Are Democrats Overstepping Their Bounds?

[Rightlane]

April 16, 2007

The Democrats' overstepping of their electoral mandate began on election night, when they misinterpreted the election as a broad affirmation of liberalism instead of a protest against the lack of progress in Iraq. The American people did not suddenly, last November, decide their taxes had become too low, government spending needed a huge boost, that they wanted to pay for the destruction of human life for scientific research or that homosexuals have a right to marriage.

Nor did they sign up for Nancy Pelosi's lose-at-all-costs, cut-and-run agenda on Iraq. The American people, both Republicans and Democrats, were and still are frustrated about the war. But while Democrats are angry the war exists at all, most Americans are angry only that we haven't won it yet, or at least that media reports don't seem to suggest we're in the process of winning. Most Americans want us to win in Iraq; most Democrats want us to quit.

There are two main reasons Democrats don't understand this.

First of all, leading Democrats have a much easier time living a life of ideological isolation than Republicans do. When you're a liberal, you hang out with other liberals, you probably live in a city with other liberals and, when you turn on the television, you watch more liberals.

The second reason Democrats have overstepped their mandate is that they don't have an explicable agenda.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0407/3548.html

=== === ===

Somehow Dems think an evenly split Senate and a thin majority in the House make for a mandate.Â*Â*And they forget who is in the White House having been elected twice now by the American people. (I wonder if Pelosi is delusional.Â*Â*She seems to think she was elected President last November.)

[Achilles]

"Never Surrender, Never retreat. Wait a minute, you did surrender your speaker chair and I watched your retreat from Congress. Why would anyone ever again listen to this man? This is the guy is a greasy smear on our government; this guy makes other politicians look like saints. To have this guy give political advice is like listening to a child molester give advice on sex. I just want to know how long till his court case?"

I found this response to that poisonous articule quite entertaining......

....and what, Rightlane, are you trying to accomplish by posting this?? This is nothing but republican poison.

[piratemonkey]

Nor did they sign up for Nancy Pelosi's lose-at-all-costs, cut-and-run agenda on Iraq.

Nobody's buying this childish rhetoric any more.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll of 1,141 adults, conducted April 12-15, found that 58 percent trusted the Democrats in Congress to do a better job handling the situation in Iraq, compared with 33 percent who trusted Bush.

That's a 25% margin, there, Rightlane.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/16/AR2007041601099.html?hpid=topnews

[speedracer]

April 16, 2007

The Democrats' overstepping of their electoral mandate began on election night, when they misinterpreted the election as a broad affirmation of liberalism instead of a protest against the lack of progress in Iraq.
As opposed to when Bush won with a 3% spread over Kerry and called it a mandate? Please. What tripe. If you want to be righteous, there's far better targets than the interpretation of the voters' whuppin the holy heck out of the Republicans.


The American people did not suddenly, last November, decide their taxes had become too low
Perhaps the runaway debt has them concerned?

government spending needed a huge boost
That's a joke, right? You been overseas for the last 6 years?

that they wanted to pay for the destruction of human life for scientific research or that homosexuals have a right to marriage.
SCAREFEARSCAREFEARTHEY'RECOMINGFORYOUANDTHEY'REGOI NGTOGAYMARRYYOUR FETUSWHILEYOUAREATCHURCH!!!!111!!!

Nor did they sign up for Nancy Pelosi's lose-at-all-costs, cut-and-run agenda on Iraq. The American people, both Republicans and Democrats, were and still are frustrated about the war. But while Democrats are angry the war exists at all, most Americans are angry only that we haven't won it yet, or at least that media reports don't seem to suggest we're in the process of winning. Most Americans want us to win in Iraq; most Democrats want us to quit.
That's a misleading question. I want to win. I'm not willing to let more American soldiers die for it. I'm not willing to spend more money on it.

The rest of that is even more awesome (if that's possible). If you want a real debate on real positions, let me know. Chess already has the monopoly on right wing nuttiness.

[Professor]

Somehow Dems think an evenly split Senate and a thin majority in the House make for a mandate.Â*Â*

So when there was a slim majority in Senate, House how was that a mandate?

It seems like Republicans are getting a taste of their own medicine and not liking it.

[wonder cow]

The Democrats' overstepping of their electoral mandate began on election night, when they misinterpreted the election as a broad affirmation of liberalism instead of a protest against the lack of progress in Iraq.

Did Bush misinterpret his 49% victory in 2000 to mean 'Do whatever the f*ck you want"? Because that's pretty much what he has done ever since.

[Labrocca]

As a Republican I don't agree with RightLanes assessment. I think the Dems should run their own agenda exactly how they want. I have no complaints about what they are doing...why you might ask..well because they are only ensuring that the 2008 Presidential election will go to the GOP. I can stand the nonsense for 18 months. I will do so rather humbly and quietly.

The Dems have a right to create their own mandate...they won fair and square as I see it.

[speedracer]

well because they are only ensuring that the 2008 Presidential election will go to the GOP. I can stand the nonsense for 18 months. I will do so rather humbly and quietly.
I wouldn't hold my breath. I'm no Democrat fan, but there would need to be some serious upheaval goin on for any of the GOP'ers to have a chance.

But there's a long way between here and there, I suppose.

[Labrocca]

Oh...and you really think Obama or Hillary are gonna win this election? No way. Obama has no experience and people just hate Hillary. GOP has some very CREDITABLE front-runners that are well liked and have excellent experience in government. Sorry to get off topic but I just wanted to respond.

18 months isn't a long time from my perspective.

[Drocket]

GOP has some very CREDITABLE front-runners that are well liked and have excellent experience in government.

I certainly hope you're joking. Most polls show that every last one of the GOP's candidates lose to Edwards, the third-place candidate on the Democratic side. It's true that a lot can change in 18 months - but I strongly suspect that one of those changes is that not a single one of the Republican 'front runners' is going to even come close to actually being nominated.

[speedracer]

That number will close when there are only two candidates left standing.

Now, whether there will only be two is a different question....