Short-circuiting the illegitimate Bush presidency

[Gadarene]

I do not claim that everything Moore says is a lie, just that it is not true.

I repeat: :rolleyes:

Save your salvos for someone deserving. Or even better: read Moore’s book Downsize This!. Note the proliferation of factual statements. It’s not all rabid polemic…it’s not even mostly rabid polemic. That you choose to focus on the polemic at the exclusion of the many salient points Moore makes, and that you then choose to characterize Moore as someone who never tells the truth despite innumerable instances to the contrary–well, that’s either pretty damn sloppy or a tad self-interested and intellectually dishonest.

I hope it’s just sloppy.

[JDM]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by manhattan *
**JDM:

Bob Dole: Thanks for the cite. (I’m aware of the others, including Gingrich’s boneheaded remarks) Dole may have made a stupid remark or two on election night (he does have a temper), but you can’t seriously be suggesting that he spent the subsequent four years questioning the legitimacy of the President of the United States.

---

Maybe not the next four years, but he killed the Clinton health care plan without real debate, or a vote of course, with his filibuster. The truly scary thing is that while I was hunting for the Dole cite, I came upon another that said that Dole and other Senate Republicans were trying to put together an alternative health care plan, with at least some of the aspects that I find important, when he became “a convert to the view of the presidential hopeful Dick Cheney, the secretary of Defense under President George Bush, who began saying “There is no health-care crisis.” Cheney’s view was quickly embraced by the party’s conservative wing. Dole told the NBC program “Meet the Press”: “My view is that I think there isn’t a crisis. We’ve tried to make that clear from the start.” He also insisted that polls showed 85% of all Americans are satisfied with their coverage.” This is from:
http://my.netian.com/~pynchon/doc/healthcare.htm.

DICK CHENEY!!! I had forgotten about that.

o well

JDM

[Stoid]

*Originally posted by Jodi *
**

I wonder if those grapes get any less sour if you chew on them repeatedly? Well, heck, Stoidela, you must be on the what? twelveth or fourteenth serving? So why don’t you tell us. **

I think you oughta read Aesop again, I can’t see how this applies in any way.

[Zenster]

Does anyone else besides me feel uneasy at the remarkable series of coincidences that occurred on Bush’s way to the White House? Let’s look at them:
[li]Your brother “promises” you the state that he governs and it turns out to be critical to the entire election’s resolution.[/li]
[li]This same state has a dubious reputation for election day chicanery.[/li]
[li]That same state’s Attorney General, a member of your party, imposes arbitrary deadlines that benefit you.[/li]
[li]Ballot applications in districts supervised by members of your party are subjected to questionable handling while under their supervision.[/li]
[li]You repeatedly interfere with the timely counting of ballots in counties where your opponent maintains a distinct lead.[/li]
[li]Your party stands for state’s rights yet seeks federal overturning of the decisions of a state’s supreme court in pursuit of your goal.[/li]
[li]You obtain your electoral victory through legal maneuvering.[/li]Individually, any one of these items might not be alarming. Combined, they create an aura of questionability that raises a specter of doubt over this entire election.

What prevented George W. Bush from requesting that the vote count continue until there was a clear and decisive lead established for one candidate or the other? How can a person who aspires to this nation’s highest office do so without wishing for an indisputable validation of their success? What price will the nation pay in division and internal strife because of the grasping nature of the supposed winner? What are the perceptions of a nation that witnesses such questionable conduct by their ostensible leader? All of these issues will haunt the entire duration of Bush’s term in office.

All that I know is that it will be difficult to maintain any respect for the oval office for the next four years. I do not make any wild claims of conspiracy. I merely point out that a constellation of questionable practices led to what should have been decided in an open and clear fashion. I for one do not relish what awaits us if a recount in Florida definitely shows that Gore in fact prevailed. The mere appearance of misconduct by any of the groups listed above. the mere hint of conflict of interest taints the veracity of what should be the most trusted institution of our country.

