Posted on 11/05/2004 6:45:29 PM PST by Link R. Flugle
I have to hand it to Bush: He actually won the election this time. That's progress for you. Now, only two days later he's calling his win a "mandate." Hmmm... Maybe, kinda, sorta, but not really. It takes me back to 2000 when, in the aftermath of that mess, Bush supporters were calling that outcome a mandate. The irony seemed unintentional to me. My recommendation: These people should use some of the money from their upcoming tax relief to buy themselves a good dictionary.
Troll Alert
Kiss my ass.
Mandate this... :-)
The 'Mandate' Double Standard
Having lost the election decisively, some Democrats have now alighted on the idea that President Bush's victory was not resounding enough to constitute a "mandate." The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne, for one, insists that "a 51-48 percent victory is not a mandate" (emphasis his). Never mind that Bush's 51% is a higher popular-vote percentage than any Democratic candidate for president has received in 40 years. Dionne is aghast at the idea that the president will pursue a "radical" agenda:
An administration given to hubris will have to be checked by institutions outside what is likely to be a compliant Congress. This is no time for the independent media to be intimidated by trumped-up charges of liberal bias. Moderate Republicans will have to find the courage to say publicly what many of them say privately about this administration's habit of overreach and the excesses of right-wing legislative leaders. . . .
The burden for achieving national unity is on a president who could manage a narrow victory only by savagely trashing his opponent.
The last time a president won re-election was in 1996, when Bill Clinton managed only 49.2% of the popular vote. What did E.J. Dionne have to say then? We found his Nov. 15, 1996 column on Factiva, though it doesn't seem to be publicly available anywhere on the Web:
If you're looking for a mandate for moderation, consider that not even one voter in 10 cast a ballot for both a Democratic president and a Republican House member. You can thus make a strong case that support for politicians in Washington sticking to principle is far greater than the popular base for compromise. . . .
The upshot is that for the next two years, both parties will be competing on a playing field that is narrower than either would like. But that will not stop them from seeking advantage. To wish politics away is to ask both politicians and voters who have very strong views to abandon their principles. That won't happen. And it shouldn't.
To be fair, in 1996 Dionne was willing to allow that congressional Republicans as well as the Democratic president should stick to their principles. But now that the GOP is the undisputed majority party, suddenly he finds adherence to principle illegitimate. That speaks volumes about the magnitude of the Democratic loss
Huh?
Can't hear you.
We're still GLOATING!!!!!!
Ah, it's tough dealing with loss, isn't it, Mikey.
Sucks to be you.
Bush won and it makes you sad, but it's OK to be sad sometimes. In fact you're going to be sad for quite a while longer.
I thought he would prefer to go out with his beautiful wife Laura! ;-)
A Sleeper Troll I see.......
Hey, where did you find that picture of me?
43% Mandate. LOL!
But in the meantime, a mandate in political terms is simple. If a person runs for office on the basis of what he has and will do and is elected, he has a mandate.
Of course your favorite candidate doesn't even know what the meaning of is is. Nor did he get the majority of the popular vote in either of his terms.
Go back to DU you'll probably get a fond welcome there.
Buzz off, Link. The spread is now 52%-47% and Bush has 9,000,000 votes MORE than he got in 2000.
That is a MANDATE, (REALLY) in any election so, as I said, buzz off.
"This account has been banned or suspended."
Yes, Nov 2 was a great battle victory!
But the war is NOT over.
I've seen on TV and heard on the Radio
attacks about Swift Boat Vets AFTER the election.
And what liars they are.
So closure is NOT going to happen for Viet Nam Vets, yet.
Time to expose Hanoi Kerry in the MSM once and for all!
Then Viet Nam Vets will FINALLY be vindicated.
THEN it will be over!
DON'T LET THIS STORY DIE!
THE story that
ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC, NY Times
DON'T WANT AMERICA TO KNOW!
John Kerry's Discharge
He won't sign Form 180
What is he hiding?
Ex-Navy sec to Kerry: Open up your records
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41230
NY Sun 11/01/04
Kerry's Discharge Is Questioned by An Ex-JAG Officer
http://www.nysun.com/article/4040
"There is overwhelming evidence that the Navy gave John Kerry either a dishonorable discharge
or an undesirable discharge – which is the equivalent of a dishonorable discharge
without the felony conviction – and that, as a result of such discharge,
he was stripped of all of his famous but questionable Navy awards and medals.
And the kicker? The evidence is on his website!"
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41200
BUT
ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC, NY Times
made sure you knew about the Bush phony National Guard documents.
Q) Why did
ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC, NY Times
NOT ask Kerry about why he wouldn't sign Form 180?
A) Because they are AFRAID of the REAL story!
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.