Replies

On NBC with Mathews, Today host Katie Couric, who rose to fame playing the sweet, all-American girl, before revealing her mean streak, refused to concede the election. That was one hour after Kerry had called Bush to congratulate the latter on his victory. When Mathews noted that Bush had won a majority of the popular vote, Couric parroted the Democrat party talking point, that Bush had won "A majority, not a mandate."

And yet, Katie Couric refused to recognize his victory. And Democrats like to call other people angry and mean-spirited?!

Seems to me that what's mean-spirited is to tell a bald-faced lie about what someone else said. Katie Couric said that Bush had won a majority. That's not refusing to recognize his victory, that's confirming it. What she denied was that his victory was overwhelming, or whatever constitutes a mandate.

I can remember Presidents like Johnson, who won with about 60% or more of the popular vote (my memory is not exact), and Nixon, who won every state except Massachusetts. Those guys got mandates. President Bush got a 3% victory, and has majorities of 5% in one house and about 3% in the other. Those are majorities, but they're not what I'd call a mandate.

Surely it works well as a DNC talking point, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

Get out your Webster's and read the facts.

Mandate "The will of the people as expressed to their chosen leader." This seems clear enough to me. President Bush is expressing the will of his followers and thus has a mandate to lead us as a nation. Get it?

Seems to me that what's mean-spirited is to tell a bald-faced lie about what someone else said. Katie Couric said that Bush had won a majority. That's not refusing to recognize his victory, that's confirming it. What she denied was that his victory was overwhelming, or whatever constitutes a mandate.

Mean-spirited, my left foot. Were you watching Couric when she said this? I was. She wasn't just stating a fact as she saw it. She couldn't have been more bitter and catty in her tone and body language. If she'd had fangs they'd have been dripping venom. Even Chris Mathews had to call her on it, fer cryin' out loud! Get your facts straight, dude, and be careful before you call someone else a liar.

On NBC with Mathews, Today host Katie Couric, who rose to fame playing the sweet, all-American girl, before revealing her mean streak, refused to concede the election. That was one hour after Kerry had called Bush to congratulate the latter on his victory. When Mathews noted that Bush had won a majority of the popular vote, Couric parroted the Democrat party talking point, that Bush had won "A majority, not a mandate."

And yet, Katie Couric refused to recognize his victory. And Democrats like to call other people angry and mean-spirited?!

Seems to me that what's mean-spirited is to tell a bald-faced lie about what someone else said. Katie Couric said that Bush had won a majority. That's not refusing to recognize his victory, that's confirming it. What she denied was that his victory was overwhelming, or whatever constitutes a mandate.

I can remember Presidents like Johnson, who won with about 60% or more of the popular vote (my memory is not exact), and Nixon, who won every state except Massachusetts. Those guys got mandates. President Bush got a 3% victory, and has majorities of 5% in one house and about 3% in the other. Those are majorities, but they're not what I'd call a mandate.

Surely it works well as a DNC talking point, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

There is no such thing as an electoral victory without a mandate. When Kennedy beat Nixon in 1960 by one percent, and only thanks to the graveyard vote in Cook County, Illinois and Duval County, Texas, no one said that he "lacked a mandate" to govern. Likewise, when Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford in a sqeaker in '76. This "victory without a mandate" nonsense was invented by the Dems in 2000, to try and turn their defeat into victory.

On NBC with Mathews, Today host Katie Couric, who rose to fame playing the sweet, all-American girl, before revealing her mean streak, refused to concede the election. That was one hour after Kerry had called Bush to congratulate the latter on his victory. When Mathews noted that Bush had won a majority of the popular vote, Couric parroted the Democrat party talking point, that Bush had won "A majority, not a mandate."

And yet, Katie Couric refused to recognize his victory. And Democrats like to call other people angry and mean-spirited?!

Seems to me that what's mean-spirited is to tell a bald-faced lie about what someone else said. Katie Couric said that Bush had won a majority. That's not refusing to recognize his victory, that's confirming it. What she denied was that his victory was overwhelming, or whatever constitutes a mandate.

I can remember Presidents like Johnson, who won with about 60% or more of the popular vote (my memory is not exact), and Nixon, who won every state except Massachusetts. Those guys got mandates. President Bush got a 3% victory, and has majorities of 5% in one house and about 3% in the other. Those are majorities, but they're not what I'd call a mandate.

Surely it works well as a DNC talking point, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.

There is no such thing as an electoral victory without a mandate. When Kennedy beat Nixon in 1960 by one percent, and only thanks to the graveyard vote in Cook County, Illinois and Duval County, Texas, no one said that he "lacked a mandate" to govern. Likewise, when Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford in a sqeaker in '76. This "victory without a mandate" nonsense was invented by the Dems in 2000, to try and turn their defeat into victory.

Earlier, you asked what is the definition of a mandate. Then you say Bush's margin of victory is not what you'd call a mandate. Did you determine the definition???

I'm curious about this mandate stuff myself. Is it somewhere in the Constitution?

not what I'd call a mandate.

"No mandate" is a way of expressing contempt for Republican presidents, and nothing more. The president always has a mandate to "preserve, protect, and defend," and the Congress and the Senate has its mandates as well.
The mandates spring from the Constitution. Mandates to observe constitutional strictures and to nominate and confirm judges who will keep the traditional meaning of the law and the Constitution alive, rather than calling it a "living document" - and mooting it.
The president and the Congress have the mandate to pass the changes in the tax code and the Social Security system which they deem prudent. If Bush is advocating a flat tax, he should IMHO make Steve Forbes Secretary of the Treasury.