WHY WE HATE BUSH (It's the Stolen Election, Stupid)

Yahoo News ^ | Thu, Sep 25, 2003 | Ted Rall

[AmishDude]

Why should W read an AP story speculating on the latest developments on the CIA's search for bin Laden when he has the source material?

Besides, maybe he forgoes the newspapers for FR.

[concerned about politics]

In other words - to make this very simple - they hate Bush because he's very, very good at his job.
Demons always shriek while being cast out. Their squeals have been getting much louder lately.
It's hard to hold anything against a rightous man, and it's killing them.
Well done, Mr. President.

[presidio9]

I don't bother to ask why Democrats hate a particular Republican president.

There are plenty of hysterical liberals who still hate Ronald Reagan. Even after the man restored America's place in the world, ended the Cold War, and gave us the longest period of economic prosperity in history.

[Marylander]

The suggestion that the President ought to get his information from newspaper articles is ludicrous. The general public does not trust news reporters and the general public is correct.

Except for direct, attributed quotes, every news story should be regarded with suspicion, and usually cannot be said to be true or false until after it is borne out by events. Reporters are not always truthful about the information they convey and when they are truthful, their information is from a leak. Why would the president not know more than the leaker?

[Mr. Buzzcut]

Such are the vicissitudes of elections when a major portion of your constituency is made up of functional incompetents gullible enuff to buy into your program but unable to punch a card properly. ;)

[smith288]

He doesn't "need" to. He has bigger fish to fry and access to the real information that the papers turn around and misreport. His staff is there to tell him how the libs are spinning it and what the tone and such is. But when it comes to the news, he has the authentic sources and knows what's really going on.

I KNOW this.... But if I try viewing it as someone who is not sure of Bush, I can interpret him as not real engaged with the news. "I got people to do it." doesnt work in my book.

What he should have said
Brit: "Do you read newspapers?"
Bush: "Every morning I have important information and current events going on in the world ready for me. I like to stay informed and also like to know how my Rangers are doing."

Sounds engaged, yet news is still being provided. Also shows humor.

This is just my interpretation...which means other could be feeling it. Just saying that im wrong doesnt make people not think it, especially potential voters.

[AmishDude]

When are these wack-jobs going to realize that losing a razor-thin-close election, while incredibly and deeply disappointing and depressing, does NOT mean the other guy cheated and you really won?

Oh, come on. Every time my favorite football team loses by a point, I know they paid off the refs. I just know it.

[Yardstick]

Fear breeds hatred...

U.S. citizens disappear into the night...

A concentration camp rises at Guantánamo...

American troops die to enrich a company that buys off the Vice President...

Bush is guilty of a single irredeemable act so heinous and anti-American...Bush stole the presidency.

It appears that Rall writes cartoons as well as draws them. This piece is overheated, over-the-top BS. Maybe seeing the world in caracatured form is helpful for his cartooning, but it sure makes Rall's writing hard to take anything like seriously.

[AmishDude]

Don't worry about it. The honesty of the statement will reinforce his sincerity. If anybody's bothered by such a thing, they've already bought the "Bush is stupid" line.

[concerned about politics]

I find it discouraging that he needs to get fed news from his staff than get it himself.

Most of the liberal news is overly emotional Bush bashing anyway. There's nothing important he doesn't already know. Reading the words of fools can distort a persons reality, especially if taken seriously.
I don't blame him for using his time more productively. Smart man!

[Kenny Bunk]

In re the stolen election:

This now widely accepted Urban Legend is the Republicans' own fault. Gore would have been close in neither the popular vote, nor the Electoral College had it not been for massive fraud in Illinois, Missouri, California, Michigan, Pennsylvania; even unlikely places like Arizona.

The planning for this well organized fraud was no secret. The silence about it in Republican official cicrles is baffling. Ashcroft took vengeance on Missouri and Maryland by rigorously policing their elections, both of which resulted in Republican victories. But it was done very quietly and will have no effect on vote scams elsewhere.

[smith288]

You are misinterpreting what im saying.

I know Bush is informed... But his statement has been latched onto by this leftist and calling him uninformed. I feared that people would think that when he answer Humes question that way the moment I heard it. Which confirms that middle roaders would feel that too.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

ummmm Ted, if Bush is so stupid, how did he manage to steal the election from you, oh brilliant one?

Have you happened to take any IQ tests lately Ted? If you just got bamboozled out of your most important prize by someone you think is a dufus, what does that make you?

[smith288]

Lets just hope im being over reactive. I always try to view things alternatively to try to get another way to interpet something. I always try to view something as a liberal...

"Hi, I hate religion... Bush just said he prays! ARGH!!!!"

Obviously I dont care about that since they are leftists but my concern is potential voters. And this is where I felt uneasy about his anwer.

[Consort]

Yes, if vote fraud was not a factor, Bush would have won the Popular Vote and more Electoral Votes. Next year there will be massive Democrat vote fraud.

[JFC]

Each day that goes by makes me really worreid about November 2004. Last night with the Bush remarks By ms huffington and then the sleeze clapping for her. I fear for the future. It seems the White House has to come out and strat defending themselves. The polls are showing him sliding and that is just what the dems feed off of- We have to get more proactive!

[presidio9]

By ms huffington and then the sleeze clapping for her. I fear for the future.

