TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Does President Bush Have a 'Mandate'?

Does President Bush Have a 'Mandate'?

Did the US voters give President Bush a mandate in the election to pursue and expand his policies, as VP Cheney said prior to President's acceptance speech?

Just so everyone can discuss this intelligently, here are some common definitions from dictionary.com. Feel free to add others.

Dictionary.com

quote:

1) An authoritative command or instruction. 2) A command or an authorization given by a political electorate to its representative.

White House VP Speech Link

quote:

VP Cheney: This has been a consequential presidency -? which has revitalized our economy and reasserted a confident American role in the world. Yet in the election of 2004, we did more than campaign on a record. President Bush ran forthrightly on a clear agenda for this nation's future, and the nation responded by giving him a mandate. Now -- (Applause.) Now we move forward to serve and to guard the country we love.

If you haven't noticed, neither the president nor his staff need to make sense. His spin team have redefined reality 9/11 changed everthing. He could shit down the public throat and they would lick their lips and ask for seconds.

I've stopped wasting my time trying to decifer what this arrogant, smirking jack ass says. Those ignorant redneck, midwest, southerners are going to need all their religious moral values and faith because their won't much left after this spend happy tax cutting maniac puts us in the poor house.

In the presidential sense of the word, yes. Mandates have been "called" with less of percentage lead than Bush currently has in the vote totals. Bush is also the first president since 1988 to get a raw majority of the vote total. (>50%).

But more importantly, Bush gets a mandate because he's been put back in office at a greater margin of victory and with millions more raw votes than he had 4 years ago. Turnout was up 11%, and Bush increased his number of votes from 2000 by 18%. The voters have affirmed his presidency.

So if Kerry had won ohio he would have had a 'mandate'?

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow If you haven't noticed, neither the president nor his staff need to make sense. His spin team have redefined reality 9/11 changed everthing. He could shit down the public throat and they would lick their lips and ask for seconds. I've stopped wasting my time trying to decifer what this arrogant, smirking jack ass says. Those ignorant redneck, midwest, southerners are going to need all their religious moral values and faith because their won't much left after this spend happy tax cutting maniac puts us in the poor house.

Talk about a divided country. Wahoo! Yey for revolution!

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow So if Kerry had won ohio he would have had a 'mandate'?

Even if Kerry got 200,000 more votes in Ohio, (meaning he would be president) Bush would still have more popular votes. (Remember 2000) The mandate he is refering to the popular vote of the people. More people supported him in this election compared to the last election.

I think that word mandate is misused. There is still something which I will call "Congress" where bills have to be passed and then signed by the president. If the House wishes thay can override the president's veto with a 2/3 majority vote.

Yes.

He has a mandate from the Arbiter to take a long walk off a short pier.

quote:

Originally posted by Reverend_Trance Even if Kerry got 200,000 more votes in Ohio, (meaning he would be president) Bush would still have more popular votes. (Remember 2000) The mandate he is refering to the popular vote of the people. More people supported him in this election compared to the last election. I think that word mandate is misused. There is still something which I will call "Congress" where bills have to be passed and then signed by the president. If the House wishes thay can override the president's veto with a 2/3 majority vote.

I would say that regardless of how mandate is defined, I think Bush will govern as if he has one, as he has indicated. He governed in his first term this way despite losing the popular vote. Due to GOP gains in the House and Senate and a slight majority already on the aging Supreme Court, it is clear legally that he has a mandate, because he doesn't face opposition, unless he veers from his own party, which could perhaps on an issue like immigration policy. It wouldbe noble of Bush to realize that a large portion of Americans voted for his opponent and to be sensative to their beliefs, but the only thing that can be done is to seek high turnout in the 2006 elections to balance power in Congress.

In the UK a mandate is a list of things a given party promises to do if elected...

(eg. Party x will promise to spend x amount of money on hospitals; increase the police force by x amount of officers; improve the transport system etc etc)

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 I would say that regardless of how mandate is defined, I think Bush will govern as if he has one, as he has indicated. He governed in his first term this way despite losing the popular vote. Due to GOP gains in the House and Senate and a slight majority already on the aging Supreme Court, it is clear legally that he has a mandate, because he doesn't face opposition, unless he veers from his own party, which could perhaps on an issue like immigration policy.

Remember the power of the filabuster. The Democrats are good at that especially after they lose or are not in control. Even though he does have a Republican majority in both houses of Congress, individual legislators differ on some issues changing some of the outcomes. Not everyone vote straight for the party. It is called differing opinions.
I still disagree with the mandate idea because it take Congressional approval for Cabinet and Supreme Court members. There is a chance that some of the judges will not resign or keep on living untill the 2008 election.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 It wouldbe noble of Bush to realize that a large portion of Americans voted for his opponent and to be sensative to their beliefs, but the only thing that can be done is to seek high turnout in the 2006 elections to balance power in Congress.

I think Bush is a more moderate Republican. He has worked with Democrats when passing a fedaral drug program for seniors, a Democratic talking point for years. I think he sees the importance of working with the Democrats but will they cooperate as well?

quote:

Originally posted by igottaknow If you haven't noticed, neither the president nor his staff need to make sense. His spin team have redefined reality 9/11 changed everthing. He could shit down the public throat and they would lick their lips and ask for seconds.

EXACTLY

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.