nearly seven in 10 Americans agree that Bush's victory means that congressional Democrats should compromise with him

[CADsortaGUY]

Political Divisions Persist After Election

Bush at 52% in this poll.

CsG

 

[Engineer]

Yep, the new mandate.

Question: If the shoe were on the other foot, would you compromise your party's principles to the other side?

Oh, and 2nd lowest approval rating of any president taking a second term in office....hooooorrrraaaayyyy

 

[lozina]

not registered, post article pls

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

OK

 

[Bowfinger]

Political Divisions Persist After Election
Nation Unsure, Hopeful About Bush, Poll Finds

By Richard Morin and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 18, 2005; Page A01

President Bush will begin his second term in office without a clear mandate to lead the nation, with strong disapproval of his policies in Iraq and with the public both hopeful and dubious about his leadership on the issues that will dominate his agenda, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

On the eve of Thursday's presidential inaugural ceremonies, the survey found few signs that the country has begun to come together since Bush defeated Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) two months ago. The president has claimed a mandate from the election, but the poll found as much division today as four years ago over the question of whether Bush or Democrats in Congress should set the direction for the country.

Fewer than half of those interviewed -- 45 percent -- said they preferred that the country go in the direction that Bush wanted to lead it, whereas 39 percent said Democrats should lead the way. During the first months of his presidency, after the bitterly disputed 2000 election, Americans said they preferred Bush to take the lead by 46 percent to 36 percent.

But the public also wants cooperation from the Democrats. At a time when Democratic leaders are preparing to challenge many of Bush's major initiatives, nearly seven in 10 Americans agree that Bush's victory means that congressional Democrats should compromise with him -- even if it means compromising on their party's principles. Only one in four said Democrats must not compromise on things they find objectionable, even if it means less gets accomplished.

Looking ahead, a majority of Americans -- 55 percent -- said they expect Bush to do a better job as president in the next four years than he did during his first term. That is about equal to the proportion in January 1997 that expected President Bill Clinton's second term to be better than his first.

On Social Security, the poll offered mixed findings that underscore the enormous challenge facing Bush at the start of what both parties see as the most significant legislative battle of the second term.

Those surveyed gave Bush negative marks -- 38 percent approval vs. 55 percent disapproval -- for his handling of the Social Security issue, and three in five said the system will not have enough money to pay benefits by the time they retire. But by 54 percent to 41 percent, the public supported a plan that would include a reduction in the rate of growth of guaranteed benefits and private savings accounts financed with a portion of payroll taxes. A proposal with those elements is under consideration by the Bush administration.

Other polls have shown sizable opposition when the Bush plan is described as cutting future benefits, and the varying results among surveys suggest that the communications battle to frame the problem and the solutions may prove crucial to the outcome, as was the case in the fight over Clinton's health care plan in 1993 and 1994 and the battle to reduce the rate of growth in Medicare spending, which cost Republicans after they won control of Congress in 1994.

But Iraq and terrorism, more than Social Security, are the issues the public wants Bush to concentrate on in his second term. The poll found that Americans rank Iraq and the war on terrorism as the top priorities for Bush and Congress. More than six in 10 Americans rate the situation in Iraq as the highest priority for Bush and Congress in the coming year, and more than half say the war on terrorism also must be a top priority.

No other issue, including the economy, education, health care and Social Security, is viewed by a majority of the public as equally pressing.

Bush said in an interview last week with The Washington Post that the 2004 election was a moment of accountability for the decisions he has made in Iraq, but the poll found that 58 percent disapprove of his handling of the situation to 40 percent who approve, and 44 percent said the war was worth fighting.

The survey also found that, although Americans overwhelmingly oppose delaying the upcoming elections in Iraq, scheduled for Jan. 30, they are pessimistic that the vote will produce a stable government. Nearly six in 10 said it will not bring a stable government, but 57 percent said they see the elections as a step to the day that U.S. troops can be withdrawn from the country.

The president's overall job approval rating stands at 52 percent, up slightly in the past month. Of all presidents in the postwar era who won reelection, only Richard M. Nixon had a lower job approval rating at the start of his second term. The other chief executives began their second term with job ratings of 60 percent or higher.

A majority of Americans express disapproval of Bush on other key measures of presidential performance. A slight majority -- 52 percent -- disapprove of the way Bush is handling the economy, and half or more also are dissatisfied with the way Bush has dealt with the budget deficit (58 percent disapprove), immigration (54 percent) and health care (51 percent).

Bush gets higher marks on the key issue of terrorism, where a 61 percent majority approve of the job he is doing, up eight points in the past month. And 56 percent expressed satisfaction with his education policies. The public is divided on the president's handling of environmental issues, foreign affairs and taxes.