Look: He's going to lose California, just like he did in the last election. The only reason Reagan won California in 1980 was because he was from there. The difference between Bush and the Democrats is he doesn't need California. No Democrat can win without it.

[concerned about politics]

Yes, if vote fraud was not a factor, Bush would have won the Popular Vote and more Electoral Votes. Next year there will be massive Democrat vote fraud.

Hopefully, the butterfly ballots will be replaced by then. Using multiable ballots in the machines at one time causes the hanging chads and dimples. Otherwise, they fall out with the slightest touch.
Watch for the left wing lawyers to start litigating SUPPORT for the butterfly ballot. It's the democrats life line.

(Voters don't want democrat policies. That's why they have to use facist litigation to get their agendas through. They'd never pass the voters at the polls).

[Arrowhead1952]

"If we keep being put in the position of having to respond to recount after recount after recount of the same ballots, then we just can't sit on our hands, and we will be forced to do what might be in our best personal interest--but not--it would not be in the best interest of our wonderful country."

After the military votes were thrown out, all the voter fraud that happened, the recount that was so ridiculous the supreme court had to stop it, I am surprised anyone could write such a hateful article. This writer needs to take a few days of R&R.

If the RAT party is so upset that they still insist Algore won the popular vote, why are they so intent on denying the Republicans a majority of representation in DC as they are in Texas? Texans have voted for Republicans 60+ over RATs. We still have less Republicans in DC than the RATs have.

Interesting observation that the left will never answer.

[cwb]

It is amazing that the Left still has this fascination over the recount when they know that even thier liberal press found that Bush won:

Recount Couldn't Elect Gore
Reed Irvine
March 2, 2001

"To borrow a phrase from Dan Rather, you can take it to the bank that CBS, NBC and ABC would have led their evening news shows on Feb. 25 with reports on the results of the Miami Herald/USA Today recount of the votes for president in Miami-Dade County IF it had shown that Al Gore got enough votes to win Florida. The New York Times and the Washington Post would have put it on page one. Editorials and columns would have cited it as proof that the wicked Bush people and the partisan U.S. Supreme Court had stolen the election from Gore. We were spared all that because the recount showed that Gore picked up only 49 additional votes in Miami-Dade. He needed 930 more votes to just draw even with Bush when the hand recounts began.

When the Miami-Dade canvassing
board voted not to proceed after a manual recount in 20 percent of its precincts had produced a net gain of 157 votes for Gore, the Democrats spread the story that a Republican mob had intimidated the canvassing board, forcing it to call a halt because Gore was sure to pick up enough votes to win if the remaining 80 percent of the precincts were counted.

There had been no intimidating mob. There were a number of young Republicans who noisily protested the fact that they were being barred from observing the recount. The board explained that it had decided not to proceed because it had taken them four days to recount 20 percent of the precincts and they did not believe they could complete the count in the four days remaining. The precincts already counted were predominantly Democratic, and as the Herald/USA Today recount has shown, it was not realistic to assume that Gore's net gain in those precincts would be replicated in the rest of the county.

There were 10,646 ballots in Miami-Dade that had shown no vote for any presidential candidate when counted by machine. There were over 60,000 of these "undervotes" in all of Florida, 28,000 of them in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties. The Gore campaign believed these three counties, whose canvassing boards were controlled by Democrats, would easily find enough Gore votes in their large undervote pools to overcome Bush's narrow lead. They requested manual recounts there and in Volusia County, where there had been a major anomaly in the vote count. The Broward canvassing board managed to give Gore a net-gain of 567 votes from its pool of 6,716 undervotes.

Palm Beach and Miami-Dade, with more than 10,500 undervotes each, were expected to help Gore as much as Broward, but in Palm Beach his net gain was only 215 votes. If they had not been submitted too late to be counted and if the Miami recount had been completed with the same results produced by the two newspaper recounts, first the Palm Beach Post and then by the Miami Herald and USA Today, Gore would have lost by 99 to 142 votes.

The Palm Beach Post manual recount of Miami-Dade produced a net gain for Bush of six votes. It got less attention than the Miami Herald/USA Today project which covers the whole state and is being conducted by the national accounting firm of BDO Seidman. As of March 1, they had examined the undervotes in all but two of Florida's 67 counties, but the totals will not be made public until all 67 are completed.

Maybe the votes needed to justify the claim that Gore really won Florida will be found in the other counties, but Mark Seidel, the Miami Herald city editor who supervised the project, says that the Miami-Dade results show that Bush would have won if manual recounts had been completed and the results counted in the four counties targeted by Gore. Millions of disappointed Democrats must come to grips with the fact that the evidence is now in: Bush won legitimately. The news media should report the evidence.
NBC's Nightly News ignored it. CBS and ABC gave it 30 seconds. Dan Rather used his time to cast doubt on the integrity and significance of the recount. He said the "study" by "what are called independent accountants" "suggests" that Gore "still might have lost the election" if the hand count had been completed in Miami. ABC was brief, but straightforward. Fox News and CNN provided good coverage, as did the Miami Herald, USA Today and the Washington Times. The New York Times and Washington Post, which are backing a rival recount, relegated the story to the inside pages. Terry McAuliffe, the Clintonoid chairman of the Democratic National Committee, still insists that the election was stolen.

http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2001/3/2/154817