A record number of people voted against an incumbent president, in war-time no less, and this friggin mouth breathing chimp thinks he has a mandate? What another wasted opportunity to unite the country. How hard weould it have been to say that we will look for the best Supreme Court Justices regardless of any litmus tests, that while we don’t all agree on when and if abortions should be legal we can all agree to reduce the number of abortions through lower teen pregnancy rates, that we can make sure that our tax money is spent wisely, etc.
Well, I was waiting for someone to start a political thread. I thought it would never happen, but here it is.
To be fair, a record number of people voted for him, also.
[QUOTE=DanBlather]
A record number of people voted against an incumbent president, in war-time no less…QUOTE]
yeap and a record number of people voted him in:D
Hey, I know he got more votes than his opponent (this time). That does not a mandate make.
It doesn’t :eek: um I think It is.
You realize too, that a record number of people hate him, and the things he’s done as president.
America, and world wide.
What’s the rule for a mandate? At what point in victory do you have a mandate, and at what point do you have to adopt the platform of the losing side because you didn’t quite get a mandate?
Mr. Bush made no secret of his opposition to abortion all through the campaign. Are you seriously suggesting that now, after he’s won, he should say, “Well, maybe I was a bit out there on the abortion thing. Tell you what: let’s just work for lower teen pregnancy rates and forget all about stopping abortion!”
I’d say 2/3 or more myself. But that is purely my own subjective, internal definition. The concept is pretty much impossibly nebulous as far as I’m concerned.
- Tamerlane
I meant to quote just the first part of that sentence by the way - that’s what I was responding to.
Obviously the second is not really a consideration - I just wouldn’t publically claim a mandate with 51% ( or 55% or even 60% ) is all. If you are evenly divided, I would strive harder for a bi-partisan administration when possible. But I realize in our increasingly polarized country ( and I do think it is increasingly polarized in certain respects ) that is often very difficult.
- Tamerlane
Are you deliberately misunderstanding me? Being bi-partisan, a uniter, statesman-like, call it what you will, is not adopting the losing parties platform.
As for abortion, if you oppose abortion why not work to reduce the number of them. Abortions have actually increased under Bush. People are divided on banning abortion (in fact a majority opposes an outright ban), but we can work together to reduce the number of abortions through teaching self respect, sex education, and access to birth control. Likewise, I’d want a liberal winner in a close race to look at issues like a ban on partial-birth abortion when a woman’s life is not in danger.
Not to mention improving the effectiveness of birth control.
Are quite alright? Getting enough sleep? You seem to be loosing your grip. Firstly, how on earth do you know which plank in the Bush platform each individual is voting for? I’d say that it is entirely possible that people voted for Bush for reasons that did not include abortion. Perhaps a few women voted this way, no? It does not follow that Bush winning = a mandate to end a woman’s right to choose, or anything else for that matter.
Secondly, you are just as confused about what the branches of government do as Bush. He’s in the executive branch, and enforces the law – he doesn’t make or interpret, despite what he has said in the past. If women loose the right, it begins with the legislators. Make sense?
Why are you expecting the President to say something like that, when you voted for a guy who flat out said he wouldn’t appoint anyone to the SC who was pro-life?
FDR in 1932 and even more so in 1936.
LBJ in 1964.
Nixon in 1972.
Reagan in 1984.
Those were mandates. 51% is a victory but only in Karl Rove’s fantasy world is it considered a mandate. Give me a frickin’ break!