I'm so SICK of this "Democrats don't have a mandate" shit!

[Th1onein]

Why is this even a question? It's, once again, Republicans framing the debate.

They're saying that people didn't vote FOR Democrats, but voted AGAINST George W. Bush. As if they didn't vote long term Republican incumbents out of office, time and again!

These incumbent Republican congressmen and women voted for Bush policies, right straight down the line. And Bush signed off on THEIR bullshit legislation that took our rights away from us, and brought this nation to it's knees.

Dems DO have a mandate. It's a mandate for change.

[Aviation Pro]

1. Not a mandate, but a chance....

...for change to occur.

[librechik]

4. Michael Steele, Rape-uplican mouthpiece, said that just now on Blitzer

"Dems don't have a mandate. They have an opportunity."

Pukkkie is wrong. We have a mandate. It just involves kicking their asses, and they are doing ANYTHING to forestall or prevent that very just outcome.

They are setting us up for failure with this. Now the instant we take charge they can start whining about how slow how wrong, how conflicted etc. All the Newt-Onian badmouthing.

[Aviation Pro]

7. He lifted it from Al Franken....

...I was paraphrasing Big A.

[librechik]

8. ack! Thanks for the help, Al

oh well, he's a moderate, he's trying to moderate.

I wish everybody would get on the same page. The media is still only listening to the same tired voices from both sides. For them there was no mandate for change, that's for sure!

[KharmaTrain]

11. That Was Bill Clinton's Line

And he's right. I'd rather Democratic leglislators feel they're "on notice" here and work to get some positive, meaningful legislation passed and work towards even bigger gains in '08.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

12. Well, Michael Steele MOST CERTAINLY doesn't have a mandate.

That's ONE thing for sure. ;)

[Solo_in_MD]

22. Concur

Almost everyone I know who switched sides this election did it because they did not like the incumbent repuke, not because they suddenly changed their politics. Furthermore, the margin is minimal in the Senate, and even in the house there are enough Dixiecrats and DINOs to make things dicey. Certainly its not veto proof at this point.

Those who are on the mandate soapbox are being short sighted. This next two years is the time to consolidate the gains and insure we get control both houses and the preidency in 2008. We can stop the Bush agenda and even start to reverse it without appearing radical to the voters. We can start by keeping our house clean (not going with Hastings as chair of the Intel committeethinking before we shoot our mouths of (Rangel and the draft). We can force the president and the repukes to veto/vote against good legislation and other ways to build the public confidence that we are the better party to rule.

It will take time, and over reaching at this point co8uld mean a Repuke in the Whitehouse and possibly losing one or both houses.

[blm]

2. The Democrats never fostered a left message machine to combat the RW media

that keeps overpowering them over the last 15 years.

Why don't they want one? They must have known they needed one after impeachment of Clinton - yet no significant money has been spent to deal with it.

[elperromagico]

3. If Bush had a mandate with 51% in 2004,

Democrats have a mandate with 54% now.

There's simple math for you.

[Joe Chi Minh]

5. Absolutely right. But no bona fide Democrats are going to swallow that,

It's good to bring it up, but if you pay too much heed to it (other than to deride it), I think you're giving it way too much respect. You know from experience that they'll try every trick in the book, and a whole swag of them that aren't.

That's perhaps the one kind of strength they have, persistence. Though it would have been better for them in the light of eternity, if it had not been persistence in evil.

[elperromagico]

6. The line that really gets me is

"This is a victory for conservatives."

This from people who have spent the last several decades painting Republicans as pure conservatives and Democrats as pure liberals.

[kentuck]

9. Mandate? Change? What's the difference?

The people definitely voted for change!

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

10. Since these people LOST (and lost BIG) they do not get to say SHIT about the reasons why.

No one appointed them the world expert on everything.

[Elidor]

13. It's a very clumsy frame anyway

By voting against Bush, people gave the Democrats a mandate to oppose his policies. It's sad that the non sequitur of that frame isn't blatantly obvious to most people in our news media.

[MadHound]

14. Well, in a way, it's the truth

Sure, the Democrats can get issues passed, but they without a veto proof majority, very few issues are going to get passed into law. The only way that any party can have a mandate is either like the 'Pugs recently had, a 'Pug president and a 'Pug controlled Congress. Or, we can have a mandate with a veto proof majority in order to bypass Bush. We have neither right now, so on most issues, we don't have a mandate.

