In 1992, Democrat Bill Clinton won 43 percent of the vote and his liberal camp followers called it a mandate. In 2004, Republican George W. Bush won 51 percent of the vote--becoming the first presidential candidate to win a majority of votes since his father did it in 1988--and liberals balk at talk of a mandate and urge a conciliatory approach from the president. In other words, they want the president to move left.

In a similarly Orwellian abuse of language, initiatives that pass in eleven of eleven states banning gay marriage are labeled "divisive." Lesson: even if there's near unanimity on a issue, it's divisive if liberals don't get their way.

When Democrats win, they're urged by the mainstream media to fulfill their mandate. When Republicans win, they're urged to move in the political direction of the people they just defeated. In this situation alone, it would benefit conservatives for Republicans to behave like Democrats.

It's a bit like the Yankees asking Boston to play Jeter and A-Rod in the World Series as a display of unity and reconciliation. You lost! To the victor go the spoils.

I hope Bush railroads a conservative social agenda right down their throats. What is to stop him? The House will pass any and all conservative legislation. And the Republicans have an 8 vote lead in the Senate; that makes so-called 'moderates' like Snowe and Chafee nearly irrelevant. What's more, the Dems saw first hand what can happen to leaders oppossed to Bush legislation/appointments: I wonder what Daschle is up to these days?

Oh, please, let the R.s continue to behave like R.s. In this lame duck session, the congress will be asked to increase the debt ceiling again (for the fourth time in Bush's first term.) Care to project how many times in the second term? Question is, can they do it without the Dems. Remember when the Debt was les that one trillion?

I have a question: do you think that the morals factor in this past election kicked Gulianni out of the running in '08? Dont you think that the both future candidates(Dem. and Rep.) will be socially conservative? please oh please:)

I know Im jumping ahead here but who do you think should be the ideal Rep. presidential nominee?

Clarence Thomas.

John Kerry got a bigger percentage than GW Bush did in 92. That's the point.

What point? Were you making a point? What are you talking about?

GWBush got a bigger percentage in 2000 than Clinton did in '92. THAT'S the point.

Really random, Apu.

In fact, John Kerry got a bigger percentage than Clinton did in 92 -- THAT's the point!

Truly insignificant fact, Apu. And even then you got the fact wrong, since G.W. Bush didn't run for president in 92.

Peggy,

I would guess that the Dems will be smart enough to revert back to the Clinton mold and get someone who can make a reasonable case for being a "moderate." That means they will still be a liberal but they won't take really tough stands on things like abortion and homosexual "marriage."

I do think that it will be unlikely that the GOP can nominate a moderate or liberal one like Giuliani but two things will be a factor. 1) the 2006 election results, and 2) where we stand on the issue of terrorism. Someone like Rudy has made his name based on his response to 9/11 but if that is just not that big an issue in 4 years than all bets are off.

Lets just hope we actually do get conservative SC nominations. Do you think Rudy could get picked as a SC nominee?

I am not old enough to remember the national reaction to Carter's election but does anyone know what it was like? The reason why I ask is that Carter was elected largely based on the support he got from the evangelicals . . . the lot responsible for W's victory this go around. Was the media elite and the left, etc., as rabidly anti-religious right back then when those guys voted for Carter?

I had hoped that with the sizable margin of victory that GW was delivered by his base and the swing voters, that he would take that to mean that his message had been taken seriously and that this mandate coupled with a second and last term would embolden him to not pander to anybody on the left.

It would be a good thing to see him carry out a truly conservative agenda.

If he follows the more conciliatory tone he did in his first term, he will have disappointed and sold out his core constituency.

We all realized he was a more to the center conservative (and was THE only choice) but this next four years will be a turning point either way for this country and let’s hope he does the right things. A good start would be to not kiss Ted Ks azz!

HEY LOSER!!! BOTH GEORGE BUSH's ARE REFFERED TO AS GEORGE W. BUSH. THEY BOTH HAVE WALKER AS THIER MIDDLE NAME. GEORGE PERE HAS A HERBERT ATTATCHED TO HIS BUT UNTIL HIS SON MADE IT BIG HE WAS STILL REFERERED TO AS GEORGE W. BUSH.

GO SUCK A MAN BANNANA!!

Actually, hardly anyone ever refferred to Bush 41 as G.W. Bush, but even more so now, it's assumed that when you say "G.W." you mean the current Bush 43. Calling the former president Bush "G.W." wouldn't make any sense. An honest mistake, but a glaring one...

Apu: check out his inauguration: "I, George Herbert Walker Bush..." That is his name. No one calls him "George W. Bush," except for you, probably because you have banana inside your skull instead of brains. (Just Kidding! I know you need brains to type, even if you are typing something completely false.)

Oh, BTW, writing in all caps is rude, and so is telling a stranger to suck a "man banana."

Of course APU was rude. How DARE a conservative accuse him of making a mistake??? Everyone knows that libs are the solution to all the world's problems and that they are incapable of making mistakes. We only misunderstand them because we are so ignorant and misguided.