[RTA]

Back to the OP:
The best way to short-circuit the illegitimate Bush presidency is to, from this day forward, ruthlessly vote against Repulicans wherever they raise their twisted, sickness-filled heads.
And when I say ruthlessly, I mean without exception. I.e. make a pledge to never, ever vote for a Republican as long as you are alive. Sort of a “Promise Keepers” or “WWJD” thing.
If you want to punish the GOP for foisting this retarded frat boy puppet-pawn on us … simple; in 4 years, landslide his dumb ass straight back to Texas.
More importantly, between then and now, we have the off-year election. Do what you can to make sure that ALL the GOP candidates in your city/county/district/state LOSE. (For example: Jeb Bush is toast in FL; he’s high if he thinks he’ll be re-elected.)
Only by actually getting RID of these Republican scumbags will we ever be through having to deal with their perverted, ultra-hypocritical chicanery.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

manhatten- I must disagree with you on 2 points. Perjury- when do you say Clinton commited it? In the civil deposition? Nope- the plaintiff defined “sexual intercourse’ in such a way that the defendant did not actually lie when he said no. In his speach? Not sworn, and if we throw politicians into jail for lying in spaeches- we had better build a LOT more prisons. In his grand jury testimony? Nope- he admitted getting the damn BJ. The GOP had 2 'quibbles” there, where they claimed the Prez was 'wrong"- in their opinion, and thus lied, and thus commited perjury. They asked about his 1st encounter with Monica- he said, to the best of his remeberance, it was early the next year- whearas Monica remembered it late the prior year. Sorry, just being honestly wrong is NOT perjury- if indeed Monicas memeory was better than Bill’s. Next, when they asked him if he was lying in his civil testimony- he said no, and that to this day remains his opinion. Even if the court finally rules that Clintons evasions were a lie- then Clinton was just “wrong”- and that is not perjury.

Next- perjury is not & was not a “high crimes & misdomeaners”. Yes, it is a misdomeaner- but the word ment different things back then. They said "high crimes’- and a high crime, in the 18th century, was punishable by death- and perjury is not. By the reasoning the GOP used- drunk driving could get the prez impeached- so watch out “W”!

[pldennison]

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Zenster *
[li]Your brother “promises” you the state that he governs and it turns out to be critical to the entire election’s resolution.[/li][/QUOTE]

If you were going to “promise” someone your state’s results, wouldn’t you arrange it in such a way that the results were obvious and widespread, not so that the margin of difference between the two candidates was less than the mathematical margin of error, triggering an automatic, statutory recount?

**

[li]Ballot applications in districts supervised by members of your party are subjected to questionable handling while under their supervision.[/B}[/li][/QUOTE}

This applies equally to both parties, frankly, and to claim otherwise is simple partisan idiocy.

**[QUOTE}You obtain your electoral victory through legal maneuvering.[/B}

He obtained his electoral victory by virtue of the fact that every single vote count that existed gave more to him than to the other guy.

**

Individually, any one of these items might not be alarming. Combined, they create an aura of questionability that raises a specter of doubt over this entire election.[/B}
[/QUOTE}

I suppose the fact that “Bush” comes before “Gore” alphabetically is suspicious as well.

**[QUOTE]
What prevented George W. Bush from requesting that the vote count continue until there was a clear and decisive lead established for one candidate or the other?[/B}

The fact that he won every single count? I guarantee, as surely as the sun will appear in the east this morning, that Gore would have done exactly the same thing.

**

What price will the nation pay in division and internal strife because of the grasping nature of the supposed winner?[/B}

I don’t know, but most of it will come from whiny Democrats who adopt the same tired shtick we heard from Republicans for the last eight years.

**

I do not make any wild claims of conspiracy.**

Of course not, just a series of “questionable coincidences.” :rolleyes:

[wring]

**Zenster, **dear, while I agree that there were things in FLA that were horrible, ummmmm.

*Originally posted by Zenster *
**[li]Your brother “promises” you the state that he governs and it turns out to be critical to the entire election’s resolution.[/li]

** Michigan was also “promised” to Bush by our Guv (way back before the primaries, in fact), and went for Gore. The fact that a governor ‘promised’ the state to him means less than nothing.

[quote]
**
[li]This same state has a dubious reputation for election day chicanery. [/li][/quote]
** can’t argue against this one, though.

