President Obama is a real president.
It's sickening that the right..has gotten it into it's head it can de-legitimize a duly elected President when it's not the one they wanted. The Birchers tried it with Kennedy, Reagan (and Lee Atwater) made deals with the Iranians, the Republicans impeached Clinton and the Tea Party (and birthers) are doing it with Obama.
This sort of politics is both cynical and injurious to the nation.
"It's sickening that the right..has gotten it into it's head it can de-legitimize a duly elected President when it's not the one they wanted."
Sally...if you only had the gift of irony.
1. In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported
George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.
Online NewsHour: Media Recount: Bush Won
2. The lead of an April 4, 2001 USA Today story headlined,
“Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed,” by reporter Dennis Cauchon:
George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes -- more than triple his official 537-vote margin -- if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election....
3. New York Times headline clearly stated, "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds
Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote,Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote - NYTimes.com
4.
An exhaustive review of last year's disputed presidential election in Florida indicates that George W. Bush still would have defeated Al Gore even if Mr. Gore had been granted the limited vote recounts he was seeking. Several U.S. news organizations consider the study the final word on the 2000 presidential election.
The study found that even if Al Gore had won the right to limited recounts in Florida, he still would have lost to Mr. Bush by at least 200 votes. The official results gave Mr. Bush a 537 vote victory.
VOA | Newspaper Study Says Bush Won Florida Recount | News | English
If you had an honest bone in your body, you'll post the same thing about your side.
Funny you bring up George W. Bush..who lost the General election. But some how the state where his brother was sitting Governor, his campaign manager was the secretary of state, and a FOX news employee, who was his cousin called the election, became the battle ground. And a sitting judge, appointed by the man who his father was vice president for and close friend of his own running mate wrote the majority opinion which essentially stated this was a one time emergency decision never to be considered again in any other court case.
Yeah..that's legit.
This is not a sign of mental well being, Sally.
1. I gave you several citations of independent examinations of the vote, and all concluded that President Bush won.
2. "George W. Bush..who lost the General election."
Of course, this is an outright fabrication.
No doubt, rather than concluding that you have some sort of dementia, you must either be a recent visitor to this great country, or posting from some foreign location.
Therefore let me disabuse you of whatever thought process led you to said erroneous conclusion about President Bush having "lost the General election."
You see, in this nation we have what is known as The Electoral College.
Allow me to give a tutorial, so that you don't embarrass yourself in the future.
"Electoral College (described in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution):
• Each State was allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representative (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the decennial census). This arrangement built upon an earlier compromise in the design of the Congress itself and thus satisfied both large and small States.
• The manner of choosing the Electors was left to the individual State legislatures, thereby pacifying States suspicious of a central national government.
• Members of Congress and employees of the federal government were specifically prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
• Each State's Electors were required to meet in their respective States rather than all together in one great meeting. This arrangement, it was thought, would prevent bribery, corruption, secret dealing, and foreign influence.
• In order to prevent Electors from voting only for a "favorite son" of their own State, each Elector was required to cast two votes for president, at least one of which had to be for someone outside their home State. The idea, presumably, was that the winner would likely be everyone's second favorite choice.
• The electoral votes were to be sealed and transmitted from each of the States to the President of the Senate who would then open them before both houses of the Congress and read the results.
•
The person with the most electoral votes, provided that it was an absolute majority (at least one over half of the total), became president. Whoever obtained the next greatest number of electoral votes became vice president - an office which they seem to have invented for the occasion since it had not been mentioned previously in the Constitutional Convention.
• In the event that no one obtained an absolute majority in the Electoral College or in the event of a tie vote, the U.S. House of Representatives, as the chamber closest to the people, would choose the president from among the top five contenders. They would do this (as a further concession to the small States) by allowing each State to cast only one vote with an absolute majority of the States being required to elect a president. The vice presidency would go to whatever remaining contender had the greatest number of electoral votes. If that, too, was tied, the U.S. Senate would break the tie by deciding between the two.
Since the 12th Amendment, there have been several federal and State statutory changes which have affected both the time and manner of choosing Presidential Electors but which have not further altered the fundamental workings of the Electoral College. There have also been a few curious incidents which its critics cite as problems but which proponents of the Electoral College view as merely its natural and intended operation.
For more on the Electoral College
NARA | Federal Register | U.S. Electoral College
It is not necessary to thank me...just don't make that mistake again.