Sorry, but that is the political reality. We can raise hell, we can act on a few issues, we can set the tone and determine what is heard, we can bring investigations. This is a great start, but it isn't a political mandate. When we can actually have an issue like an increase in capital gains taxes pass both the Senate and House, and then become law, either through presidential signing, or overriding a veto, then we will have a mandate. Until, we have a majority, and for now, that's grand progress. A mandate is what we're going to be fighting for in '08

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

15. Force the president to use his veto. With every veto of a popular Democratic initiative, he will

drive another nail into the coffin of his party's chances in '08.

Let Bush be the one labelled obstructionist.

[0rganism]

16. Damn straight! The Dems should pony up for a new "veto pen" for dubya

Instead of kissing his ass over a catered breakfast, Nancy could have handed him a nice veto pen with a few dozen refills, and the words "lame-duck obstructionist" engraved on the side.

[MadHound]

17. I fully agree, but that still doesn't mean that the Democratic Party, right now,

Has a mandate. In fact I suspect that for the most part we'll be experiencing massive government gridlock, because I suspect that Bush will do just that, get out his veto pen. He has no compunction to do otherwise, since he won't be up for re-election and has the attitude of spoiled child, if he can't get his way, nobody will get their way. Sure, that will hurt the 'Pugs in '08, and then we can get our mandate.

But then, and only then, will we be able to say that the Democratic Party has a mandate:shrug:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

18. I disagree. They do have a mandate. They were sent to Congress to change the course

of Bush's disastrous policies and to check his unchecked power.

Just because they aren't there in sufficient numbers to hammer through anything they want doesn't mean there isn't a mandate for change from Bush policies.

http://m-w.com/dictionary/mandate

2 : an authorization to act given to a representative <accepted the mandate of the people>

Electing enough Democrats to cause gridlock BTW IS a mandate, to end unchecked abuse and misuse of power by Bush.

You don't have to have 80 percent of each house and the presidency to have a mandate.

[MadHound]

20. No, you don't have to have 80% and the presidency to have a mandate,

But you do have to have the ability to act, to impose the actions that you wish upon the body politic. The Democratic Party doesn't have that power, since Bush holds the veto pen and we don't have a veto proof majority. Hence, we will have gridlock. Yes, the people voted in Democrats nationwide in order to counteract Bush by this very tactic. But that still doesn't mean that we have a mandate. We're not going to get things like a capital gains tax hike enacted, or health care reform, Bush will veto these things. But we can prevent further atrocities at the hands of Bushco, a further deterioration of our country. And for now, that is enough. Hold onto our Congressional majorities, and grab the Presidentcy in '08, then we'll have a mandate, then we can be proactive, then we can actually *do* things. Until then, all that we have is gridlock, a preventitive measure to stop the bleeding.

[butterfly77]

19. I am sick of hearing this also...

They say that the dems don't have a plan but I seem to be hearing all of the pundits spitting out everything that Biden has been saying over the past few years and Levin. They also want to pretend that the vote was against Iraq only.


The vote was against the thieves and liars in the whitehouse and congress and senate. Also, high gas prices for car and home,bad economy,corruption,Habeus corpeas,Hypocritical pedohiles, joblessness,homelessness,etc... These liars don't have a plan and never wanted to listen to the dems when they had a suggestion, they didn't let them in on their secret meetings and now they want to lay it on them.

[porphyrian]

21. Pay no attention to the right-wing talking points...

...but do pay attention to who in our party is pimping them out. You'll find that these people are pretty much the same ones who are smearing Dean's success after their strategy handed us three consecutive major election failures. Whether they are actually working for republicans or are just throwing a tantrum remains to be seen.

[in_cog_ni_to]

23. Bill Clinton should have NEVER said this. It has now become the repuke's

new favorite meme.:grr:

It's a quote from a speech Clinton gave right after the election.:(

I agree...WE DO HAVE A MANDATE AND WE HAD BETTER MAKE THE BEST OF IT! By the time our Democrats are finished using their new 'mandate' not many people will be supporting repukes come November 2008. The investigations alone will finish off the repuke party!