Bush is a Winner. Gore is a Loser. Get over it.
Terry McAuliffe does it again. The DNC chairman and head of the Democrat Party inserted his size 12 foot in his mouth Sunday, accusing Bush of having stolen the 2000 presidential election from poor Albert.
Albert who?
Albert Gore, former Veep, lockbox, 'people versus the powerful' -- ring a bell?
"He [Gore] was robbed, that's a fact!", he told Sam Donaldson on ABC's The Week. Gore has to "get up every morning knowing that" he "got half a million more votes than George Bush did", he whined.
Oh, the agony! Oh, the pain!
Gee, but didn't the Tennessee slumlord ultimately concede the election? "Tonight, for the sake of our unity ... and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession", Mr Snippy said on December 13, 2000, 36 insufferable days after endless "recounts", 'hanging chads', 'swinging chads', 'dimpled chads', 'pimpled chads', 'pregnant chads', 'deadbeat chads', etc., etc. For weeks, Gore frantically tried to steal the election -- but failed.
That's a fact.
Or is Mr. Buddhist Temple retracting his concession?
Gazillions of media 'recounts' conducted since only confirm Bush won fair-and-square.
That's a fact, too.
Besides, methinks 'Ice Tea' Al needs a refresher course in the U.S. Constitution. Presidents aren't elected by popular vote, but by electoral votes. The electoral college system is found in Article II, section I of the constitution. In the U.S., presidential elections consist of 50 statewide contests: The candidate who gets the most electoral votes, wins. Simple as that.
Too simple to grasp for McAuliffe, I suppose.
Oops! Never mind...I forgot...we're talking about 'no-controlling-legal-authority' Al here.
Back to the ABC interview:
Asked to explain his complaint that no Democrat was invited to Bush's upcoming Economic Forum in Waco, McAuliffe stumbled and staggered. When Donaldson noted that no less than 43 'forum attendees' are generous donors to Democrat candidates and 'party organizations' -- to the tune of over $255,000 since 1990 -- McAuliffe tripped all over his 'answer'.
"Because they [The White House] put out a list of...this is not a fundraiser, Sam!"
Well, duh.
Of course it isn't, Terry. That's the precisely point. Were this the Clinton White House, it would be. That's the difference.
Nor did he offer a credible explanation for the 'killing' he made in Global Crossing, turning a $100,000 initial "investment" into a mindboggling $18,000,000 shortly thereafter. McAuliffe, at the time, was trying to hook up pal Gary Winnick, company CEO, with the Clinton White House. The $18 million smacks of insider trading: The stock was dumped just before Global Crossing went belly-up.
How did McAuliffe know the company was about to tank? Nothing he said quelled the cloud of suspicion he's under.
His 'alibi' doesn't pass the laugh test.
McAuliffe was also asked about controversial remarks during his froth-in-the-mouth tirade in Las Vegas, where Democrats were holding their summer conference. The speech was an orgy of ad hominem attacks, charging the President with "exploiting" 9/11 for political gain.
A sweeping indictment of the Bush administration, the media called it.
Ah, don't think so. 'Indictment' ascribes merit to the charges. There are no merits. McAuliff's attacks were not only baseless, they were utterly ridiculous.
And -- upon closer scrutiny -- brimming with contradictions.
McAuliffe, in one breath, trashes the President of using 9/11 for political reasons. But then, in the next, slams him for failing to use 9/11 for action on Social Security, health care, the economy.
McAuliffe blasts the President for "squandering" the surplus, but then demands that Bush spend more on domestic programs.
"It's a sad commentary on the state of the Democratic Party when they meet and cannot unite around a positive agenda and instead can only resort to negative attacks", said Scott McClellan, White House spokesman.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"
They keep screaming the lies loudly and over longly. We must find a way to make the mainstream press more accountable to the truth.
They may want to spin the popular vote line but that is only a popularity contest. The Electoral Vote determines the President and George W. Bush got more votes than Junior. What's more, the popular vote was a difference of 0.51% (less than half of one percent of the vote), certainly inside the margin of error.
However, 43% of the voting public will STILL vote for the democRAT come whatever, or high water.
Being a systemic democRAT like that these days is akin to having a terminal disease.
That was more like a dollar JH!
How come your "two cents" usually comes out to be, on the average, at least a Lincoln and change?