Expectations are high for Bush as he begins his second term. Seven in 10 say they expect him to make major progress against terrorism. Smaller majorities also expect the president to move forward on the economy, Iraq, education, limiting medical and class-action lawsuits, and taxes.

But on other issues, the public is more pessimistic. Slightly fewer than half said they expect Bush to make substantial progress on Social Security (46 percent) and health care (48 percent). And even fewer expect major successes by Bush on such issues as the environment (32 percent), the deficit (35 percent) and immigration (39 percent).

The complex political challenges facing Bush and congressional Democrats can be seen in public attitudes on two issues that are emerging as the cornerstones of Bush's domestic agenda: Social Security and limiting medical malpractice and class-action lawsuits.

Overall, the public expresses more confidence in Democrats in Congress (50 percent) than in the Bush administration (37 percent) to deal with problems in the Social Security system. But another picture emerges when the public is asked to evaluate specific reform proposals under consideration by the Bush administration.

Americans divide equally over Bush's proposal to index Social Security benefits for future retirees to increases in the cost of living rather than to wage growth as is now the case, a change that would effectively mean benefits would be lower than currently projected. A clear majority of Americans -- 55 percent -- support the president's proposal to allow younger workers to put some of their Social Security savings into stocks or bonds. When packaged together, the two components draw the support of 54 percent of those surveyed.

The survey suggests that Democratic leaders may be out of step with their rank and file on the severity of the problems facing Social Security. Those leaders are attempting to thwart Bush's plans by saying there is no immediate crisis. But two-thirds of all Democrats said they worry that there is not enough money to keep Social Security funded until they retire.

The public is pessimistic about reducing partisanship in Bush's second term. Two in three Americans say Bush will not make progress on that front, but the subject ranks low on the public's list of second-term priorities.

A total of 1,007 randomly selected adults were interviewed Jan. 12 to 16 for this survey. Margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus three percentage points.

I've got to hand it to Cad. In an article overflowing with bad news for Bush, he managed to see only the tidbits nominally favorable. There's that cognitive dissonance at work.

I'm bolding some of the highlights for everyone's enjoyment. Here is my favorite, however:

• Overall, the public expresses more confidence in Democrats in Congress (50 percent) than in the Bush administration (37 percent) to deal with problems in the Social Security system.

 

[SuperTool]

Doesn't that also mean that 7/10 Americans think that Bush needs to compromise with the Democrats?
It takes two to compromise.

 

[IndieSnob]

Wow, this just shows the stupidity of some people. They oppose Bush BUT think that democrats should find compromises with things that they highly disagree with. I'm all for bi-partisianship, but I'm not for politicians being a doormat for his international policies.

 

[Jhhnn]

Compromise is fine, but it's a two way street.

Unfortunately, the bush admin isn't reliable in terms of compromise. The Dems compromised on judicial nominees, provided Bush would withdraw the ten they found most objectionable. Bush resubmitted all ten, and has appointed several to interim terms....

That's not compromise...

Dems compromised on No Child Left Behind, and the Admin has refused to fully fund the program.

That's not compromise.

Dems compromised on the Iraqi war resolution, and got the "You voted for it!" bit tossed in their faces for the election... Taxes and spending, too...

That's not compromise.

Or is the Admin using a different version of "compromise", one resembling Grover Norquist's definition of "bipartisanship"?

 

[dahunan]

Send his daughters to Iraq.. that sounds like a good start on compromise

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

I've got to hand it to Cad. In an article overflowing with bad news for Bush, he managed to see only the tidbits nominally favorable. There's that cognitive dissonance at work.

lol, it's that thick partisan helmet- makes it so you only see what you want while everything else is obstructed

 

[Jassi]

Originally posted by: dahunan
Send his daughters to Iraq.. that sounds like a good start on compromise

:laugh:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

I've got to hand it to Cad. In an article overflowing with bad news for Bush, he managed to see only the tidbits nominally favorable. There's that cognitive dissonance at work.

lol, it's that thick partisan helmet- makes it so you only see what you want while everything else is obstructed

Yeah, sorta like Bow highlighting only certain parts

I pulled out an interesting result from the poll because so much is made by the rabid Bush-haters here about who should compromise.

CsG

 

[glenn1]

Send his daughters to Iraq.. that sounds like a good start on compromise

Please. The Democrats already have a reputation (fair or not) for not supporting the military, what do you think they would conclude about you if you forced those two bimbos into the service? If I were their drill sergeant I'd probably call out sick, no, make that dead, rather than take them to the weapons range and handing them items which go boom and praying they don't kill everyone in a hundred meter radius.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

I've got to hand it to Cad. In an article overflowing with bad news for Bush, he managed to see only the tidbits nominally favorable. There's that cognitive dissonance at work.

lol, it's that thick partisan helmet- makes it so you only see what you want while everything else is obstructed

Yeah, sorta like Bow highlighting only certain parts

I pulled out an interesting result from the poll because so much is made by the rabid Bush-haters here about who should compromise.

