Monday, March 06, 2006

Limbaugh (no, the other one) on the president's bloodthirsty pursuers...and an elusive mandate

David Limbaugh

The Scandalmongering Co-Presidents - March 3, 2006
...You will recall that after exhausting all legal avenues to invalidate his electoral victory in 2000, they "encouraged" him to relinquish his power voluntarily. They first insisted the questionable election results meant he had no mandate and that he must reach out to Democrats.

They demanded he exhibit a new tone of bipartisanship and collegiality, which simply meant that he was to capitulate to their demands. When he accommodated them on several fronts, they slapped him down like a red-headed stepchild, then complained -- in a manner that would have made the "Twilight Zone's" Rod Serling well up with pride -- that he was the one demonstrating partisanship.

They proceeded to browbeat him for the next four years, accusing him of unthinkable acts, such as lying to get us into war to serve his own personal, political or financial motives, whichever fit their particular line at the time. When he defeated John Kerry in 2004, they once again resurrected the "no mandate" mantra, saying his narrow victory meant he had less authority -- never mind that the Constitution confers every bit as much power on a narrowly elected president as a landslide victor.

When he wouldn't make them co-presidents, they were hardly deterred, continuing to scandalize his every word and deed, and it gets worse every day. (They're about to have an orgy over the newly released Katrina video.)

Now they think they've finally hit pay dirt, with both Bush and the even more reviled Dick Cheney on the ropes. And what novel inference do you suppose the would-be co-presidents have drawn from this? Aha, you guessed it. He has no mandate...

Labels: ,

Subscribe to CBT

Enter an e-mail address for daily updates: