On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:25:32 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:


"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 22:36:08 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Once Bush got the Miers' nomination fiasco behind him, most of his base
came back. He didn't get elected by his opponents...so he owes them
nothing.

He owes nothing to the other 49% that pay his salary? Interesting.

They don't like and and most likely never will. Why try to please them?


It isn't a matter of pleasing. I was just tweaking NOYB on his use of
words. Despite his statement, the President works for *all* Americans,
not just those who voted for him. His oath of office was to the
Constitution of the United States. It didn't say anything about
Republicans, only those that voted for him, or any such nonsense.


As long as those who elected him in '04 continue to support him, he has
his mandate.

Well then, I guess he doesn't have his mandate, does he? Seems he has
lost some 10% of those who elected him.

Just what is the definition of a mandate? Is it a plurality? Is it a
majority?

I wouldn't quibble. It is a much battered and misused word, but . . .

From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 [gcide]:

2. Hence: (Politics) An authorization to carry out a specific
public policy, given by the electorate to their
representatives; -- it is considered to be implied by the
election of a candidate by a significant margin after that
candidate has campaigned with that policy as a prominent
element of the campaign platform.
[PJC]