"Elections Have Consequences"

So, some numbers to frame the discussion (yes, I realize Republicans have a problem with Arithmetic):

2004 Election Results:

Popular Vote Percent Electoral Vote Percent

Bush 62,040,610 50.73% 286 53.2%

Kerry 59,028,039 48.27% 251 46.7%


2012 Election Results:

Popular Vote Percent Electoral Vote Percent

Obama 62,611,250 50.6% 332 61.7%

Romney 59,134,475 47.8% 206 38.3%


Now, let’s see here: In 2004, G. Bush crowed on the day after election, “Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.”

Many people regarded President Bush as, um, a simple guy, and his logic there didn’t betray that characterization at all. It really is that simple. He won an election, and he intended to execute the agenda he campaigned on.

Now, as we can see from the above, the electoral scoreboard in 2004 was*286-251, a 35-point margin of victory. In 2012, President Obama won by a 126-point margin,*332-206. The popular vote difference was also greater for Obama-Romney than it was for Bush-Kerry, for that matter.

35-point electoral college win? Republicans proclaim that’s a Mandate! But Obama’s 106-point win? No way!

It seems the Republicans are striving to bend history by acting like the election never happened.

Over the years, Republicans have shouted that "Elections have consequences."

--In 2000 (when George W. Bush barely squeaked by in Florida) . . .

--In 2004 (when Karl Rove orchestrated a series of gay marriage ballot issues in
key battleground states to propel conservative evangelicals to swarm to the polls
in greater numbers), and . . .

--In 2010 (when the Tea Party crowd flexed its muscle and promoted a "do nothing"
attitude in the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives).

Now it’s time for Mitch, John, Eric, and the rest of what passes for “leadership” in the republican party to get with the program and realize that, um, we had an election...and “elections have consequences!”

In other words (to sum up the election, courtesy of Frank Patten):

The election is over,
The talking is done.
Your party lost,
My party won.

So let us be friends,
Let arguments pass.
I’ll hug your elephant,
You kiss my a$$.

:devil:

Len,

One would hope.

But yesterday, another reminder of the Rep mindset.

The Senate was voting to ratify a treaty approved by some 155 counties regarding basic rights for the physically disabled. The treaty was modelled after the USA Americans for Disability Act. Treaties need 67 votes (2/3rds majority) to pass. Bob Dole was present in the Senate chambers, in a wheelchair, supporting the treaty. John McCain, amongst other senior Rep also supported passage.

The vote failed (by 6 I believe). Opposition was led by Tea Party Rep Mike Lee / Utah who, along with several other enlightened Reps, voted against the treaty. One purported reason was that it would endanger ones right to home school kids. Others who opposed had equally obtuse reasons including compromising the sovereign authority of the States.

The passage would impose no obligations on the USA and was merely symbolic.

So we can now add the physically disabled as another group that certain far right / extreme Reps don't like.

UHG!!!!!!!!!!!

GG

Gordon- This treaty reminds me a lot of a something that went on in our neighborhood years ago. Do to a complicated mess, I pay dues to a particular homeowners association, have the same rights and privileges as a member of that association, but I belong to a different HOA. When the properties where I live were sold to be built upon, they created a different association, which had different covenants, to cover our unique geographical characteristics, in relation to the original community. I live on a ridgetop, along with another 7 houses, whereas the rest of the community is all below the ridge. They created convenants for us that limited house height, lights shining in the valley, steepness of our driveways etc. Years later, they added our covenants to their own rules, and then made an effort for us to join their association. They made the pitch to us that nothing would change from what we already had, so there couldn't be any possible harm. It was merely 'symbolic', so we would be a tighter community, all under the same association. I didn't fall for it. So I urged my 7 fellow neighbors not to sign up. If they couldn't prove to me a benefit, then just suggesting it couldn't do any harm wasn't good enough. If there was nothing to gain, why even remotely take a risk for harm that might not be foreseen? For the same reason why I didn't sign the papers they wanted me to, I wouldn't have signed up for this treaty either. However, I don't think I'm against the physically disabled for having that view. Do you?

I dunno. But it sure sounds to me like, if you were a member of Congress, that you would not agree to pass any bill, using the logic articulated above.

My guess is that you would also not have allowed the U.S. to be a member of the United Nations, N.A.T.O, or any other "entangling alliance."

Just guessing, of course.

Depends Len. If I saw a benefit to a bill, I would sign it. If it's for 'symbolic' reasons with no benefit, and you can't absolutely convince me that there couldn't be any potential future harm, why on Earth would I sign it?

Kevin,

I understand your point. I happen to be the President of my subdivisions Improvement and Service District. Approx. 500 residents.

However, you don't strike me as a far right, extremist type (no exceptions to abortion, etc.), which was my qualifier.

Gordon

Len -- I guess I look at it this way.... Each one of these guys has to answer to the people that got them there... They were put there based on their beliefs...and apparently the constituents agreed and voted them in... So, why would they change the way they do business based on the presidential election? All they really care about is what got them there in the first place - and they are probably thinking ... 'why change a winning formula?'.... Now, when it comes time for their re-election - if in fact the people of their state disagree with their votes ...they can vote them out.... I can tell you this - no matter HOW they vote - there will be someone from the other party there saying they didn't do enough....didn't do it right etc.... They could vote with the Dems - but then when re-election time comes they probably wouldn't beat out any other republican challenger - and they certainly wouldn't get Kudos from the Dems either.... Its a lose / lose situation for them.... I think....

