ObaMania
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-04-04 08:39 AM
Original message |
So does * have a mandate? |
|
What's the definition of mandate? I think that a polarized country is still anything but a mandate.
And * saying 'Murica has spoken. 1/2 of America has spoken and someone has to make that perfectly clear. What can we do to get the word out that America has not spoken in the way that he claims?
|
Ilsa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-04-04 08:41 AM
Response to Original message |
1. I think he said he had a mandate after the |
|
2001 theft of the presidency, didn't he? I think he needs a dictionary.
|
flowomo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-04-04 08:41 AM
Response to Original message |
2. a mandate is only as good as your next decision..... |
alevensalor
(424 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-04-04 08:41 AM
Response to Original message |
3. This goes to the root of our problem |
|
In the Democratic party, we don't know how to manipulate, spin, distort, and control the way they do. We're weak now more than ever, and I am sad to say I don't have a solution at the moment.
I'm still reeling from the election results, truthfully.
We need to fight, but how?
~A!
|
ObaMania
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-04-04 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
6. We could manipulate and spin it.. |
|
.. but as thinking 'Muricans, we don't buy into it from ANYONE! * or JFK!
|
Loki
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-04-04 08:42 AM
Response to Original message |
4. If you consider 30 percent of the registered voters who voted a mandate. |
wildeyed
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-04-04 08:42 AM
Response to Original message |
|
The passion and commitment you saw on our side during the campaign still exists. Nearly half the people in this country really hate the man and his policies.
|
cubsfan forever
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-04-04 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
MrBenchley
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-04-04 08:44 AM
Response to Original message |
|
He's got a small majority on paper...which he got through slander, fear-mongering, and outright voter intimidation and fraud.
|
nonconformist
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-04-04 08:48 AM
Response to Original message |
9. Yes he does and it's absolutely frightening |
|
Just one look at what he did without one should give anyone pause about what is to come.
The scariest thing is not only did he get a mandate (which simply means he's got authorization from the country to pursue his agenda, since you asked) by popular vote, he also got a fundie values mandate. Fundamentalists voted in droves and the gay marriage amendment was passed by huge margins in 11 states.
Sadly, the rest of America and the Bush administration doesn't give a rat's ass that at least half of this country doesn't approve of what he's doing. Bluntly - Bush NEEDED a mandate to accomplish what he wants to do in the future and he made sure he got one.
|
Shoeempress
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-04-04 08:50 AM
Response to Original message |
10. There is no such thing as a mandate. People vote for a candidate for |
|
different reasons, thus there is no 1 issue which would be a mandate. This will not stop him from claiming a mandate however.
|
Jack Rabbit
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-04-04 08:51 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Bush got a little more than half the vote. That's not a landslide. He carried the same states he carried in his first "election".
Furthermore, Bush won this election by appealing to fear and hatred. We were misdirected at the fear that was being generated towards terrorists. Osama's early Halloween party had no effect on the voting, and it should not have been expected to have had any. Osama's presence cuts both ways: (1) We are afraid of Osama and need the "tough" Bush to protect us; and (2) Osama is still on the lam and al Qaida is still creating havoc, therefore Bush has failed to protect and should be replced.
While that failed for Bush, he won because he was able to instill a fear and loathing of fellow Americans. He turned out a core constituancy of bigots who will resist equal rights for gays and sent out an army of poll watchers initially aimed at suppressing the Afro-American vote. And now he has the gall to call for "unity."
Unity on those terms is simply not possible.
|
Cuban_Liberal
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-04-04 08:53 AM
Response to Original message |
12. 'Mandate', my Cuban ass! |
|
He won--- barely. 48% of America did NOT vote for the man, and he didn't break the 300+ EV barrier. That's NOT a 'mandate'.
:eyes:
|
fishnfla
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-04-04 08:53 AM
Response to Original message |
13. Yes I believe at this point he does have a mandate |
|
Edited on Thu Nov-04-04 08:56 AM by fishnfla
1. Forget about the 55M that voted for K/E, they will now be brushed aside. American culture is now winnner take all, casual observers of the process see the GOP as the Super Bowl champs and a dynasty team at that
2. What liberal media? Look at all the papers that endorsed K/E, some even switched from 2000 endorsements. Wrong! Who's is going to speak for us? Blogospheres? JOKE!!!! Thanks for the exit polls assholes! Howard Stern? Nope. the moralists will listen to a pill popper and dildo man.
3. They now control the WH, the house and the senate, soon the Supreme court. The party apparatus owns the red states and the voting mechanisms. We're locked out. Can you say President Frist?
4. religion is the opiate of the masses, as long as Rove can push God, guns and gays, they own the churches.
5. Our only hope is they take too much rope and hang themselves. If i was a moderate republican, i would feel uncomfortable holding water for a bunch of fundie freaks.
|
puddycat
(884 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-04-04 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #13 |
17. guns? I suggest ALL liberals get some NOW for protection from fundies |
|
Edited on Thu Nov-04-04 09:09 AM by puddycat
|
whistle
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-04-04 08:55 AM
Response to Original message |
14. One view of a mandate with regard to a political candidate would be.... |
|
...A claim made by a victorious candidate that the electorate has given him or her special authority to carry out campaign promises.
Such a definition would suggest that only the victorious candidate only goes with the authority given by those who voted for him. Those who voted against him or who did not vote at all are ignored except where that candidate made camaign promises which appealed to both sides. How do we hold George W Bush to his promises that he made to the moderates who voted for him? Where is the common ground which most of the electorate can agree? That is the rub isn't it.
|
geekgrrl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-04-04 08:57 AM
Response to Original message |
15. check out the NYTimes homepage (*puke warning*) |
SillyGoose
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-04-04 09:04 AM
Response to Original message |
16. No, * does not have a mandate... |
|
although it will not stop the * administration from claiming one. Half the country voted against him and that does not equal a mandate.
Let's also not forget that they ran a vile, hate-filled smear campaign because they couldn't run on truth. They got themselves elected by denigrating the military service of a decorated war veteran and completely distorting facts which says alot about their so-called moral values.
|
Carl Yasutomo
(153 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-04-04 09:19 AM
Response to Original message |
18. A 3-point margin is NOT a mandate!! |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue May 07th 2024, 02:45 AM
Response to Original message |