Chris Matthews: Final tally gives Bush legitimacy

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 11/18/2001 | Chris Matthews

[Pokey78]

Washington -- The real loser of the 2000 presidential election was hardball politics.

George W. Bush thought he would lose the limited recount ordered by Florida's Supreme Court, so the Republican presidential candidate got the U.S. Supreme Court to stop it. The result was a victory in the Electoral College that gave Al Gore backers reason to question Bush's legitimacy.

[Howlin]

"A ballot-by-ballot analysis by a consortium of newspapers shows that Bush would have won the election clean if he'd let Florida go ahead with the partial recount that Gore wanted."

*ROLLING MY EYES*

How can you "win" anything "clean" when, in order to do so, you have to let the other guy COUNT ILLEGAL VOTES??????

[AmishDude]

But don't forget: They did live happily ever after and Algore was turned into a hairy troll forever forced to live under the unfinished Bridge to the 21st Century.

[Howlin]

Gee, it only took Chris a week to come up with this convoluted "assessment." I've never seen such "fact" twisting in my life!

so the Republican presidential candidate got the U.S. Supreme Court to stop it

GOT THEM TO STOP IT??????????

He really thinks we're stupid, doesn't he?

[Howlin]

One last thing, the ONLY scenario in which Gore's numbers are higher than President Bush's is if you count ILLEGAL overvotes AND EXCLUDE military ballots.

You forgot to add AND ONLY IN FLORIDA!!!!

[Howlin]

I think you pretty much nailed it.

[RobFromGa]

He really thinks we're stupid, doesn't he?

Hasn't this been painfully obvious for a while now? It was when I stopped even clicking past Hardball last December. (and the rest of the Unfair and Unbalanced networks as well).

[BunnySlippers]

George W. Bush thought he would lose the limited recount ordered by Florida's Supreme Court, so the Republican presidential candidate got the U.S. Supreme Court to stop it.

This is just downright WRONG.

[RobFromGa]

I like your ending, and I am still hoping that the Wicked Hildabeast and Billzabub will be banished to live under the same unfinished bridge, and then perhaps a little collateral damage...

[Howlin]

"It" has a new join date and seven posts so far, all but one of them claiming that Bush didn't get enough votes. Definitely NOT one of us.

[winin2000]

It's healthy to know that Bush would have been our war leader today with or without the intervention of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Not necessarily!! Even today, Bush's critics refuse to acknowledge the crux of our argument a year ago: that it was intrinsically unfair for partisan Democratic canvassing boards to dominate the process of deciding what constituted a valid vote!

If you think, say, Suzanne Gunsberger, wouldn't have been keeping mental notes on how many votes Gore needed and "interpreting" up roughly that very figure for him, but would have instead arrived at the same conclusions as the equally proportioned panels of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents doing the media recount, you're smokin' rope!

[KellyAdmirer]

So, for his next column, will Mr. Matthews read the comic strips and explain for us what they mean, too?

[JoeSixPack1]

Chris's memory is fading fast. He stated on "Hard Ball" {I believe the first or second week of Dec} that he was salavating over the recounts because it is politics at its rawest form. He further stated that because this is the roughest, bare knuckles presidential election he had ever lived through that whoever wins will have his 100% backing because (he stated), like a pro boxer, he only wants the winner (whoever it is, he again said) to represent him and his country. As the winner will be the toughest politician in America.

He further stated whoever loses will be trashed from the American political scene.

Maybe he didn't forget, but he is still salavating.

[Agamemnon]

Bush gets his comeuppance too, in a way. History will not look kindly on this election. The fact is that he didn't win a plurality of legal votes.

While you may be a self-congratulatory gadfly and thoroughly, albeit singly, enamoured of your own analysis, quite to the contrary history will simply show that the law and the Constitution when upheld, are bare-knuckled enough to take on theives and slime who don't chose to play by the rules.

Your attempt to equate Bush and Gore on the basis of hard-ball politics alone neglects the overarching point that Bush had the law on his side and Gore didn't. Your plurality point is nonsense since those aren't the rules of "the game." George Bush doesn't have to waste his time re-assembling the widely identified instances of voter fraud accomplished by Dems nationally which give the appearance of +500K votes more for Gore.

Bush won by playing the game by the rules. You and Democrats may not like the rules, but that doesn't make GWB any less the established President that he is.

History will look back and give an account of how perilously close the American public came to being defrauded of the better man for President. It will give an account of the affirmation of the rule of law following 8 years of seemingly "no controlling legal authority."

[leftiesareloonie]

Please don't get me started on "no controlling legal authority." Nor am I enamored of my own analysis. I don't see where you get that. I just don't see a need to pretend. Bush has the stage. I'm glad he has the stage. I voted for him -- even though I supported McCain in the primaries. I can't think of a single democrat I've ever voted for for anything. All that matters is what Bush does with the stage now that he has it. Seems to me to be doing quite well so far.

[RobFromGa]

I can't think of a single democrat I've ever voted for for anything.

You should have stopped here: I can't think.

Your comments regarding Bush and the Florida vote are delusional at best and I for one do not believe your pretending to be a Conservative. Wait, I've got it.

Are you really Osama mic Lamen, Senator from Arizona?

[leftiesareloonie]

You're SO clever

I'll challenge you to a thinking duel if you want.

I think that's the first time in my middle-aged life anybody has told me I can't think. But have it your way.

[leftiesareloonie]

Another thing. I thought conervatives were supposed to be the hard-nosed realists, who don't pretend. Liberals are the mushy-minded idealists, full of hopeless fantasies about human nature, what government can achieve, etc. I try not to delude myself ever, about anything or anyone. I've tried very hard not to give into comforting fantasies about the last election. I think I've succeeded. Call me a cynic if you like, call me deeply pessimistic, if you like. But for godssake don't call me a liberal. Of all things!

[patriciaruth]

This is all nonsense. If Bush hadn't fought every inch of the way in the recount, they would have bent even more ballots and popped more chads out. They would have stolen it while we sat there with our thumbs in our mouths being nice. Who is Chris kidding? Himself?

P.S. Chris, Bush was SELECTED........by God.

[patriciaruth]

First recount was statewide and the justification was that Florida law required it when the vote was close.
The second recount was because Gore asked for it, as he was so close and couldn't bear to lose a close one, and knew if they just did some hands-on in a few Democratic counties, well, his fine loyalists would get him those few votes he needed.

How am I doing?

[patriciaruth]

"shouldn't THOSE disenfrancised voters be considered?"

Statistical analysis shows that it was Republican black voters that were disenfranchised. And in Democratic precincts, Republican voters were far more likely to have their ballots invalidated than Democrats.

Does this tell you that they were poking out chads in Repubican ballots to overvote them and invalidate them and putting marks on Republican optical scan ballots to overvote them and invalidate them?