______________________________________________________________

.
About that 'mandate'...

Had a subscriber comment on one of my 'disappointment' postings re: how our new President and congress just passed the spendulus bill which parroted a mantra I heard several times over the weekend re: the mandate implied in Obama's having been elected.

To date myself, I can remember clearly the media repeatedly opining after Reagan's election in 1980 that his 'single digit' margin of victory over Carter of 9.7% most certainly didn't constitute a mandate.

Nor do I recall claims of 'mandate' when Bush-41 defeated Dukakis with an m.o.v. of 7.8% in 1988. (BTW: Clinton defeated Bush-41 in '92 by 5.3%)

Yet here we are, consistently hearing of 'mandate' for President Obama who won with a m.o.v. of 7.2% (52.9% vs. 45.7% for McCain/Palin).

Double standard? Media bias? Surely not.

BTW2: If you're wondering what constitutes a legitimate 'mandate', might I nominate Reagan's re-election in '84 - after four years on the job and having successfully resuscitated an economy in worse shape than is ours now - in 2.5 years - with economic policies since dubbed "spectacularly successful" {and exactly opposite of what's being done now} -

His m.o.v. was 18.2% :

Red denotes states won by Reagan/Bush,
Blue denotes those won by Mondale/Ferraro.

And if you didn't catch it last Friday, please consider reading REAGANOMICS VS. OBAMANOMICS to see why those of us who believe that we're on the wrong track point to history as evidence.
.