It's 2006 – Get Over It
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” - John Adams
Yesterday I saw 5 cars with “Kerry/Edwards” stickers on them, and 2 others with 2 “Kerry 2004.” In today's newspaper (which I swear says the year is 2006) even had an editorial about the 2000 election! I don't make this stuff up. The editorial was still insisting, after all this time, that Bush somehow “stole” the election, and/or a predominantly Republican SCOTUS “decided” that the country “needed” a Republican president “despite the votes and wishes of the people.”
First of all, GET OVER IT! Now if that was not enough, let's examine the facts. The vote did not “hand the victory to Bush.” The lawsuit was about recounts. SCOTUS actually voted 7-2, which means that at least 1 of the “liberal” judges voted in favor of stopping any additional recounts and certifying the vote totals as then existed. At the time of the SCOTUS vote, there was no official count certified, and thus there was no way for SCOTUS to guarantee that Bush would be the ultimate victor. The so-called partisan vote of 5-4 was a separate vote that decided no new recount with uniform standards could be conducted.
No less a bastion of the far-left news media, CNN, had this to say regarding the election: “A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.” (CNN, 2001 no author listed) Mind you, CNN was one of the sponsors of the study, and they clearly had an interest in a different outcome.
In the interest of fairness, it should be noted that the study used several different standards to recount both under- and over-votes. Under three of the four standards, Bush still won. Only under the most lenient standard (one where any mark on a chad was considered as a valid vote), did Gore receive enough votes to win the election (by a margin of 332 votes). It must be noted, however, that that standard 1) violated several laws then in effect in the State of Florida, and 2) was not the standard Gore specifically identified in his court filings. Indeed, using Gore's preferred standard (both in terms of what counts as a vote and which counties to count) Bush's total margin of victory actually increased almost 3x. So even had SCOTUS not “handed the victory to Bush,” Bush still would have won. GET OVER IT!
Not enough for you? There were 111,261 so-called “over-votes” in the disputed counties. Of those, activists claim that approximately 1500 were erroneously discarded in predominantly Democratic (and black) districts. The assumption, of course, being that all blacks are Democrats and would have voted for Gore. The study concluded, however, that less than 3% of those votes were legally marked, meaning that around 105K or so votes were improperly awarded to Gore (remember all blacks are Democrats and voted for Gore). On top of that, a Democrat election official intentionally withheld the delivery of approximately 20,000 overseas military votes until after the deadline for delivery in order to ensure those votes were never counted (the assumption being that overseas military are all white males who vote Republican).
So let's do the math using the most lenient standard: Gore +332-106468-20000 = Gores loses by 126136. Of course, using these revised vote totals, that still means Bush lost the popular election by around 300,000 votes. However, winning the popular vote does not mean winning a majority of the votes. No matter who won in 2000, neither would have had a plurality. In fact, prior to 2004, the last President to be elected with >50% of the popular vote was...wait for it...George H.W. Bush! Yep, in neither 1992 nor 1996 did the saintly Clinton win a plurality. So no matter how you look at at, Bush did not “steal” the election. GET OVER IT!
Moving on to 2004, just because you did not vote for Bush does not mean that others did not. It just happens that the mainstream media is biased so far left that this particular meme enjoys a vocal position making it seem like no one voted for him. But saying something repeatedly does not make it true, except in the hearts and minds of those who already believe in the truth of the statement. In 2004, Bush received a majority of the votes cast (51%). This was, as has been noted, greater than the vote totals for either of Clinton's elections. He won. There is no controversy. GET OVER IT!
It's not rocket science. In 2004, only 52% of the eligible voters bothered to turn out to cast a vote. If you weren't one of them, you don't get to complain. GET OVER IT!
Yesterday I saw 5 cars with “Kerry/Edwards” stickers on them, and 2 others with 2 “Kerry 2004.” In today's newspaper (which I swear says the year is 2006) even had an editorial about the 2000 election! I don't make this stuff up. The editorial was still insisting, after all this time, that Bush somehow “stole” the election, and/or a predominantly Republican SCOTUS “decided” that the country “needed” a Republican president “despite the votes and wishes of the people.”
First of all, GET OVER IT! Now if that was not enough, let's examine the facts. The vote did not “hand the victory to Bush.” The lawsuit was about recounts. SCOTUS actually voted 7-2, which means that at least 1 of the “liberal” judges voted in favor of stopping any additional recounts and certifying the vote totals as then existed. At the time of the SCOTUS vote, there was no official count certified, and thus there was no way for SCOTUS to guarantee that Bush would be the ultimate victor. The so-called partisan vote of 5-4 was a separate vote that decided no new recount with uniform standards could be conducted.
No less a bastion of the far-left news media, CNN, had this to say regarding the election: “A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president.” (CNN, 2001 no author listed) Mind you, CNN was one of the sponsors of the study, and they clearly had an interest in a different outcome.
In the interest of fairness, it should be noted that the study used several different standards to recount both under- and over-votes. Under three of the four standards, Bush still won. Only under the most lenient standard (one where any mark on a chad was considered as a valid vote), did Gore receive enough votes to win the election (by a margin of 332 votes). It must be noted, however, that that standard 1) violated several laws then in effect in the State of Florida, and 2) was not the standard Gore specifically identified in his court filings. Indeed, using Gore's preferred standard (both in terms of what counts as a vote and which counties to count) Bush's total margin of victory actually increased almost 3x. So even had SCOTUS not “handed the victory to Bush,” Bush still would have won. GET OVER IT!
Not enough for you? There were 111,261 so-called “over-votes” in the disputed counties. Of those, activists claim that approximately 1500 were erroneously discarded in predominantly Democratic (and black) districts. The assumption, of course, being that all blacks are Democrats and would have voted for Gore. The study concluded, however, that less than 3% of those votes were legally marked, meaning that around 105K or so votes were improperly awarded to Gore (remember all blacks are Democrats and voted for Gore). On top of that, a Democrat election official intentionally withheld the delivery of approximately 20,000 overseas military votes until after the deadline for delivery in order to ensure those votes were never counted (the assumption being that overseas military are all white males who vote Republican).
So let's do the math using the most lenient standard: Gore +332-106468-20000 = Gores loses by 126136. Of course, using these revised vote totals, that still means Bush lost the popular election by around 300,000 votes. However, winning the popular vote does not mean winning a majority of the votes. No matter who won in 2000, neither would have had a plurality. In fact, prior to 2004, the last President to be elected with >50% of the popular vote was...wait for it...George H.W. Bush! Yep, in neither 1992 nor 1996 did the saintly Clinton win a plurality. So no matter how you look at at, Bush did not “steal” the election. GET OVER IT!
Moving on to 2004, just because you did not vote for Bush does not mean that others did not. It just happens that the mainstream media is biased so far left that this particular meme enjoys a vocal position making it seem like no one voted for him. But saying something repeatedly does not make it true, except in the hearts and minds of those who already believe in the truth of the statement. In 2004, Bush received a majority of the votes cast (51%). This was, as has been noted, greater than the vote totals for either of Clinton's elections. He won. There is no controversy. GET OVER IT!
It's not rocket science. In 2004, only 52% of the eligible voters bothered to turn out to cast a vote. If you weren't one of them, you don't get to complain. GET OVER IT!
posted by exsubdriver at 10:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home