Posted on 11/06/2004 8:47:22 PM PST by neverdem
GUEST OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Washington — While President Bush would like to think that the voters gave him a mandate last Tuesday to push his "compassionate conservative" agenda through Congress, the wish may well be father to the thought. The truth of the matter is that barring such virtual clean sweeps as Richard Nixon's re-election in 1972 and Ronald Reagan's in 1984, political mandates are usually in the eye of the beholder. And there is no certainty that the Republican Party will remain unified when the choice is not between Mr. Bush and a Democrat, but between accepting or rejecting his policies and proposals.
Yes, the president did better than many expected and, yes, he picked up 51 percent of the popular vote, winning by about 3.5 million votes and carrying 31 states. That was a good and unchallengeable victory, made more so by the narrowness of his margin in 2000. But still, his real margin of victory was not much greater than it was in 2000; then, needing 270 electoral votes, he received 271; this time he received 286, not exactly an overwhelming victory.
The president and his people are deluding themselves if they think his victory signified general approval of his record, even within the Republican Party. It was fear of Senator John Kerry's liberal record that brought many critical Republicans back into the Bush camp on Election Day even though they were decidedly unhappy with his record of deficit spending, his increases in the size and scope of the federal government, his lax immigration policies and his handling of postwar Iraq.
In reality, the president can thank Republican gains in the Senate and House for giving credibility to his claims of a mandate. The defeat of the Senate minority leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, was, next to Mr. Bush's own win, the Republicans' most significant victory. For all his soft-spoken ways and claims of wanting to work with Mr. Bush, Senator Daschle was a consistent, effective and highly partisan obstructionist who blocked not only legislation but also presidential appointments, primarily those of conservative federal judges.
With Mr. Daschle gone and with the addition of four Republican senators giving the party a 10-vote margin in the Senate, Mr. Bush will probably no longer have to contend with Democratic filibusters preventing the Senate from voting on his judicial appointees.
This is especially significant because during the next four years many expect three or perhaps four Supreme Court vacancies. It is a stretch, however, to think that the Senate will view the election results as a mandate for Mr. Bush to appoint whomever he wants to the courts. For one thing, the new Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee will be the liberal and unpredictable Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. And while some may think that Senator Daschle's loss will serve as a warning to Democrats hoping to defy the president, it seems clear that he lost not because of his record of opposition but because he lost touch with his constituents.
Finally, the increased Republican margin in the Senate doesn't automatically assure the president of easy approval for his legislative proposals. He still must contend with half a dozen senators from the party's liberal wing on social and tax issues, and with several small-government conservatives on others. Even in the House, where the Republican margin is greater and the discipline stronger, the president cannot expect a rubber stamp.
Conservatives like Representative Mike Pence of Indiana and his 85 colleagues on the House Study Committee are already girding to protest any spending measures and bills that would increase the size and scope of government. If they get their way, the president's major successes may amount to little more than getting a permanent extension on his tax cuts and making progress toward modernizing Social Security.
This is a long way from an across-the-board mandate. The fact is, such a mandate will come about only if and when the president can figure out how effectively to wield his clout against recalcitrant fellow Republicans or, failing that, prevail on the public to help put the heat on those who otherwise are prepared to buck him on the issues.
Lyn Nofziger was an aide to President Ronald Reagan.
Savage, this is not a Times guy. It's Nofziger. Sheesh.
He's always had this tendency to try to wax poetic.
Have you read his inane Blog site?
Nofziger only said wake up and get real
No what you guys are saying is "he might as well surrender, their is no reason to fight for what we believe in because it is all hopeless."
Same old Grim Freepers club. It's all over, no reason to fight for what we believe in. I have to wonder why you guys even bother coming here? I mean to listen to you guys it's all hopless nothing can be done. The Dims might as well as won since everything is hopless.
If they get their way, the president's major successes may amount to little more than getting a permanent extension on his tax cuts and making progress toward modernizing Social Security
Which is 2000% MORE then anything we got under Clinton.
No. Do I hafto?
With comment# 41, I thought you were catching my drift. After comment# 43, I see that I was wrong. I'm not saying it's hopeless, implying hopeless pessimism. But unwarranted optimism can cause unnecessary pessimism when a hope is not realized. I just want folks to keep an even keel. We're in a long, hard slog.
We're in a long, hard slog.
Yep. No one ever said it would be easy but I want you to think about this.
What great achievenments in Science, Engineering, Art, Governance etc etc was ever achieved by people who started out saying
"Oh man there are all these problems. We have to overcome this and that. These people and those people will be opposing us. Then there are these problems. Whine, cry bitch......
Sorry but I think too many Freepers use their excessive negativity to rationalize inaction. I would much rather fight and fail then spend all my time complaining about how hard the fight is.
Somebody once told 'em the World is gonna roll 'em,
They ain't the sharpest tools in the shed.
They were lookin' kinda dumb,
With their fingers and their thumbs,
In the shape of L's on their foreheads.
PACK 'O LOSERS tm.
You are correct in your assessment of the NYT, but the author is not one to be so lightly dismissed. He was fighting the battles with us, effectively, for a long, long time.
Thanks, Nick! I thought I was the only one who noticed.
You talk about THERMO NUCLEAR REPUBLICAN MOBILIZATION, Demos have not seen nothing yet!.
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.