Letter: Not a mandate
Here we go again. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are all smiles greeting their new master and talking up their new “mandate” from the people.
Remember all the Republican pre-election hype about the “voice of the people” needing to be heard before we get a new Supreme Court justice? The people have spoken, and, although the Electoral College (which Trump himself excoriated an numerous occasions) will put Trump into the White House, the winning margin of popular votes continues to grow for Hillary Clinton.
I’m not remotely suggesting what some of my liberal buddies are; that the Electoral College vote in Hillary instead of Trump. We all knew the rules of the game.
What I am suggesting is that Mr. Ryan and Mr. McConnell rethink the meaning of the word “mandate.” A win is a win, but when your candidate has 700,000 fewer people voting for him, a mandate is hardly the word I would use. More like a luke-cold reception. I’d caution them not to overblow their support; a caution that I’m sure will be ignored.
The disregard for President Obama’s constitutional privilege and responsibility to name a Supreme Court justice is one of the most glaring and dangerous examples of anti-democratic behaviors the GOP has done yet. For the most of his presidency, the Republicans treated Obama as three-fifths of a person, someone deserving no hearing, no acknowledgement and no compromise. If the GOP had any remote sense of justice, they would grant Merrick Garland a hearing tomorrow.
Even more insulting was their call that the racial tensions in the country were Obama’s fault. Really? After all their dog whistles and racist rhetoric? After President-elect Trump finally stopped his 8-year-old birther claim only a month ago? After George Zimmerman, a wannabe cop, kills a black kid armed only with Skittles and gets off scot-free? To quote Edward R. Murrow, Have you no shame? Apparently not.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.