Kevin said:

Depends Len. If I saw a benefit to a bill, I would sign it. If it's for 'symbolic' reasons with no benefit, and you can't absolutely convince me that there couldn't be any potential future harm, why on Earth would I sign it?

Click to expand...

I don't think there are ANY guarantees in life (save for death and taxes). So, let's not have ANY more "Symbolic" legislation passed. eh?

to kevin's point... Why are we wasting tax payer dollars on a bill that is only symbolic in nature? I am sure there are other bills that could be passed that actually have an impact on people's lives.... Or is this just one of those bills they throw out there so when re-election time comes you get to hear the commercials...'Bob Smith hates the disabled and doesn't think they should have equal rights...' Again - a bunch of yoohoo and the REAL question is WHY ARE THEY EVEN VOTING ON THIS IF IT HAS NO IMPACT!!!?? A waste of your money and mine....

Yeah, I see your point. Sad state of affairs.

Reminds me of the JFK response to a question from the lady correspondent at a NY newspaper:

"Sir, what have you done lately for women's rights?

JFK: "Well, I'm sure not nearly enough!"

I agree ... it is a sad state of affairs... If the election was a mandate - per your opinion... it will flesh itself out sooner or later....and that will be by a vote of the people when congress comes up for re-election...

timm said:

I agree ... it is a sad state of affairs... If the election was a mandate - per your opinion... it will flesh itself out sooner or later....and that will be by a vote of the people when congress comes up for re-election...

Click to expand...

All I'm saying...is that Bush and the Republicans started by declaring this "mandate" stuff whenever they squeaked by -- and President Obama and the Democrats achieved results significantly better than the Republicans. So, if Bush and the Republicans had a mandate, then at a bare minimum President and the Democrats have a "Mandate Plus."

Regarding symbolism, both parties pass bills, in either the House or Senate, for that very reason (statement of position) knowing full well the other majority party (in the other chamber) will not support. Hence no chance in passing and ultimately a waste of time for everyone.

Given the fact that the USA is considered be a significant global power and leader, this support for handicap people seems to be something worthwhile from an "international" perspective.

Same would apply if the world can ever deal responsibly with the "global warming" issue.

Oh boy, I did it now.

GG

Len44 said:

All I'm saying...is that Bush and the Republicans started by declaring this "mandate" stuff whenever they squeaked by -- and President Obama and the Democrats achieved results significantly better than the Republicans. So, if Bush and the Republicans had a mandate, then at a bare minimum President and the Democrats have a "Mandate Plus."

Click to expand...

Ok -- I think I get it.... Basically everyone has a mandate.... why can't Obama have one.... so, I guess from that perspective - it is a mandate... the fact that he was elected twice - I think is really the mandate .... not the numbers.... so I think that is where your arguement lies.... and with that I agree!!

Gordon Gray said:

Regarding symbolism, both parties pass bills, in either the House or Senate, for that very reason (statement of position) knowing full well the other majority party (in the other chamber) will not support. Hence no chance in passing and ultimately a waste of time for everyone.

Given the fact that the USA is considered be a significant global power and leader, this support for handicap people seems to be something worthwhile from an "international" perspective.

Same would apply if the world can ever deal responsibly with the "global warming" issue.

Oh boy, I did it now.

GG

Click to expand...

Gordon.. the debate is over !! ... Republicans hate the disabled ( they call them 'handicappers'), women (referred to as 'broads'), children (rug-rats), puppies (poop machines) and kittens (fur balls)..... No wonder they lost... they gots to get with the demographics!!

timm said:

Ok -- I think I get it.... Basically everyone has a mandate.... why can't Obama have one.... so, I guess from that perspective - it is a mandate... the fact that he was elected twice - I think is really the mandate .... not the numbers.... so I think that is where your arguement lies.... and with that I agree!!

Click to expand...

Well, I think it is a bit stronger than that...especially comparing Bush (installed once, elected once) to Obama, (elected twice, and by pretty convincing margins, relatively speaking).

It is ridiculous for Republicans to believe they had a mandate with Bush, but that Obama does not, since his victories were unquestionably the stronger of the two.

A sign of the extreme right wing exercising (to use a MR phrase) "self deportation".

Senator Jim DeMint, a TP fave, leaves office 2 years early before his term expires, to become head of the Heritage Foundation aka a Conservative Think Tank.

Maybe he will share an office in the same building with Karl Rove and Grover Norquist.

By the way, did you hear that KR is no longer allowed to be on Fox News without the explicit permission of the Fox top brass.

Of course, there's no correlation of this policy change and him calling the Fox News analysts wrong on BO taking Ohio on election night.

Anyone see a pattern?

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

GG

Fox just re hired Rove.


J

That makes me very happy. Seriously.

GG

PS: We can now look forward to November 2016 to see "Apocalypse Rove Redux" on Fox News.

Where's Charlie Sheen when you need him?

Also in the news this week, the president held a secret meeting with Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow, Larry O'Donnell and Ed Schultz. I wonder who he planning on meeting with this week? Perhaps Francois Hollande and Hugo Chavez?