If Bush doesn’t have a mandate, I don’t know who does

To the Editor:

I take issue with a statement made by Frederick J. Streets in his letter published recently in the Yale Daily News (“Why college students should become and remain politically active” 11/9).

He says, “President Bush does not have a mandate.” Really? He won 51 percent of the popular vote and over 53 percent of the electoral votes. He’s the first president since his father in 1988 to win more than 50 percent of the popular vote. The Republican party increased their majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. If this is not a mandate, I would love to know how Mr. Streets defines the term.

It is unfortunate that Democrats cannot accept the reality of President Bush’s success. For the last four years I’ve heard repeatedly that he “stole” the election. And those who begrudgingly accepted the results still continued to say his victory was “tainted” because he did not win the popular vote. But now, the best his detractors can say is that he lacks a mandate. It is a weak argument, at best, and smacks of desperation.

The liberal elite would be better served by attempting to rebuild their own party after this resounding defeat rather than continuing to attack, belittle and disparage the Republicans. This has been the strategy for the last four years and it was clearly unsuccessful. The people have spoken, and they spoke loudly and emphatically in support of the president and the Republican Party.

Mike Faro ’93

Nov. 9, 2004