I keep hearing from the Republican camp that Bush has a ‘mandate’ to govern in a particular way.
A mandate from whom, exactly? The other guy got 500,000 more votes than he did. How is that a ‘mandate’ for his policies?
Due to the workings of the EC, and the outcome of FL, he’s legally the President of the United States, and we’re stuck with him for four years. That’s what he’s got - the office and its associated powers, which (as Clinton busily demonstrated in recent weeks) are not inconsiderable. Plus the help of a Congressional majority, however narrow, for his party.
A “mandate” is a rhetorical position to convince political opposition that they should acquiesce. “You cannot hope to successfully oppose my policies because the voters unquestionably favor my position, so you should too if you know what’s good for you.” Use of the term mandate is rhetorical flim-flam.
It sure sounds odd hearing all these right wingers claiming that they’ve got a man-date ! What with all their grouching about homosexuals, you’d think they’d want to keep it a secret !
The only mandate that matters was the one he uttered at Noon EST today- the oath of office. Whether he does any better or worse than his predecessors have, or his competitors would have, remains to be seen.
That’s what I said when Clinton got 43% of the vote and called it a mandate.
It’s just meaningless politician-talk, but to me it doesn’t cause me cringes nearly as severe as when I hear politicians on talk shows telling us “What The American People Want.”
IMHO no.