Bill Richardson plays word games in order to appear above it all.

[Steve_in_California]

Richardson says on his campaign blog that the American people gave congress a "mandate" to end the Iraq war, yet, Richardson points out, the Congress has done nothing.

Bill, do you even know the definition of the word "mandate?" Surely not, if you call 51 Senate seats (with one Dem. senator out sick for 2 years) a "mandate!"

[Skittles]

1. definiton of "MANDATE"

mandate
n 1: a document giving an official instruction or command authorisation]
2: a territory surrendered by Turkey or Germany after World War
I and inhabited by people not yet able to stand by
themselves and so put under the tutelage of some other
European power
3: (politics) the commission that is given to a government and <========================
its policies through an electoral victory
v 1: assign under a mandate; of nations
2: assign authority to

[Steve_in_California]

2. The key word is commission.

Nice try, but no cigar. There is no commission to be found in a victory won by a simple majority. A mandate necessarily implies a clear expression of prevailing public sentiment as evidenced by an ovewhelming majority.

[Skittles]

3. no, was posting the definition for further discussion

I agree that while the overwhelming majority of the American public want something done about Iraq, the same cannot be said of our Congress critters

[Demit]

4. You see a motive of wanting to 'appear above it all' from that?

I agree, mandates used to be a lot clearer, in the sense of overwhelming numbers, before Bush declared a mandate in his less-than-51% win in 2004. But it's generally accepted that the reason Republicans lost so many Congressional seats was because the public wanted a change of direction in Iraq. I don't see how you can read more into Richardson's statement than that.

[Steve_in_California]

5. Not reading into his statement . . . merely reading his statement verbatim.

Richardson is trying to pull a fast one. He knows that a "mandate" was not given to Congress since the 2006 election merely resulted in a barest of majorities, with one DEM senator out sick for 2 years. Yet he accuses the Democratically-controlled Congress of ignoring the will of the American people even though he knows it takes 67 votes (a senatorial mandate) in the senate to override a presidential veto.

Richardson is proving to be quite a bullshitter (which explains his tenure at the UN and our energy policy).

[Demit]

6. Of course you are. It's in your post title: "in order to appear above it all."

And now you claim he is 'trying to pull a fast one', because he uses the connotation of a word that you prefer the denotation of. You have a hard on for Bill Richardson, for being either lofty and/or a bullshitter, but you're going to have to come up with better examples than this. He's responsible for our energy policy? Say what?