The Endless “No Mandate” Mantra

January 18, 2005

Never has their been such an obsession over the concept of a presidential mandate as there is at the beginning of President Bush’s second term. Even in 2000, when the nut cases and loons thought he’d stolen the election, they didn’t harp on about this lack of mandate thing to the extent they are today. I guess in 2000 the “no mandate” mantra was kind of a lesser included offense of the “we was robbed” chant, so it didn’t need to be repeated every day. That is, if we stole the election, we obviously didn’t have a mandate. But now that their false cries of election theft aren’t resonating this year, they’ve apparently decided to go with the “no mandate” thing and hammer it relentlessly.

Today, the Washington Post begins a major “news” story this way:

President Bush will begin his second term in office without a clear mandate to lead the nation, with strong disapproval of his policies in Iraq and with the public both hopeful and dubious about his leadership on the issues that will dominate his agenda, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Did these clowns ever make a similar point when Bill Clinton received 43% and 49% of the popular vote, respectively, in his two presidential elections? No way. Can you believe that these same people who are constantly urging that we come together continue to issue this bellicose talk about the nation being divided? Think they and their Democrat wards might have something to do with that divisive condition? Here’s the second paragraph:

On the eve of Thursday’s presidential inaugural ceremonies, the survey found few signs that the country has begun to come together since Bush defeated Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) two months ago. The president has claimed a mandate from the election, but the poll found as much division today as four years ago over the question of whether Bush or Democrats in Congress should set the direction for the country.

Well of course there’s going to be dissent as to how the country should be run by the losing side? What kind of insane nonsense is this? Does the Post us to believe that under normal circumstances (excuse the oxymoron) the rank and file of the losing presidential candidate would all of a sudden have abandoned their political goals? Do you think George McGovern supporters or Barry Goldwater supporters changed their minds about things after their candidate lost? Of course not. Did Democrats throw in the towel after either of Richard Nixon’s victories? Emphatically not. In fact, after the second one they just strengthened their resolve to bring him down — which they eventually did. Here’s the next paragraph:

Fewer than half of those interviewed — 45 percent — said they preferred that the country go in the direction that Bush wanted to lead it, whereas 39 percent said Democrats should lead the way. During the first months of his presidency, after the bitterly disputed 2000 election, Americans said they preferred Bush to take the lead by 46 percent to 36 percent.

I don’t know about 2000 but it seems to me that if Bush won the popular vote by 5% and now 6% more people prefer his agenda, he has gained a little ground since the election. But the larger point I keep making and will continue to keep making as long as liberal lunacy spews forth is that it in terms of the president’s authority, it doesn’t matter what these stupid polls say. The president won and he’s going to try to implement his agenda. The propagandists can try to intimidate him out of it by citing a failure of overwhelming support, but the last time I checked poll approval was not a constitutional requirement for presidential authority. I think these people would be happier in the British system where the public can oust a leader with votes of no confidence. Of course, they wouldn’t succeed against President Bush.

Besides, these endless polls are increasingly annoying. Later in the article the Post reports that the people gave Bush negative marks 38% vs. 55% disapproval for his handling of the Social Security issue. Well, it’s amazing the disapproval isn’t greater than that considering how much the Democrats and media are lying about and distorting the issue. And to prove the public’s confusion, the poll also showed that 60% of the people didn’t believe the system would have enough money to pay their benefits by the time they retire. AND YET THEY DISAPPROVE OF PRESIDENT BUSH TRYING TO DO SOMETHING TO RESOLVE THE PROBLEM AND APPROVE OF THE DEMOCRATS POOH POOHING TALK OF A CRISIS, WHEN THAT WAS THEIR MAJOR REFRAIN BUT A FEW YEARS AGO.

I’ll also note that the Post, in its reporting and presumably in its poll with ABC, specifically differentiated the War in Iraq from the War on Terror, as if the former is not part of the latter. Their undisclosed bias is smothering.