Will Bush have any moral authority?

[Ferocious]

An interesting read from an English paper.

There a few examples...but this one really disturbed me:


<< What moral authority, in the most extreme example of them all, would a man have to hold his finger over the nuclear trigger when he owed his office not to a majority but the by-product of a bankrupt electoral college? >>

 

[fdiskboy]

What about Clinton? Did he have moral authority? More people voted against Clinton than for him...

The same will be true for BOTH candidates here. Neither got OVER 50% of the popular vote. One will have a plurality, but that does not make for all the talk of a majority.

When you figure that almost 50% of voters chose not to vote, then you must conclude that only about a quarter of the population favored either candidate--how's THAT for moral authority.

 

[OS]

I don't think they mean majority as in most people across the country. I think they mean more people voted for a single candidate against bush than not. This obviously doesn't bode well for his public support when more voters wanted the other candidate over him.

Kind of ironic that way. Bush ran so many TV ads saying &quot;I trust you the american people,&quot; or something to that effect, when in fact that more voters wanted Gore in office than him, but he'll accept the presidency anyways if he wins only the electoral. Such is politics.

 

[AndrewR]

Good thing we put that bankrupt electoral college in place of their decrepit monarch.

All this talk of &quot;moral authority&quot; is quite ridiculous. Whoever wins occupies the White House and effectively controls policy for the next 4 years. Protestations of a lack of moral authority will do nothing to alter that.

Morality has never been a component of politics since the formation of the first government system back in the Tigris and Euphrates valley.

 

[Tripleshot]

Rather moral authority,he will not have a mandate ,especially if he is elected on less than 400 votes. He,or Gore are lame duck Presidents right from the gate.It will be 2002 before a mandate can be descerned and maybe longer. The country is devided 50/50.You cant effect policy that favors only a half of the nation. It is impossible to govern on that basis.

 

[DefRef]

Who gives a rip what the Brits have to say about OUR system?!? They're still bitter about the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. Big talk from a bunch of pansy Royalists. Bah!

Bush won't have a mandate, but if he follows thru on his &quot;uniter, not a divider&quot; rhetoric, he may be able to get the country on his side. Does anyone doubt that Gore would make the next two years a partisan hell in an attempt to get Congress back in 2002? Didn't think so.

 

[Pennstate]

IS uniter even a word?

 

[irie]

we shall see

 

[AndrewR]

Actually, I think it's the U.S. that is bitter about the War of 1812 since they did kick our asses in that one (White House burning, anyone?).

Ok, I just read through some of that article: How could you even cite that idiotic fool in the context of an intelligent debate??? Take this quote:

&quot;It [the American Constitution] is the triumph of aristocracy over democracy, the uncertain over the specific and the past over the future.&quot;

A BRIT speaks of the triumph of aristocracy and denounces our system for a lack of specificity?? His damn country doesn't even have a constitution!

Then this blithering idiot goes on to say that the U.S. Air Force has no Constitutional standing because it's not specifically mentioned under the Commander in Chief clause and that the Serbs could have challenged its legitimacy in the Supreme Court. He must be eating some funny brownies while taking a few hits from the crack pipe -- he is seriously whacked.

If we are going to cite sources, let's at least keep them outside the realm of the sanitarium.

 

[Tominator]

Ferocious,,,you were disturbed BEFORE you read that!

If we wanted some UK input we'd of ask them back in 1776!

 

[pidge]

I like the Electoral college. Bush spent time visiting as many states as possible while Gore focused on the battleground states. Bush won the majority of the states by a landslide. If this race was just about the number of people, the candidates would focus on New York, California, Texas etc. only. If I lived in Delaware or some small state, I would be pretty upset if there was no Electoral college in place.

 

[AMD4ME2]

I say its better to have no moral authority than to have the ORAL authority that Clinton had

The Constitution is the law, I support waiting for the overseas ballots, but beyond that it is over. We must respect the constitution during this, and if we feel it needs &quot;tweaked&quot; afterwards then the appropriate steps should be taken then. Lets not forget the suffering and the hard work that our founding fathers put into this great country. I believe that this must not be allowed to be tainted by the &quot;SUE SUE SUE!&quot; mentality of the present times. I am quite sure that most members here support Napster and dislike the strong armed tactics that the record industry is inflicting on people, and I believe that if the democrats take this to court, they will be even worse than the RIAA! because at least the RIAA has some legal right to enforce their copyrights.

what if your favorite football team lost the superbowl by a field goal, because the kicker was a newbie and didn't concentrate on his job that day? would you demand the game be replayed?

is that fair to the other team and its fans? No its not! a re-vote would be the same. NOT FAIR


that is my view, respect me and I will respect you. (hey that rhymes!)

 

[squirrel dog]

Thats an ivory tower thing.Real world is both or either or can do that job.It dosent matter who is in for the next 4 yrs.There exists a stalemate at the house/senate level.Thats where the power is.Keep in mind Bush has been the Govenor of the 2nd largest state in the Union.Bigger than most other countrys,bordered by a thrid world nation.Al Gore hasnt overthrown Bill Clinton yet.So both are more thamn qualified.

 

[~zonker~]

Take no account of the close election on the performance or ability of the winner. The closest popular election in our history elected JFK, he seemed a fairly effective president. Granted neither of these guys has the charisma of JFK. My point is a close election does not necessarily steal the winner of the ability to govern, much less lead.

 

[bcterps]

Do you think that anyone is really gonna care what happened in this election 6 months from now? I sure wont. Sure people might call the election tainted no matter who wins, but once Gore or Bush is in office then it wont matter and people wont care anymore. I for one am just sick of the whole thing I dont really care who is going to be president.

 

[JohnGalt]

uh i'm pretty sure if everyone voted, it would be 50/50 too, so your 25/75 idea is pretty wrong.