[quote]
**
[li]That same state’s Attorney General, a member of your party, imposes arbitrary deadlines that benefit you.[/li][/quote]
** I believe you mean the state’s Secretary of State (Fl Attorney General was a dem), but in any case, yes, Sec of State Harris’ actions did come under fire(and she wasn’t ‘just a republican’ but the co chair of the Bush election team in the state). Oddly enough, in my state (MI) as well, the Sec of State (a Rep) was also the co chair of Bush campaign, and the Florida situation led to a call from Republicansto enact legislation forbidding any Sec. of State to take such on such a role in any election.

[quote]
**
[li]Ballot applications in districts supervised by members of your party are subjected to questionable handling while under their supervision.[/li][/quote]
** yes, this happened, while it did have a potential for voter abuse, the courts have ruled that it did not attain the level of fraudulent votes. We shall see if there’s any legal repercussions for the people who (courts agree) illegally handled ballot applications.

[quote]
**[li]You repeatedly interfere with the timely counting of ballots in counties where your opponent maintains a distinct lead.[/li][/quote]
** This was actually Bush’s right under the law. Of course, it was also disingenuous of him to simultaneously complain about Gore taking things to the courts and ‘dragging things out’, but as we see, it was a very effective political maneuver.

[quote]
[li]Your party stands for state’s rights yet seeks federal overturning of the decisions of a state’s supreme court in pursuit of your goal.[/li][/quote]
Through this process, we, the people have been able to see quite effectively that the ideological basis of both Rep and Dems were subject to the whims of political expediency. It could also be sucessfully argued that the Dems, traditionally a Fed vs. State party, kept trying to keep the Fed. courts out of the matter.

[quote]
[li]You obtain your electoral victory through legal maneuvering.[/li][/quote]
Actually, this would have been a true statement for either guy.

This election saddened me to no end. I will be watching for the results of the Civil Rights and Justice Department investigations, and if the elections officials in Seminole and Martin County have repercussions, (ditto for legislation about military absentee ballots that were considered ‘expenedable’ every other year - otherwise this issue about post marks would have been dealt with already).

And of Course Bush didn’t want any more counts. He’d won. why would he risk it? I can totally understand that. I have a tough time understanding the position of the rest of the republicans who apparently haven’t thought they’ll ever be in the other position, but I can totally understand why Bush himself wouldn’t want further counts.

But, we need to keep our arguements on target. I still like you, though, Zenster.

[Gyrate]

Getting back to the OP amidst all this Bush/Gore/Moore/Stoidela bashing, I suspect – or at least hope – that the majority of Congresspersons will recognize the tenuous situation the government is in and tread lightly until things settle down a bit. Anything too far out of the middle will likely be shot down, and any compromise legislation will probably be fairly bland.

Michael Moore: he seems to appear on television in the UK a lot these days, and each time I see him he seems more angry and bitter. He strikes me as a man who sees himself as a prophet in the wilderness, a speaker of truth being ignored by the blind masses. Which is not to say that I don’t think he has many valid points about problems in the recent electoral process, but they tend to be obscured by the vitriol he uses to present them.

The Florida election: <sigh> Frankly, I do suspect an effort on the part of Jeb Bush and/or his associates to influence the electoral results – not by out-and-out cheating, mind you, but little things here or there (some of which have been mentioned above). (If I had proof of anything concrete, I’d be a much sought-after individual ;)) But when you have groups of voters mistakenly listed as felons (by Ms. Harris’ office, no less) or erroneously failing to appear on the voting register, you have to wonder what the heck is going on. Not to mention reports of improper procedures by polling station personnel (failing to assist where required, not permitting nullification of spoiled votes (before they’d gone into the box), imposition of time limits on voting, etc.). Was it a fair election? Who knows? That’s the problem.

I’m all for an independent recount, perhaps done sometime later (a la Christine Todd Whitman’s suggestion to lock up the votes for a while first). And not by Jesse Jackson, either. :eek:

Stoidela: I’m not thrilled about Bush being in the White House either. But Gore bowed to the inevitable and conceded graciously; why can’t you?

I think Bush has still got a long way to go to convince a lot of people that he deserves to be President. Here’s hoping he makes the effort.

jr8

[pldennison]

You know, the more I think about Zenster’s post and other posts like it, the more I think that people are suffering from a serious case of rectal/cranial inversion, or post hoc ergo prompter hoc, or something.

