Not surprisingly, the blogs and the media are all a-flutter about the supposed "mandate" that Bush won in last week's election. The right-wing
Boston Herald, for example, is
predictably giddy about the "resounding victory." I'm not quite sure how 3.5 million votes out of over 115 million cast, plus an electoral vote tally that easily could have swung the other way had Kerry taken Ohio or Florida, constitutes a "resounding victory," but that's beside the point.
We can mope and moan all we want about there being no mandate because the election was so close. However, at some point, we have to acknowledge the existence of at least a de facto mandate, if for no other reason than Bush and the GOP will govern as though there is one.
I'm reminded of December 2000, when I was flipping stations on my car radio and (in a weak moment) I happened upon Rush Limbaugh's show. In the midst of all of the expectations, by the media and others, that Bush would have to walk a fine line and work both sides of the aisle due to his close electoral win (allegedly), Limbaugh sounded the clarion call for the wingnuts to treat their judicial anointing like a 400-electoral-vote landslide. I scoffed at the time, but you know what? That's exactly what they did.
So, based on the last four years, it's no wonder the GOP and the SCLM are crowing about the supposed "mandate" (Google's first hit notwithstanding). When you lose the popular vote and win the electoral vote (allegedly) by a whopping two votes, yet you run the country like your personal fiefdom, how are you going to react when 51% of Americans vote for you and you take 286 electoral votes?
Let's stop whining about how there's no mandate and recognize that no matter what we think, the GOP majorities in Congress will legislate like there is one. And all that means is that we have to fight and claw and scratch that much harder to preserve America as we know it.
(Cross-posted, somewhat sheepishly, at Blast Off!)