Replies to WordMunger
wordmunger said:
I wonder how big a deal the Republicans would have made if Gore had won on a recount.
It didn't - so moot point - and actually it was NEVER close - the media called it early in a blatant attempt to cap voting in the west.
This country is not simply a republic, it is a democratic republic, where representatives are elected democratically, which appears to be also what Bush wants for Iraq.
I agree, but our forefathers intended for the people to care about the country and have the integrity not to vote someone in that served an agenda of a few individuals. They created the electorate as a balance to this. They also expected us to vote people in who had integrity.
Source? Even Katherine Harris said the margin was 537 votes. Depending on how you count, the votes could swing for either candidate. For me the most damning evidence against the Republicans was the supression of the vote for black felons but not for conservative-leaning hispanic felons.
You threw in a couple conspiracies there. What about Gore not wanting to count several 1000 absentee military votes that were mysteriously lost and found? Look, I think there was some strange things ON BOTH SIDES going on in Florida and probably a few other states. But, what it boils down to - Bush became President. Rehashing it now is being a sore loser.
I believe there is exactly one example of an electoral college member voting in a different direction from the voting public, which had no impact on the overall results. The electoral college, for all intents and purposes, is simply an accounting system. There is NO WAY the scenario you envision (south carolina voting for Kerry but its electors voting for Bush) would EVER happen.
Actually my state has grown a tremendous democrat constituency - I envision it happening sometime soon. There are dozens of examples of the electorate voting differently than the popular vote - but only when it was very close in the popular vote. The governor's political affiliation has a bearing.
Bush didn't "luck into" Iraq.
I don't even know what this means - I certainly didn't say it. I just said Bush has had no "gold rush" - in fact he's had 3 very devastating things happen to the economy- oil prices, 9/11, stock market correction from the false economy(gold rush) that Clinton enjoyed.
He CHOSE Iraq. Now the American people can choose if that was the right choice. Not all of a presidency is luck, and Bush's choices have consistently been the wrong ones.
I would disagree, I am glad we have a President that won't back down from a decision. Even if it ended up being wrong. At least he won't say I'm sorry, to compromise his integrity to get re elected. This is essentially what Kerry is doing. In fact, Kerry seems to think if he gets in office he will have the luxury of a time machine. He said, "If I knew what I know now, I would not have voted for force against Iraq" Say what? How can you know now, what you won't find out for several months? That's a crazy spin of words. What would democrats be saying if Saddam had not been removed and we found Osama Bin Laden in his harbor, or worse yet he invaded Kuwait again and tried to put the entire world ransom against 50% of the world's oil supply, or sent missles into Israel or the US, or anywhere for that matter.
As for the people promoting Independent candidates - I agree - vote for who you want to be President. BUT DO NOT VOTE for an independent to make a statement. Elections are not about statements, they are about leadership. An independent vote IS a vote thrown away because that vote is not being cast for someone that WILL be President.
I would love to see more parties, but this is what caucases are for - different opinion candidates get out there and debate and win votes, then get the chance to represent a party. There were many viable candidates in the past two elections that were running for nominations that could be considered essentially Independent or even Libertarian; they just chose Dem or Rep so they would have an honest chance at winning.