Comments on: John Kerry Sells His Soul

By: Jim N Texas! » Blog Archive » Heh

Jim N Texas! » Blog Archive » Heh — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:16:51 +0000

[...] Decision ‘08 discussing Gore, Kerry, and the unhinged moonbat left’s recent bizzare and counterproductive behavior: Nothing says irrelevancy like losing an election that the intelligentsia assumed was yours to win. John Kerry, and Al Gore before him, can still steal a headline or two, based on their name recognition, and in Kerry’s case, his prominent office. But if they didn’t move the vast American heartland when they sang in its own key, who believes they can do it by scraping their fingers down the chalkboard? [...]

By: miriam

miriam — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:40:50 +0000

Gore would have won Florida if the vote had continued until Gore was in the lead–and then stopped before Bush could regain it.

The Secret Service must be putting something into the water they give the losing Presidential candidates–they all go bonkers. Every time Gore gives a speech he is frothing at the mouth. John Kerry was always a twit but has gotten even twittier, if that were possible. As for Bob Dole….

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:27:13 +0000

Well, to be fair, he would have won under some recount methods…

By: Fargus

Fargus — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:25:53 +0000

Thanks for pointing out the story. I had stopped keeping up with any kind of news for a while later last year, and I missed that one.

Bear in mind that I wasn’t just being a completely ignorant, conspiracy-theorist type of guy. I was going off of the last reports I’d seen, from years ago, that had said that by most other recount methods Gore had won. But this one is more extensive, and I thank you for pointing it out.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:44:01 +0000

No, no, no…sorry Fargus, that won’t do at all…Al Gore most decidedly did not win the electoral vote, and we’ve covered this issue exhaustively (do a search on my blog for Paul Krugman for more than I ever care to go through again – this is the very issue that got Krugman in trouble with the NY Times ombudsman)…

By: Fargus

Fargus — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 21:52:32 +0000

Bush is the President. I’m not refuting that. Only that if you had won the popular vote AND the electoral vote 6 years ago, but had had the counts to prove it halted by a court order, you’d probably still be bitter as well.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 16:06:03 +0000

Fargus, I know you do, and I’m not trying to be patronizing…but believe me, if Gore had won, I think you would get a little tired of people questioning his victory six years later still…

By: Fargus

Fargus — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 16:03:27 +0000

I understand the method of electing the US President. And notice I didn’t mention the popular vote. I was, in fact, talking about the recounts in Florida that were halted by court order, but later found by nearly all measures to favor Gore over Bush.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:59:04 +0000

Fargus, I don’t want to go through the 2000 thing again, either, but there is only one method of electing a U.S. president, the electoral college – all else is besides the point. Bush won the electoral college vote, and thus defeated Gore…not an opinion, but a fact…

By: Fargus

Fargus — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:45:00 +0000

I’m not one to bring up 2000 over and over again, but it does seem a bit disingenuous, and misrepresentative of the actual facts, to state blindly that Gore “lost to Bush,” and that’s that. Gore was screwed by a system that elected him President, by any measure, but stopped counting before it could be proven.