You fail to consider that the one and only reason that all this scrutiny has been focused on Florida, allowing you to concoct your list of “suggestible coincidences,” is that there wasn’t a clear winner. There was a difference between the two candidates’ vote counts of less than 1/2%, triggering a mandatory recount. Had there been a clear, undeniable winner, the word “Florida” wouldn’t even have been on anyone’s lips.

And if you’re going to suggest that the Palm Beach County ballots were the cause of there not being a clear winner, you’re going to have to account for the fact that the ballots were designed and vetted by the Palm Beach County canvassing board, controlled by Democrats.

You’re taking a situation (“Florida being crucial to the election”) and making a big deal out of it, ignoring the fact that the only reason it was crucial is because the vote was close and Florida state law has statutory requirements in those cases. If it hadn’t been a close race, not only would Florida not have been crucial, it would have been irrelevant. (Gore didn’t even win his home state, you’ll recall. Had he done that, FLorida wouldn’t be an issue.) It’s not as if Florida knew ahead of time that they would be crucial, and Republican conspirators said, “Aww, yeah, we gets ta RIG this baby!” Out of your list of seven items, the last five were a result of the close race, not a cause.

Incidentally, the funniest mistake was this one:

That same state’s Attorney General, a member of your party, imposes arbitrary deadlines that benefit you.

The Attorney General of Florida is a Democrat, and was chair of the Gore campaign in that state. How quickly we forget, eh?

[Stoid]

*Originally posted by jr8 *
[B

Stoidela: I’m not thrilled about Bush being in the White House either. But Gore bowed to the inevitable and conceded graciously; why can’t you?

**

Well, Al had no choice. I do, and I choose not to. It wasn’t just a simple contest, someone wins or loses, we all go home. We get to live with the repercussions of this every damn day for the next four years.

Secondly, what exactly would you have me do? I think it’s perfectly pleasant and probably admirable that so many of you can say to yourselves “Oh well <shrug>, thems the breaks. I guess we have to ‘get behind’ our president now.” But I can’t. Oh, I could pretend to to try and win some points around here, but it isn’t how I honestly feel. I feel like the election was stolen, I feel like I’m still on the verge of tears every time I dwell too long on the reality that George W. Bush is going to be living in the White House. I feel like enormous injustice has been done here, and if there is anything that drives me nuts, it is injustice. I really feel that Bush is a pretender and a thief.

I am trying to appreciate the silver linings… the Senate is now perfectly split, and Strom Thurmond can’t hold on much longer I’m sure, so soon enough we’ll probably have a majority of 1. (So. Carolina has a Dem governor) Al has apparantly redeemed himself in the eyes of many, and for that I’m very glad. Looked at with a clear, cool eye, it is probably better that in the end Al did not prevail. No matter that he is the better man, the Republicans are not the better party, and if Al had succeeded, what we’ve witnessed of their Campaign of Terror against Clinton would look like cookie-baking next to the hell they would have given Al. This way, he stands a very good chance of coming back in 4 years and really kicking some ass. In fact, I hope he learns some lessons from this and will be a better president than he would have been anyway.

The ugly circumstances of this election practically guarantee that the Dems will get the White House back in 4 years… this is probably the absolute best way we could have lost it, and we had to lose it soon - no one party holds on for that long without a break.

Anyway, I’m not going to fake some kind of candy ass solidarity i don’t feel just to score some points with you guys. Where’s the fun in that?

stoid

[Stoid]

I guess she’s really arrived.

She’s in this (or is it last?) week’s issue of “US”, on the fashion police page, at some ball wearing a really, really bad dress with her tits popping out all over.

She’s probably in heaven.

stoid

[pldennison]

*Originally posted by Stoidela *
Secondly, what exactly would you have me do? I think it’s perfectly pleasant and probably admirable that so many of you can say to yourselves “Oh well <shrug>, thems the breaks. I guess we have to ‘get behind’ our president now.” But I can’t. Oh, I could pretend to to try and win some points around here, but it isn’t how I honestly feel. I feel like the election was stolen, I feel like I’m still on the verge of tears every time I dwell too long on the reality that George W. Bush is going to be living in the White House. **

So, again, you’re going to spend four years engaging in the same dull, boring, purposeless bullshit rhetoric we’ve had to hear from Rush Limbaugh for the last few years. Terrific. As if the “Impeach Hillary!” stickers weren’t ridiculous enough, now we have to hear it from the kind of people whose thought processes tend towards the fuzzy anyway. How long did it take for “Slick Willie” to get old–about 3 seconds? (It was funny once, and exactly once, when said by Marge Simpson.)

