bush camp claims Mandate

[Alan_One]

Do any bush supporters really think getting 1/2 the vote is a mandate?

[madajb]

Idiots.
-ajb

[Tom]

How do you define mandate? 2/3rds?

[paultakeda]

2/3 works for congress just fine... so yeah, I'd call THAT a mandate.

[madajb]

Well, I'm opposed to corrupting perfectly good words for political gain, but if we must, a mandate should be an overwhelming approval.
Half doesn't count.
-ajb

[Alan_One]

So it's okay to use words like mandate in a purpousfully misleading way?

[Tom]

2/3 works for congress just fine... so yeah, I'd call THAT a mandate.

Gotchya, thanks.

[Tom]

So it's okay to use words like mandate in a purpousfully misleading way?
Are you gonna be this pissy for the next 4 years?

[Anonymous]

Are you gonna be this pissy for the next 4 years?
I've been pissy for the last 4 :D .

[Alan_One]

Are you gonna be this pissy for the next 4 years?

Whatever lets you sleep at night.

The question still stands.

[paultakeda]

So it's okay to use words like mandate in a purpousfully misleading way?

Of course not, but no president is going to get in front of the TV and say, "Well, I got 51 percent, that's good enough for me to go ahead with my plans to privatize Social Security."

Words do not equal truth, particularly in our brand of politics.

[Tom]

So it's okay to use words like mandate in a purpousfully misleading way?

No, of course not. Although, it depends on your definition of mandate.

According to dictionary.com;

man·date, n.

-An authoritative command or instruction.
-A command or an authorization given by a political electorate to its representative.
-A commission from the League of Nations authorizing a member nation to administer a territory.
-A region under such administration.

So by that definition, he does have a mandate. I don't think it was intended to be intentionally misleading as much as it was meant to be a shot at the Dems. The past 4 years, a constant gripe has been that Bush never had the popular majority, thus no mandate, thus no authority. Now he has not only more popular votes than his opponent, but also a clear majority, not just a plurality. I think he's just getting a little payback. I personally don't feel that it's a good word to throw around because it just pisses off the people you're supposed to be making friends with in the post-election 'healing'. But I can understand his desire to do a little gloating. At least he didn't call the Dems "loosers"!

I know that you won't be happy until Bush is burned at the stake in Times Square on a pay per view event, and I'm not trying to change your perceptions of the Pres. I'm just presenting another viewpoint for the benefit of all our readers. ;)

[Alan_One]

No, of course not. Although, it depends on your definition of mandate.

According to dictionary.com;

man·date, n.

-An authoritative command or instruction.
-A command or an authorization given by a political electorate to its representative.
-A commission from the League of Nations authorizing a member nation to administer a territory.
-A region under such administration.

So by that definition, he does have a mandate. I don't think it was intended to be intentionally misleading as much as it was meant to be a shot at the Dems. The past 4 years, a constant gripe has been that Bush never had the popular majority, thus no mandate, thus no authority. Now he has not only more popular votes than his opponent, but also a clear majority, not just a plurality. I think he's just getting a little payback. I personally don't feel that it's a good word to throw around because it just pisses off the people you're supposed to be making friends with in the post-election 'healing'. But I can understand his desire to do a little gloating. At least he didn't call the Dems "loosers"!

I know that you won't be happy until Bush is burned at the stake in Times Square on a pay per view event, and I'm not trying to change your perceptions of the Pres. I'm just presenting another viewpoint for the benefit of all our readers. ;)

It goes like this: When I see people doing stupid things, I let them do their stupid things UNLESS their stupid things affect me. Then I have to question why they do their stupid things in an effort to try and understand why they're doing stupid things and make sure I'm not the stupid one.

Does that make sense?