After all these years of listening to peevish Republicans bitching about how nothing Clinton does is legitimate because he didn’t get elected by a majority of voters…is there a remote chance Dems will show a bit of class and not oppose everything Bush does on the basis of his “stolen” election?
I did get to hear Maxine Waters come out for states’ rights, so I guess anything is possible. 
Sure. There’s plenty of other bases for opposition available - or there will be, if he runs true-to-form. I’d say you can expect no error of his will be overlooked, and the spectre of his druggie past and DUI will always be there. The next time he does something like mistake Slovenia for Slovakia is only a matter of time.
This would be great news if I ran a late-night comedy/talk show.
Gosh, I hope not! What better justification could there possibly be for opposing his every move than the fact the man staged a coup to get into the Oval office?
stoid
Gee, I guess not, based on the topic and the first two replies.
I’d just like to see a Kenneth-Starr-style investigation into Dubya’s past. It’d make Monica Lewinsky look like a tea party by comparison.
Yeah, that’d be a great reason to oppose him – if he had in fact staged a coup. :rolleyes:
Next thing you know we’ll have the US Supreme Court making rulings on Constitutional matters. What’s this country coming too??
From a Micheal Moore e-mail (he’s cool with reprints, by the way… he wants to get his message out there)
Sounds about right to me!
Stoid-
I don’t like Bush any more than you do, but let it go.
Look-he’ll hang himself if we give him enough rope. Just sit back, do nothing, and let the chips fall.
How odd…I didn’t know that. How interesting that someone knows the results that were never in fact obtained. And don’t give me “statistical simulations”–that doesn’t come close to being “proof” except to the ignorant ones who know nothing of statistics and buy whatever’s given to them that includes a number.
I don’t like Bush. But fact of the matter is, he was elected under the pre-established laws and procedures of the state of Flordia and the nation. Those who don’t like those laws and procedures should lobby to get them changed now; that’s how this government system works. If the next administration is do-nothing, it will more likely be the fault of the overreactive anti-democratic fools who throw a hissy fit and refuse to cooperate when they don’t get their way.
Stoid:
This is not a fawking coup. Gore lost because more votes were counted for Bush. Now, you may disagree with the way the votes were counted, but there still remains the awkward fact that Bush was ahead in the count by several hundred votes. That is not a coup. A coup is when rebel military factions drag Gore out on the back lawn of the White house and execute him and install Bush as dictator. Did Bush or the Bush team do anything illegal to install him as president? Sure, they may have done UNFAIR things, but what laws did they break? Did the supreme court commit treason as some have argued (cough Zenster cough)? No.
Bush is not dictator, he is/will be president. I’m sorry you don’t like it, I’m sorry that the margin of error in the vote counting was larger than the difference between the two candidates, I’m sorry that if things had been a little different Gore would have won. But if Bush is such a horrible awful person how did he trick enough people to get within the margin of error of 50% of the vote? If Gore is so great, then why didn’t he manage to get more than within the margin of error of 50% of the vote?
But it’s over, and your insistence that Bush is not the real president is simply childish. It’s over. Now, are the voting procedures up to date in your state? Perhaps you can work for electoral reform so the evil nazi racist sexist homophobic speciesist abilist republicans can never do this again. But stamping your feet and insisting, “We DID win the election! We DID win the election!” isn’t going to help any.
I didn’t hear anything about this over the last 8 years. Maybe someone said it right after he was elected but it didn’t hang over his administration.
Marc
Coup? You sound just as bad as those virulant Clinton haters. Are you going to froth at the mouth every time Bush is on the news? Because if you are this is going to be very entertaining for the rest of us.
Truth of the matter is half the voters wanted Bush and the other half wanted Gore. Statistically the difference between the two wasn’t signifigant. This election would have been a dark cloud over a Gore presidency just as it will be over Bush.
Marc
Dear Stoid,
I don’t think “coup” is the word you’re looking for. Besides, we’ve had Presidents elected without having a majority of the vote. Clinton being one of them. 