And “the verge of tears.” Really. I mean, come on. You know, a couple of months ago in Indonesia, when their courts refused to indict and try Suharto on the grounds that he is old and infirm, former Suharto supporters were dragged into the streets and beaten. You should consider yourself lucky that the worst you have to put up with is a member of the other party in the White House, a split Senate and a 10-seat deficit in the House. Get some damned perspective, will ya?

Tears. Cripes.

[Gyrate]

Originally posted by Stoidela *
Secondly, what exactly would you have me do? I think it’s perfectly pleasant and probably admirable that so many of you can say to yourselves “Oh well <shrug>, thems the breaks. I guess we have to ‘get behind’ our president now.” But I can’t. Oh, I could pretend to to try and win some points around here, but it isn’t how I honestly feel. I feel like the election was stolen, I feel like I’m still on the verge of tears every time I dwell too long on the reality that George W. Bush is going to be living in the White House. I feel like enormous injustice has been done here, and if there is anything that drives me nuts, it is injustice. I really feel that Bush is a pretender and a thief.*

What would I have you do?

1)Stop the name-calling. It doesn’t improve the level of debate, and it enables Freedom2 et alia to score points off you more easily.

2. Stop citing inflammatory hyperbole as fact (thinking specifically of the “coup” remark). It’s one thing to to say “I feel Bush is a thief” and another to say “Bush gained the position by illegal means” without any facts to support the assertion. (I don’t believe the way the election was conducted was fair by any means, but it has yet to be demonstrated to have been illegal.)

3. Hope for the best. As I keep saying, Bush could surprise us all.

4. Support your local Democratic candidates for Congress in two years’ time.

I’m sorry you find the result so upsetting. I can’t do anything about that (either the result or your distress), except to encourage you to focus on the longer term, which it sounds like you’re doing already.

jr8

[Stoid]

*Originally posted by pldennison *
**
And “the verge of tears.” Really. I mean, come on. You know, a couple of months ago in Indonesia, when their courts refused to indict and try Suharto on the grounds that he is old and infirm, former Suharto supporters were dragged into the streets and beaten. You should consider yourself lucky that the worst you have to put up with is a member of the other party in the White House, a split Senate and a 10-seat deficit in the House. Get some damned perspective, will ya?

Tears. Cripes.

**

Well, Golly, PL, I’ll work on having emotional responses that you consider appropriate…I’ll get on that right away!

And I’ll make sure that every time I’m unhappy about something, that I will stop and dwell upon the fact that there are millions of other people in the world who have things to be unhappy about that are much worse than what I have to be unhappy about…and surely, in this way, I will have found the answer to all the misery in he world! For certainly, nearly everyone can find someone else whose life is more fucked than theirs, until we finally find the one person on earth who is justifiably the most miserable of all. And then, the rest of us can be delirious with joy, knowing that at least we are not them.

I have wept several times during this election, starting on election night, when my hunny woke me to let me know they had given it to Bush. I cried for the whole hour I though he’d won. It was my honest reaction to the facts, PL, not a performance for anyone’s benefit. Sorry you don’t approve of my emotions.

As for perspective, I consider who is in the White House to be of enormous importance. For many reasons, but two sit at the very top of the list:
environmental protection - in this case in particular, if Dub were to succeed in raping Alaska for oil, this is an act that is not only evil, it cannot be undone. I find this prospect deeply upsetting, if that’s ok with you.

Supreme Court appointments - well, do really have to explain this?

Perhaps you just look at it as a cast change in the never ending TV show called “Government” - but I believe it is something much more important, and as such, I am emotionally invested. Sorry I care too much.

stoid

[Stoid]

*Originally posted by jr8 *
**
What would I have you do?

1)Stop the name-calling. It doesn’t improve the level of debate, and it enables Freedom2 et alia to score points off you more easily.
**

Name calling whom? (And you be sure to let me know the day freedom can be said to be debating from a higher plane than anyone, much less me. Look a little closer, jr8, don’t just buy the chanting around here.)

