#4: Mandate

Some asshat named Robert Novak has recently claimed that Obama's 365-Electoral-Vote-WIN does not mean that he has a mandate to enact his agenda. This is a most blantant act of asshattery from Mr. Novak.

asshattery (noun): a very stupid notion or claim, particularly one steeped in hypocrisy, ignorance, and a total disregard for factual information; usually penned or created by total douchebags or douchebagguettes (my apologies if you actually enjoyed the crusty [no pun intended] French rolls).

Why is this an act of asshattery? Because just 4 years ago, though I may have been younger and naiver, I clearly remember Bush "winning re-election" (scare quotes sponsored by Ohio) by just 286 Electoral Votes, and then going on to claim that he now had a "mandate" to enact his legislative agenda and "political capital" to spend. Let us examine these numbers and do some basic mathematics:

1) Bush percentage of electoral votes: (286/538)*100=53.16%.

2) Obama percentage of electoral votes: (365/538)*100=67.84%

3) Difference in percentage of electoral votes: 67.84% - 53.16% = 14.68% more Electoral Votes to Obama


Yes, I could go on and continue calculated to normalize the percentage difference in Electoral Votes won to proportion of popular vote won, but this is rather pointless because the popular vote doesn't really matter anyway. The point is this, Chimp-in-Chief Bush barely "wins" re-election and suddenly has a mandate (although I guess, with the contrast to the stolen 2000 election, 2004 did have a larger margin of win) to do what he wants to do. So then Barack Obama wins 14.68% more Electoral Votes, and he doesn't have any kind of mandate whatsoever? This is asshattery, cut, dried, and direct from the mouths of the douchiest douches in the whole douche world who have a vested interest in continuing to be crusty old douches because they have monetary interest in maintaining the status quo and are too lazy to actually extract their head from Rush Limbaugh's (aka: King Douche Oxycontin III) flabby ass and think for themselves. To hold such a double standard to politics is illogical, inept, and at worst downright pathological. This is the kind of drivel I would expect to see in high school newspapers. I even hold college newspapers (disclosure: I worked for a mediocre one) to a higher standard. The Chicago-Sun Times has taken the idea of "fair and balanced" and run too far with it. It is one thing to present a well-reasoned, well-researched, and fair counter-point to any given editorial. But in seeking to balance centrist positions (which are somehow demeaned as being radically liberal* by all), the Chicago-Sun Times has drawn in dingbattery and asshattery from douches. Simply put, Robert Novak is full of shit. And his disparagement of unions as being far-left radicals is also shit.

Obama has won a mandate to enact his campaign platform. And that he has done so while being a brown man is remarkable, for if Obama had been a white man running on his positions and with his charisma and attitude against Bush the 3rd (also known as McCain), the race would have been over even before the conventions and McCain might have still carried Alaska, Wyoming, and Idaho. So let change come to America!

I mean, it's only fair that the asshatters be given the same option as any liberal who dared voice dissent over the past eight years: if you don't like here, just move somewhere else. The authoritarian regime in Myanmar may be more to their liking. I just hope they remember to take some DEET with them.


Bonus joke:
Q: What did Cheney say when he heard that Obama has a mandate?
A: If he can do it, why can't my daughter?



*Concerning the definition of the concept of Liberalism. Conservative commentators in American society appear to define Liberalism as being any world-view that does not agree with their own and is more inclusive or diverse in any measurements. However, I consider Liberalism to be a set of progressive values based in respect for personal autonomy, humanitarian values, peace, and a broad social support structure that includes all individuals. I consider Radical Liberalism to be those not just Disestablishmentarian, but also Anti-Civilization. I consider Radical Conservatism to be Theocracy and/or Anarchist Libertarianism. These terms are defined here for you because this is how they will be used for the rest of this blog as long as I remember them.