NewsBusters is joining Newsmax in downplaying the idea of Barack Obama having a mandate to do anything.
A Nov. 4 post by Jeff Poor repeats CNBC's Larry Kudlow's warning that "Obama shouldn't misinterpret the election results to unleash an attack on vital parts of the economy," adding, "Kudlow explained to viewers that some of Obama's strength on Election Day came in traditionally red states by very close margins - meaning Obama voters wanted change, but not radical liberal policies."
And a Nov. 4 post by Matthew Sheffield tout how, on CNN, "Bill Bennett was the lone voice trying to say that an Obama presidency is not a mandate for radical liberalism," going on to complain how after recent presidential election victories by George W. Bush, "one of the most common liberal media refrains was how Republicans shouldn't read too much into their victories."
But as we detailed in 2004, the ConWeb insisted Bush had a solid mandate, even though he defeated John Kerry by only half the margin that Obama defeated John McCain. By that measure, Obama has much more of a mandate than Bush did.