![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Good Question
Posted by Stephen Green · 3 November 2004
Bush has obviously won the popular vote. If he was "selected not elected" in 2000, then why on Earth would the Dems want to try to put Kerry in via lawsuits in 2004? Comments
They need to beat HIM. But he'd be Carter w/o the dem senate. ABB Posted by: Sandy P at November 3, 2004 01:05 AMThe Left's bleating about 2000 being stolen was cynical on the part of politicos, and naive and stupid on the part of the rank and file. The latter will now cook up some new theory -- probably that the networks called Ohio before midnight -- to explain how this election was stolen. Silly, and sad for the country. Posted by: Jack at November 3, 2004 01:07 AMYou're assuming that the Dems believe the same standards apply to both sides. I mean, didn't the Dems INVENT the term "double-standard"? It's all the know anymore. All they have left. They don't have the Presidency, they don't have the House, they don't have the Senate, and they don't have a majority of the Governorships. They have NOTHING, and I'm diggin' it! BWAAHAHAHAHA! Posted by: Bloghorn Bleghorn at November 3, 2004 01:09 AMOooh. I didn't think of that. Hmp. You're right. The chances of a lawsuit just went way down. Because then he gets to be President? Just guessing. Posted by: joe shropshire at November 3, 2004 01:26 AMNothing's too good for the Dems, and that's exactly what they shall get! Bwaahahahahaha! Posted by: Cybrludite at November 3, 2004 04:11 AMThink of this as an ad: scene is a television studio, Democrat is pullinbg his hair and yelling. "I can't believe that evil, smirking moron beat us again! He can't win! He can't!" (sounds of sobbing and wailing, men in white coats drag the Dem away) Bush Derangement Syndrome - We Can Help. That's why. He drives them absolutely batty. Posted by: Mikey at November 3, 2004 05:36 AMI think that the fact that the president's brother was (and still is) governor of Florida made it politically easier to contest the election via courts. This isn't the case now. I'm REALLY curious as to how the far left will react to this election. Funny thing is, FOX News mentioned the vote difference in Ohio more than 5 times in 10 minutes while CNN just keeps repeating (still, now at 8am) that it is "too close to call", no mention of numbers. Talk about bias. Posted by: Henrique at November 3, 2004 06:05 AMWell, 'selected, not elected' seems to be aimed at the "fact" that Gore should've won both the popular and electoral vote if not for the Republican-controlled Supreme Court stepping in after the umpteenth recount. Don't know if they'll try the same tactic again. It's the perfect filibuster - keep demanding recount upon recount until someone steps in and declares Bush the victor, after which you can scream 'selected, not elected!' for four years, never mind driving the truly deranged Indymediots to attempt assasinations. Posted by: Sam at November 3, 2004 06:09 AMFuck the Red Sox and Fuck w. There will be no hands stretching across the aisle. The revolution begins today. Posted by: epoh at November 3, 2004 06:41 AMHey bloghorn, you missed that GWB has the popular vote too, by nearly 4 million. From the moonbats at DU --------- ...on several swing states, and EVERY STATE that has EVoting but no paper trails has an unexplained advantage for Bush of around +5% when comparing exit polls to actual results. In EVERY STATE that has paper audit trails on their EVoting, the exit poll results match the actual results reported within the margin of error. So we have MATCHING RESULTS for exit polls vs. voting with audits vs. A 5% unexplained advantage for Bush without audits. Maybe Dubayah believes God will see him through this, but it's going to take more than blind faith to pull the wool over the data and the facts. ------ so W out-cheated the Dems?
'Bush has obviously won the popular vote. If he was "selected not elected" in 2000, then why on Earth would the Dems want to try to put Kerry in via lawsuits in 2004?' To create doubt however false about Bush being president which will give the hard core Dims supporters something to moan about for the next four years, What they don't get is that it was appealling to that part of their party that gave them Dean, and thus the necessity to pick a comprimise candidate like Kerry. Posted by: Ral at November 3, 2004 07:15 AMThe angry Dems need to grow-up, regroup and try again. They need to be reminded that dishonesty pays few rewards. Lose all the glitter and come back with a more mature approach to your politics. Oh yeah, come back with some new ideas! the old ones are pathetic... Posted by: Ron at November 3, 2004 07:29 AMHey Piper...ha ha ha! Why don't you suck your thumb over in the corner. Your "revolution" was supposed to happen last night. It, thank God, did not. Instead, we have re-elected president Bush with a nice 3% margin, picked up at least 3 seats in the senate, picked up 2 seats in, picked up more Governers, DEFEATED DACHLE the senate MINORITY leader, and shown that Michael Moore and you dishonerable jerks on the far left can't lie your way into the white house, senate, house, or governors races. Not to mention, if you lie and cheat and behave like babies for four years (like the last four years) we'll kick your minority leader out of the senate. Do you really think that people want to beat the crap out of their own country all day? They don't, and this proves it. Michael Moore, and Terry McCullif have destroyed and decimated the Democrat party. You're a bunch of incoherent special interest groups, with a raving band of lying thumb sucking babies (which you are one of). Get over it PUNK, YOU LOSE! To those on the left who are not Michael Moore lunatics, I offer my hand out. To Roosevelt Democrats, your party is now called the Republican party, we share more values with you than the Michael Moore crowd, who has ravaged your party. Posted by: Jay Lison at November 3, 2004 09:00 AMTypical classless leftist post epoh. Bring on your revolution loser and get your butt kicked (again). Posted by: PubsRule at November 3, 2004 09:02 AM"To create doubt however false about Bush being president which will give the hard core Dims supporters something to moan about for the next four years, What they don't get is that it was appealling to that part of their party that gave them Dean, and thus the necessity to pick a comprimise candidate like Kerry." Maybe, however they have to examine this election, and realize that the current course of action COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY failed this time around. They also have to realize that in four years, they will NOT be running against Bush. So, it won't work anyway. The thumb sucking got them less votes this time around, and it will only get worse if they keep behaving badly. Posted by: Jay Lison at November 3, 2004 09:06 AMOh Lord, I actually have to defend the Democrats. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" If Bush won by lawsuit in 2000, then Democrats have a moral right to do it in 2004. 'You started this, you made the rule, we're just playing the game.' Of course, Bush didn't win by lawsuit, or start it (Bush had more votes, and Gore sued first), but the Bush Derangement Syndrome has led many Dems to forget that. So, given their sincerely deranged position, they have a right to sue. Posted by: Stephen M. St. Onge at November 5, 2004 03:40 PM |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"...the Internet version of Playboy After Dark"
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |