "mandate" was Johnson. And FDR got it all four times.

Just throwing that out there for consideration.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

If by those standards, the following Republicans have all been elected by mandate, at least once, in the last century;

H.W. Bush
Reagan (in 84 got 58.8% and in 80 he beat Carter with a 9.7% margin of victory. Greater than Obama's 7.2% over McCain)
Nixon
Eisenhower
Hoover in 28
Coolidge (54.0% - 28.8%) in 24
Harding in 20
Theodore Roosevelt in 1904


The last democratic candidate with a "mandate" was Johnson. And FDR got it all four times.

Just throwing that out there for consideration.

Does it really matter? I mean, in the long run, don't we really expect them to govern as they ran (more or less)?

 

[Frostbyte]

Does it really matter? I mean, in the long run, don't we really expect them to govern as they ran (more or less)?

Not really. But to imply that Obama was demanded by Americans, and everyone opposed to anything he does is an "extremist" is wrong. If this is considered a mandate, then just about every republican in the last 100 years was elected by a mandate(at least once). W and maybe one other being exceptions. So if the left wing has all the answers, why do people continue to "mandate" republican leaders?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

... so if the left wing has all the answers, why do people continue to "mandate" republican leaders?

You're making this too easy, Frosty.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and venture a guess that it will be a while before the people "mandate" a republican leader again. That is, assuming that the train wreck can even hold itself together, and not implode in the foreseeable future.

Back to the point I was making - the term "mandate" is immaterial in the big picture. When either party controls the Congress and the White House, they will do pretty much as they please.

 

[Frostbyte]

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and venture a guess that it will be a while before the people "mandate" a republican leader again.

We'll see. The democrats better get their act together if they want to hold their power. If the economy isn't fixed by the 2010 elections it's almost a guarantee that the republicans will take back the senate.

 

[Frostbyte]

And so far, the market hasn't responded very well to Barack Obama's policies has it? There should've been at least a small vote of confidence, (that being a small growth of the market) in Jan or Feb, but it continued to tank. The Wall Street Journal is denouncing obamanomics. Moderate and conservative democrats are beginning to turn away from Obama, and it doesn't seem they're too thrilled with Pelosi or Reid either. Moderates and Left leaning writers in the New York Obama Times have admitted they may have falsly placed trust in Obama. Some beginning to regret voting for him.

According to Rasmussen, 37% strongly approve of Obama and 31% strongly disapprove. +6 being his lowest approval rating to date.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

We'll see. The democrats better get their act together if they want to hold their power. If the economy isn't fixed by the 2010 elections it's almost a guarantee that the republicans will take back the senate.

If you listen to Faux News, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity, I can understand why you have such high hopes for the future of your party.

On the other hand ...

 

[Sunstone]

According to Rasmussen...

Also known as "The Republican Polling Company".

 

[lilithu]

Actually Obama got 53% of the vote, my mistake.

If by those standards, the following Republicans have all been elected by mandate, at least once, in the last century;

H.W. Bush
Reagan (in 84 got 58.8% and in 80 he beat Carter with a 9.7% margin of victory. Greater than Obama's 7.2% over McCain)
Nixon
Eisenhower
Hoover in 28
Coolidge (54.0% - 28.8%) in 24
Harding in 20
Theodore Roosevelt in 1904


The last democratic candidate with a "mandate" was Johnson. And FDR got it all four times.

Just throwing that out there for consideration.

What consideration would that be? This line of reasoning is irrelevant.
1. "Mandate" doesn't seem to correlate with actually being a good president.
2. If the GOP were still the party of Teddy "Trust-Buster" Roosevelt, I would be a Republican.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

2. If the GOP were still the party of Teddy "Trust-Buster" Roosevelt, I would be a Republican.

I would add that if they could get past their invasion into the social aspects of American life, and (as Lilithu stated) return to the days of fiscal conservativism, I would register as one as well.

 

[Frostbyte]

If you listen to Faux News, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity, I can understand why you have such high hopes for the future of your party.

Once again, I do not listen to Limbaugh, although he has the a 98% accuracy rating. Fox News has a bigger audience than CNBC And MSNBC. And has had more growth. The Fox News audience in this year has grown by 33%, MSNBC by 25% and CNBC by a big fat 0%. Tell me why Bill O'Reilly has had the number one cable news show for 8 YEARS if Fox is so obviously inferior.

And this is basically the same thing that happened with the 1980 election, and the huge GOP take over. People thought it was the end of the democrat party, and yet here we are. Moderates and moderate or conservative democrats are pulling away from Obama. Ibelive the number of dems starting to resist him is at 49 already in congress. And thats going to cost him in the senate.

Also known as "The Republican Polling Company".

Because anything that disagrees with the left wing is obviously controlled by the Republicans. Ridiculous.

What consideration would that be? This line of reasoning is irrelevant.
1. "Mandate" doesn't seem to correlate with actually being a good president.
2. If the GOP were still the party of Teddy "Trust-Buster" Roosevelt, I would be a Republican.

That wasn't the argument. Obama got a "mandate" and he's doing fantastic so far [/sarcasm]. The point was that if 53% is a mandate, the majority of republicans in the last 100 years have gotten a mandate, And it seems republicans have been "mandated" more than the dems.

I would add that if they could get past their invasion into the social aspects of American life, and (as Lilithu stated) return to the days of fiscal conservativism, I would register as one as well.

I will grant you that in the last several years (pre-06) the party moved away from it's values, particularly economically. It's by no means all of them, but there is a disturbing number (40% of earmarks in porkulus going to the GOP) that have disconnected with conservatism. If they choose to step up as the party of fiscal responsability, and denounce ear marks, and mean it, they will have an easy path laid out for them in 2010 and 12, bet on it.

And this liberal administration is doing to conservatives exactly what the Bush years did to the left, it's energizing them. It's visible already, and it appears to be proceeding at a faster rate than the previous. If it isn't enough to push the GOP into the Oval Office in 4 years, it is almost a certainty that it wil be in 8, although I have a feeling it will be the former. As soon as the Republican party stands up for fiscal conservatism and gets a decent candidate (McCain was not a conservative, he was the centrist that so many seemed to think would bring a GOP victory...ha) like Romney or Jindal, they will be very tough to beat.