How is the last election's "Mandate of the People" working out?

Question

Will the new majority ever grow a pair and do what they said they were going to do?

Answer 1

They are a complete failure. Congress's approval rating actually dropped below Bush's in some polls. They only won because they were anti-bush, not because they had any good ideas. too many politicians in politics these days, don't ya think!

Answer 2

How do you listen to the voters that is just pelosi's and reid's opinion that they have this huge mandate from the people, you can't listen to polls because they are wrong most of the time just look at the last elections when they had bush losing twice. Bush doesnt listen to polls he does what he thinks is right. As far as their mandate it was a pretty small mandate(majority), if pelosi hadnt taken a giant crap on the republicans in the house when she took over a s speaker she maybe could have got somewhere. I guess maybe she is absolute ruler in her household and can do whatever but she will have to compromise and kiss some house republican butt if she ever wants to override bush's veto. She's lucky I'm not president I would have veto everything she sent for two years and made her congress the biggest do nothing congress ever lmao.

Answer 3

A "mandate of the people" actually means a huge majority which was not the case. There are two things that come to mind as I consider your question. One is that I think the politicians have largely misunderstood the American people when it comes to the war. I, for one and I know of many others, are not really opposed to the war in Iraq, but rather to our perception (mostly through the media) of how Iraqis view our sacrifices and seemingly refuse to take advantage of what we offer them. The other regards illegal immigration. Congress and the President know full well what the majority of Americans want, but here we go again getting ready to give amnesty to another several million illegals. ...and no, democrats are not known for having a "pair."

Answer 4

Depends on which mandate you're talking about: Bush's 2004 "mandate" has been a disaster, with a huge amount of buyers' remorse: the Democrats' 2006 mandate is going very well, considering they've proven that Bush cares more about his war than the troops, and held hearings that have exposed further Bush-Cheney corruption.

Answer 5

You must be talking about Iraq. Bush vetoed the bill that would have done what the Democrats said they would do. They didn't have enough votes to overturn the veto. Was there something else they could have done?

As far as the other promises are concerned, they have been fulfilled.

Answer 6

There is no mandate. These are just a bunch of whiny politicians with anti-Bush agandas and could care less about America. Next election, they're done. Bank it.

Answer 7

"mandate" What Mandate ?

since 9-11 a lot of people are just voting "against" someone.

Answer 8

The key words are they "said they were going to do" it. When will you learn that politicians will say ANYTHING for your vote, but getting them to follow through once they get in is a totally different thing? That's especially true when they have to pander to extremists, such as the anti-war crowd.

Answer 9

Not good for the Micheal Moore cool aid drinkers. I am still waiting for Nancy Pulaski to apologize for her shameful posturing when our troops needed funding.

Answer 10

it's working out great.. the people spoke.. the democrats listened and showed that.. Bush didn't.

how do you think voters are going to see this all?

I bet it ends with the democrats getting more power to do what the people want them to do.


the rest of Bush's term is short compared to how long the democrats will stay in power because of it.