CsG

but at least he acknowledged that there was both good news and bad news for bush in that article.

and that poll result is pretty obvious... why shouldn't people want democrats to compromise? I wonder what the other option was for that question: "No, the Democrats should completely ignore Bush and refuse to cooperate until next election" ?

Also, I wonder if there was a similar question in this poll for the Republicans, i.e. "Should the republicans actively try to compromise with democrats or should they try to force policies without ever considering bi-partisanship cooperation?"

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

I've got to hand it to Cad. In an article overflowing with bad news for Bush, he managed to see only the tidbits nominally favorable. There's that cognitive dissonance at work.

lol, it's that thick partisan helmet- makes it so you only see what you want while everything else is obstructed

Yeah, sorta like Bow highlighting only certain parts

I pulled out an interesting result from the poll because so much is made by the rabid Bush-haters here about who should compromise.

CsG

I think your a rabid "rabid-hater" hater which leads to a interesting predicament. Is rabid your word of the month or something? Everyone is aparently rabid - I better get some shots or something to make sure I don't catch this!

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

I've got to hand it to Cad. In an article overflowing with bad news for Bush, he managed to see only the tidbits nominally favorable. There's that cognitive dissonance at work.

lol, it's that thick partisan helmet- makes it so you only see what you want while everything else is obstructed

Yeah, sorta like Bow highlighting only certain parts

I pulled out an interesting result from the poll because so much is made by the rabid Bush-haters here about who should compromise.

CsG

but at least he acknowledged that there was both good news and bad news for bush in that article.

and that poll result is pretty obvious... why shouldn't people want democrats to compromise? I wonder what the other option was for that question: "No, the Democrats should completely ignore Bush and refuse to cooperate until next election" ?

Also, I wonder if there was a similar question in this poll for the Republicans, i.e. "Should the republicans actively try to compromise with democrats or should they try to force policies without ever considering bi-partisanship cooperation?"

And where exactly did I say everything was peaches, cream and sunshine for Bush from this poll? Oh that's right - I didn't.

Well, from the looks of it so far -the Dems are being the party of opposition and their fan-bois here are cheering them on.

****

tommunist: no, it's not my word of the month - however the level or rabidity has been up slightly as of late. It was fierce right up the the election(which is understandable), then there was sort of a lull after the election due to many things - including the Christmas. Now the level or rabidity has climbed closer to pre-election levels.
No, not everyone is rabid Bush-haters, but some here definitely qualify IMO

CsG

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Topic Title: nearly seven in 10 Americans agree that Bush's victory means that congressional Democrats should compromise with him

Bullsh1t, you mean 7 out of 10 RRR FLL's. :| :disgust:

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

I've got to hand it to Cad. In an article overflowing with bad news for Bush, he managed to see only the tidbits nominally favorable. There's that cognitive dissonance at work.

That is one of the most successful cases of Brainwashing I have ever seen.

Right up there with Hannity and Rush.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Yep, the new mandate.

Question: If the shoe were on the other foot, would you compromise your party's principles to the other side?

The Republicans definitely would not.

We see the American public as deeply on a number of issues. Why should the Democrats have to compromise on them? The ideas held by the Dems don't exist in a vacuum - a wide range of people support them. Just not enough to constitute a majority of voters.

Those surveyed gave Bush negative marks -- 38 percent approval vs. 55 percent disapproval -- for his handling of the Social Security issue, and three in five said the system will not have enough money to pay benefits by the time they retire. But by 54 percent to 41 percent, the public supported a plan that would include a reduction in the rate of growth of guaranteed benefits and private savings accounts financed with a portion of payroll taxes. A proposal with those elements is under consideration by the Bush administration.

The public's perception that something must be done with Social Security seems pretty clear-cut here. I bet there are a similar amount of people who would naysay the legalization of gay marriages. Everything else, though? They're core issues that define the parties.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

I've got to hand it to Cad. In an article overflowing with bad news for Bush, he managed to see only the tidbits nominally favorable. There's that cognitive dissonance at work.

lol, it's that thick partisan helmet- makes it so you only see what you want while everything else is obstructed

Yeah, sorta like Bow highlighting only certain parts

I pulled out an interesting result from the poll because so much is made by the rabid Bush-haters here about who should compromise.

CsG

but at least he acknowledged that there was both good news and bad news for bush in that article.

and that poll result is pretty obvious... why shouldn't people want democrats to compromise? I wonder what the other option was for that question: "No, the Democrats should completely ignore Bush and refuse to cooperate until next election" ?