Why does everybody assume Gore would win a recount of the untabulated ballots? Are democrats stupider than republicans? More feeble, unable to punch a hole in a piece of paper? If it was some chance factor influencing the bad ballots, the errors should come down proportional to the rest of the vote.
If it was an intentional error by the evil illuminati, you’d think they would have sabotaged Bush’s vote, since it’s been reported the local electoral boards are mostly democratic in those counties. The ballots weren’t designed by Jeb Bush (you know who’s brother), or the florida legislature (republican majority), but by the local election boards. It’s their fault if people voted for Buchanan, instead of Gore as some have alleged.
“Buchanan? I already voted for him in 1856!” – Eustace Bang.
I just hope the democrats have enough class not to unleash a Kent Starr style inquisition upon Bush. The republican crusade against Clinton was a national disgrace culminating in the failed impeachment. I’d hate to see a repeat of that for the next four years.
If Gore couldn’t get enough votes for a clear electoral majority, it’s nobody’s fault but his own. Blaming it on a republican conspiracy is just foolishness.
Stoid, the fight against ignorance will have taken a big step in the right direction if you realize the following: Every single thing Michael Moore has ever said is false. If he tells you that the sun rises in the east, look west. If he tells you that the moon is a big dead rock in the sky, think green cheese or a chariot or something. If he claims that the universe spontaneously exploded out of a singularity, look on the bottom of the world for turtles.
Now, to the OP: I realize this was just a rant and not an honest attempt at debate, but I have to interject that the republicans have not claimed that “nothing Clinton does is legitimate because he didn’t get elected by a majority of voters…”
What they have done, from time to time, is claim that he lacks a mandate to lead the country in this direction or that because he failed to collect a popular-vote majority. That’s good politics.
I’m unaware of any Republican claims that a law duly signed by the President is not a law because of the popular vote totals.
Extending that to the coming Bush presidency, of course the Democrats will make the same claim if Bush tries to claim a popular mandate. That’s good politics. The difference in this case (one hopes, at least) is that Bush already knows that he comes without a big popular mandate and will have to conduct his presidency accordingly. At least at first.
Because Bush keeps opposing them?
(Wouldn’t surprise me if “President” Bush’s first action after taking office is to order the Florida ballots sealed or destroyed, so nobody can discern the truth…)
So Bush would have won had the military ballots all been counted?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by manhattan *
**Now, to the OP: I realize this was just a rant and not an honest attempt at debate, but I have to interject that the republicans have not claimed that “nothing Clinton does is legitimate because he didn’t get elected by a majority of voters…”
I’m unaware of any Republican claims that a law duly signed by the President is not a law because of the popular vote totals.**
I hadn’t realized that illegitimate and illegal are synonymous. Anyway, this claim of lack of moral authority/legitimacy/mandate has been a staple of diehard anti-Clinton rant for years (if you haven’t heard it, you probably never listen to right-wing talk radio and your brains may be healthier for it).
Claiming that your opponents lack a mandate or that a court decision is fundamentally flawed because of a close vote may be good politics, but it denies a fundamental principle of our democracy. We function under majority rule, not landslide rule.
By the way, a format clarification would be appreciated. Should all Great Debate postings be phrased as “I think X is true, how about you?” Or can a provocative (but decorous ;)) statement serve as a springboard for “honest” debate?
First things first: “honest” was a piss-poor choice of words on my part, and I apologize for it. Perhaps a “real” attempt at debate or somesuch would have worked.
That said, if you are extrapolating from the talk-radio loons, who are paid to be outrageous, to “Republicans,” than no, the talk-radio Democrat loons who are paid for the same thing (we have them here, I’m led to understand that they are more rare in flyover country) will not show any more class.
That said, I think the view of mainstream Republicans, and that of those in Congress with a couple of exceptions, is more similar to my description. And the probable behavior of mainstream Democrats, and that of those in Congress with a couple of exceptions, will be more similar to my prediction.