NOT A MANDATE (Delusional Liberals Deny Majority Rule Alert)

NotAMandate.Org ^ | N/A | 55 Million Kool Aid Drinkers

[goldstategop]

Read this from 55 million Kool Aid Drinkers. Delusional liberals are denying the principle of majority rule. They dismiss President Bush's 51% of the popular vote as "a margin of error." Yeah really. Just who are they trying to kid by denying the President and our Party a legitimate mandate?

[schaketo]

Also, we must all work diligently in the coming months to convince “progressives” that the Democratic Party has let them down. They must abandon the party. Their only recourse is to join and work for the Green Party moving forward. I may even register as a Green Party member to swell their voter registration rolls. Divide and conquer.

Begin with putting all known “progressives” in your sphere of influence on the Green Party mail list from their website. Great fun. Start inundating them with information now.

[TexasNative2000]

Uhmmmmm. . . . .

Ford didn't win in 1976. These people don't know what they are talking about. Case closed.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Ford in 1976?

You mean Carter was selected and not elected?

[Diogenesis]

Bzzzt. The mandate is NOT the margin but the number.

Thus, President Bush received the largest mandate in history.

If there is another civil war in America, it will begin in Kerry's and Pelosi's homes.

[FormerACLUmember]

The MSM consistently called Clinton's 42% vote a "mandate." Lying hypocrite vermin that they are.

[goldstategop]

ROFL. I never thought I'd see libs hail someone other than Jimmuh Cartuh, America's Four Year Nightmare. This is a first!

[buffyt]

Bush could get all 50 states and 100% of the vote and the Libs/Dems would still call him illegit.

[IStillBelieve]

They claim Bush, who won 51% of the popular vote, doesn't have a mandate.

I wonder what they say about Clinton, who never exceeded 50%, and only won an embarrassing 43% in his first Presidential election victory.

[Jemian]

The people of the US were asked whether they support Pres. Bush and his policies or not. Bush received a majority of support. Seems like a mandate to me.

Get over it RATS.

[spodefly]

Progressives would be happier in the Communist Party than in the Green Party.

[TNCMAXQ]

Yeah, I guess Ford did really badly in his second term, losing the popular vote AND the electoral vote! LOL.

If 60,000 votes in OH had shifted, and Kerry were president-elect today, these dopes would surely be claiming he DID have a mandate despite losing the total national vote by 3 million.

[goldstategop]

Except for their finally getting around to acknowledging Ronald Reagan won in 1984. I guess in 20 years time, it'll be progress when they concede Bush was the legitimately elected President of these United States.

[goldstategop]

You can bet they'd treat Kerry by a very DIFFERENT standard from the one they're applying to Bush.

[Egon]

I actually agree with much of what the author says here.

I'm tired of everyone saying that President Bush has a mandate based on the results of his numbers, that he got over 50% of the electorate to vote for him.

Worst of all is the incredibly stupid argument that he garnered more overall votes of any president in history. Duh! If I ran for president, I could likely end up saying that I brought in more votes than the first five Presidents of the United States, combined!

President Bush does have a mandate. His mandate comes from facts that don't sound as sexy, but nevertheless have more solid foundation in reality:

• He's the first president in, at least, a very long time to increase the incumbent party's hold on both the Senate and the House while in office.
• He lost the popular vote in 2000 and won convincingly in 2004, in spite of circumstances that would seem difficult to overcome.
• He's presided over an inherited damaged economy, and was still re-elected.
• He's faced blatant media bias, as was still re-elected.
• A greater percentage of eligible voters voted in this election, than in recent history-- a fact that would normally help the Democrats-- and was still re-elected.
• Most of the "intellectual" world has been hammering on the actions he has taken, and still he was re-elected.

What's more, even if the author was correct in stating that President Bush lacked a mandate, he would be hard-pressed to deny that a mandate isn't a be-all or end-all to a presidency. Several presidents have made world-changing contributions with less of a mandate than this President.

[standupfortruth]

A mandate means, you lost now shut the f*** up!

[mvpel]

None of the Democrat presidents' pluralities prevented them from acting as if they had a mandate, so why should a small majority prevent Bush from acting thus?

[procambarus]

Does anybody know when "mandate" became a requirement to rule? I don't know of an amendment or anything else that mentions it.

[sportutegrl]

Well if McGreevey can have a mandate (man date), then why not Bush?

[Military family member]

Bush also has the smallest Electoral College margin, 6%, of any president since 1916, with the exception of his own 1% margin in 2000. Even Ford had a larger “mandate” than Bush, having earned 11% of the electoral college.

If Ford had earned an 11% margin over Carter, he would have been President. Carter received 297 electoral vote, Ford received 240.