Also, I wonder if there was a similar question in this poll for the Republicans, i.e. "Should the republicans actively try to compromise with democrats or should they try to force policies without ever considering bi-partisanship cooperation?"

And where exactly did I say everything was peaches, cream and sunshine for Bush from this poll? Oh that's right - I didn't.

Well, from the looks of it so far -the Dems are being the party of opposition and their fan-bois here are cheering them on.


CsG

And where exactly did I say that you said everything was peaches, cream and sunshine for Bush from this poll? Oh that's right - I didn't.

Well, from the looks of it so far -the Dems are being the party of opposition

What do you mean exactly? You want the Democrats to simply band over and accept everything the Bush admin proposes? I don't remember the Republicans doing that during Clinton's administration, err quite the contrary!

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

I've got to hand it to Cad. In an article overflowing with bad news for Bush, he managed to see only the tidbits nominally favorable. There's that cognitive dissonance at work.

lol, it's that thick partisan helmet- makes it so you only see what you want while everything else is obstructed

Yeah, sorta like Bow highlighting only certain parts

I pulled out an interesting result from the poll because so much is made by the rabid Bush-haters here about who should compromise.

CsG

What I got out of that article was that 7 in 10 Americans want Bush and the Democrats to compromise, the Democrats should because Bush DID win after all. But Bush still needs to (implied) because compromise requires both parties.

I notice the article did not mention how much compromising Bush should be doing, but I think it's reasonable to infer that the 7 in 10 Americans would not have said, "The Democrats should totally give up on every issue they disagree with Bush on".

Personally I'm all for compromise from the Democrats, I just don't think you and I have the same definition of compromise in our dictionaries

Edit: I missed the part about where the Democrats should compromise even if they have to give up their core principles. If that is the case, fvck no. This whole goose stepping bullsh!t only goes so far, I wouldn't expect anyone to compromise their core beliefs just because it's easier. What kind of amoral idiots would do that? I can't imagine why you think this is a good idea, CAD. Would you expect the Republicans to do so if their situations were reversed? I sure wouldn't, and I'd respect them for it.

What I got out of the article NOW is that 7 in 10 Americans believe in "flexible" ethics. Good stuff, what a great country :roll:

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

What I got out of that article was that 7 in 10 Americans want Bush and the Democrats to compromise, the Democrats should because Bush DID win after all. But Bush still needs to (implied) because compromise requires both parties.

I notice the article did not mention how much compromising Bush should be doing, but I think it's reasonable to infer that the 7 in 10 Americans would not have said, "The Democrats should totally give up on every issue they disagree with Bush on".

Personally I'm all for compromise from the Democrats, I just don't think you and I have the same definition of compromise in our dictionaries

agreed, that was my interpretation as well, which is really such an obvious conclusion it wouldn't merit a thread. Cad seems to be off on a tangent with his interpretation which seems to be: "7 out of 10 americans think Democrats should shut up and bend over since Bush won".

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Rainsford

What I got out of that article was that 7 in 10 Americans want Bush and the Democrats to compromise, the Democrats should because Bush DID win after all. But Bush still needs to (implied) because compromise requires both parties.

I notice the article did not mention how much compromising Bush should be doing, but I think it's reasonable to infer that the 7 in 10 Americans would not have said, "The Democrats should totally give up on every issue they disagree with Bush on".

Personally I'm all for compromise from the Democrats, I just don't think you and I have the same definition of compromise in our dictionaries

agreed, that was my interpretation as well, which is really such an obvious conclusion it wouldn't merit a thread. Cad seems to be off on a tangent with his interpretation which seems to be: "7 out of 10 americans think Democrats should shut up and bend over since Bush won".

Read my edit though, I don't think the Democrats should GIVE UP core principles to compromise with Bush. There are limits to compromise, I think that crosses them.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Tommunist
I think your a rabid "rabid-hater" hater which leads to a interesting predicament. Is rabid your word of the month or something? Everyone is aparently rabid - I better get some shots or something to make sure I don't catch this!

He goes in phases. Right now everyone who disagrees with him is a "rabid hater". (The "rabid" part is a relatively new affectation; he used to stick to simply "hater".) At other times, he's settled in on calling us "liars". For a while, we were "Saddam apologists". You'll get used to it.

 

[Rainsford]

Ok, reading comprehension is not my friend...people think Democrats should "compromise" on their principles to work with Bush. I'm less opposed to this idea, but it's still on shaky ground. Just how much "compromising" should be going on? I'm not a big fan of compromising my principles, and I have trouble respecting people who do.

I guess it depends on the individual situation...