Exactly how smart is Bush?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Jesse J., Apr 18, 2003.

  1. tampa


    Learn to live with the truth - the majority of Americans did not vote for George. The electoral collage was put into the Constitution because the founding fathers did not trust the people to make the right decision. In other words, a bunch of rich, white, conservative, protestants reserved for themselves the "right" to override the will of the people...plain and simple.
    #11     Apr 19, 2003
  2. #12     Apr 19, 2003
  3. We'll give you GORE in the NEXT LIFE.
    #13     Apr 19, 2003
  4. i'll say it once more:





    As one example of democrats not fighting fair, why did ALL of the news media report Gore had won Fla. with 10 minutes left in the polls in florida? How many people in the pan-handle were standing on line (to vote for Bush) when they heard this "news".

    This travesty cost Bush at least 10,000 votes in Fla.
    #14     Apr 19, 2003
  5. Had Gore been Prez, we'd still be discussing all of this at the UN and would have lobbed a few cruise missiles at the Taliban, if at all. France, Germany, Russia and China would be bitch-slapping Gore all over the place, and the world at large, especially our enemies, would look at our inaction, nod their heads, and say "I told you so" to one another while planning further atrocities.

    Bush has taken an enormous political and personal risk doing what he believes is best long-term for the national security of this country. Fortunately, contrary to the beliefs of most of the posters on this thread, the majority of the American people support him and this war. Those on this thread who oppose the war and hate Bush are like a bunch of social castaways who have formed their own little support group to commiserate with each other and have partners to wallow in the mud with. Let 'em - to object would be un-American.

    Having said that, IMHO his reelection is NOT a slam dunk. Witness #41 in '92. To the glee of the anti-Bush crowd, there is a definite possibility that 2004 will usher in a Dem. who will pull us out of Iraq, apologize to the UN, and ask Chirac & Schroeder to slap us around pretty-please.
    #15     Apr 19, 2003
  6. More sophistry from the right wing.

    10K in votes? That's sheer speculation and nonsense too.
    First, if they are on line, how did they get the "news"
    You are assuming that at least 10,000 Bush voters were on line and received the "news" that Gore won, even though they knew the polls had not closed (they were on line) and the votes would not be counted until early the next morning, and that they altogether left in defeat. Do you really think 10,000 people who made the point of going out to the polls to vote, not just for the Presidential election but for various local elections as well, while at the poll, and on line, received messages about exit polls favoring Gore and based on these messages said "Darn it, ah ain't voting for nobody nohow now"? I don't think so. I think the voter on line if he heard reports of exit polls would have been motivated to stay on line and vote for his candidate, especially after 8 years of the opposition party in the White House.
    #16     Apr 19, 2003
  7. Yeah, play by the rules, fight fair, like breaking and entering into Democratic National Headquarters.
    #17     Apr 19, 2003
  8. Well, we can re-fight the Y2k election, I suppose, not that there'd be any point in it. Dems - and poorly informed international critics - like to point out that Gore received more votes nationwide, but everyone should know that direct vote totals are skewed by the American electoral system. We have no way of knowing who would have voted - or for that matter, how the candidates would have campaigned, or which candidates would have been nominated - if the US system was based on direct election.

    As for Florida, Ds point to the "butterfly ballot," claim that one version of re-counting methods might have favored Gore, and claim that many African-American voters were disenfranchised. Rs point to studies that the counting method favored by Gore's side would still have given Bush the victory, point to depressed turnout in the Panhandle, and argue that the laws and regulations in place at the time of the election did not allow for the recount procedures Gore's side was demanding. Neither side can prove what would have happened under their favored scenarios - how many votes were really gained or lost.

    In the end Bush won for a set of reasons: He won the first count in Florida according to the procedures and rules that were in place at the time, and, during the recount process, he benefited from Republican preponderance in the key secondary institutions - the Florida legislature and executive offices, the Supreme Court, and the House of Representatives - that would have been in a position to validate whatever results. All Gore had going for him was the Florida Supreme Court, which failed to act speedily enough in his favor at key points, and whose decisions may not, even if carried out in full, have worked out in Gore's favor after all. It's worth pointing out that all of these institutions were set up lawfully and democratically - representatively if imperfectly.

    As things turned out, it was the US Supreme Court that acted decisively against the recount, but, at the time of the decision, it was by no means clear that even an outcome in Gore's favor would have ended the struggle, far from it.

    Only two things about the entire affair are inarguable: 1) election itself was as close to a coin flip as the US system could produce - neither side can rationally claim that the election produced a clear decision for either side. 2) The loser, to his great credit, acknowledged, accepted, and affirmed the result.

    At this late date, most Americans are totally OVER IT, and find criticisms from unsympathetic, frequently ignorant foreign observers and from disappointed partisans to be unwelcome.
    #18     Apr 19, 2003
  9. I think the US Supreme Court was placed in an impossible position by the Florida Supreme Court. The US Court could either intervene, which it was loath to do because of concepts of federalism, or sit by and watch a bunch of political hacks on the Florida Court rewrite their state's election laws on the fly and steal the election. It was pretty apparent to any objective observer that was exactly what the Florida court was doing. I find it ironic that the same liberals who want federal courts involved in all sorts of cases to protect constitutional rights are upset that the Supreme Court acted to protect our most basic right, that to an honest election.

    I have to question giving thanks to Al Gore for being a graceful loser. He was anything but. He embroiled us in a banana republic-style transfer of power for the basest of political and personal reasons. His attorneys advanced baseless and distorted claims, solely in hopes of getting a highly politicized Florida judiciary to take control of the election. And they continue to lie about the whole process to this day.
    #19     Apr 19, 2003
  10. its unbelievable that their are still apologists for what transpired after the votes were electonically counted..

    Bush won the 1st and 2nd counts, and those were the most accurate (before humans stepped in).

    Yes it was close, but rules are rules.
    #20     Apr 20, 2003