*Originally posted by jr8 *
**
2) Stop citing inflammatory hyperbole as fact (thinking specifically of the “coup” remark). It’s one thing to to say “I feel Bush is a thief” and another to say “Bush gained the position by illegal means” without any facts to support the assertion. (I don’t believe the way the election was conducted was fair by any means, but it has yet to be demonstrated to have been illegal.)
**

The coup thing was never supposed to be serious…it was just as you say, hyperbole. And everyone knew it. Or shoulda.

*Originally posted by jr8 *
**
3) Hope for the best. As I keep saying, Bush could surprise us all.

4. Support your local Democratic candidates for Congress in two years’ time.

I’m sorry you find the result so upsetting. I can’t do anything about that (either the result or your distress), except to encourage you to focus on the longer term, which it sounds like you’re doing already.

**

As you say, I’m trying to look at the long term. And this has certainly politicized me to a greater degree than ever before. Or maybe it’s just my age.

And I ALWAYS support the Dems. I cannot imagine the circumstance or the candidate that could ever make me vote Republican.

And thanks for the sympathy.

stoid

[Odesio]

*Originally posted by Stoidela *
**I guess she’s really arrived.

She’s in this (or is it last?) week’s issue of “US”, on the fashion police page, at some ball wearing a really, really bad dress with her tits popping out all over.

She’s probably in heaven.

stoid
**

You know I really hate how female politicans are judged on their looks. Why do people like you have to harp on how she looks? Does it give you a sense of power you feel you’ve lost since your candidate lost?

Marc

[pldennison]

Nope, I’m not going to play that game with you, Stoid. I think your heavily emotional reactions to this election are as bizarrely irrational and I’m not going to refrain from saying so. I think you are so devoid of perspective regarding the nature of national politics and your own partisanship that it borders on the unbelievable. (And you aren’t the only one, and it isn’t limited to Democrats, either. You just happen to be the one making the most noise.) I didn’t say you were concocting your emotional reactions for the benefit of the SDMB; I said I thought they were silly, and I do.

I also think that any hrad-right ideologues that might be nominated to the Court will be summarily Borked, as it were. You might see right-leaning moderates, but nothing like Rehnquist, let alone Scalia (who you might recall was confirmed 98-0) or Thomas.

By the way, there are residents of the area in question in Alaska who welcome oil drilling. 30 percent unemployment sort of makes people eager for some economic activity. But I guess you, like most liberals, know better than the actual citizens of Alaska what’s good for them.

[Stoid]

Hey, I didn’t put her on the fashion pollice page!

But I get your point, and I agree with you. The problem is, women are judged by a different standard in all things than men are. When female politicians who do not make an issue of their looks in any way are attacked on them, I think that stinks. But Katherine Harris makes her looks an issue herself, by her plastic surgery, her makeup, her hair, and her wardrobe. She has made choices that set her up for this kind of thing… she has chosen to be sexpot chick. (Or try, anyway, I think she’s creepy) She is sending a message through the way she chooses to look. Because of that, she’s fair game.

Janet Reno, on the other hand, does not deserve the attacks she gets. She is an unattractive woman - that is not her fault. Nor does SHE make an issue of her looks.

[Odesio]

*Originally posted by Stoidela *
**Hey, I didn’t put her on the fashion pollice page!

**

No, but you decided to bring it up here.

**
But I get your point, and I agree with you. The problem is, women are judged by a different standard in all things than men are.

**

Its obvious you don’t agree. Otherwise why would you have brought up her looks when they were irrelevant to the discussion?

**
When female politicians who do not make an issue of their looks in any way are attacked on them, I think that stinks. But Katherine Harris makes her looks an issue herself, by her plastic surgery, her makeup, her hair, and her wardrobe.

**

People like you made it an issue. She looks no worse then millions of other women in this country.

**
Janet Reno, on the other hand, does not deserve the attacks she gets. She is an unattractive woman - that is not her fault. Nor does SHE make an issue of her looks.

**

I’m sure Janet Reno could look better if she tried. Its her fault she’s such an unattractive woman. I mean look at that hair cut of hers? She’s not even trying.

I understand though. You hate Harris because she’s one of the people who made you cry. So you’ve got to get back at her the only way you can.

Marc

I wonder when Stoid is going to start accusing Bush of killing Vince Foster?