Bush Approval Ratings Still 80+%. Most Popular in History. Clintoid NEVER EVEN CLOSE. Leftwing Media too Embarrassed to Say so.
Fox Americana
<snip usual copy/paste copyright infringement>
Remember when the DNC lapdog, so-called US media (daily)
trumpeted clintoid's alleged "popularity", with such
pathetic leftist partisan fawning, is became silly?
Over. And over. As if some kind of real story?
60% tops. And a majority strongly disapproved of his character.
Yet the seemingly Gregorian media chant:
"And now, another report on clintoid's alleged job approval"...
Despite DAILY spin, deliberate propaganda, from the entire
left-leaning media, from hollyweird, and every left coast
bubblehead who ever laid on a casting couch, that was the
best clintoid could ever do??
(Hardly impressive.)
When's the last time you heard the same media nitwits
mention George W Bush's record-breaking approval rating?
Highest ever measured.
The fact it's now been at over 80% for nearly a year?
Never once in recorded history, has any president ever
recorded higher approval...
So where are all those slobbering, lapdog nitwits??
-
Thumper
The American people will come to their senses. Probably as soon as
this so called war is over, if it ever ends.
Thumper
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-
general_mauser@itchy+scratchy.com
They lapdogs are in some other lap. They are certainly not concerned
about AWOL "President" Bush's little AWOL thing, or the fact that he
got less votes not only in the United States, but also in Florida.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-
Chris Williamson
general_mauser@itchy+scratchy.com wrote:
> They lapdogs are in some other lap. They are certainly not concerned
> about AWOL "President" Bush's little AWOL thing,
Please explain. I thought George W Bush was an upstanding American. Was
he charged with going AWOL? I missed that one. Can you point to a web
site or something on this charge you're making
> or the fact that he
> got less votes not only in the United States,
He certainly did get fewer votes than Al Gore in the United States. And
because the electoral college is the way we elect presidents, George Bush
won.
> but also in Florida.
No, all the research shows that if Gore had gotten his way, he would have
lost. Where do you get the idea that Gore got more votes in Florida?
By the way, Gore got way more votes than Clinton ever did, definitely an
accomplishment. But he lost the election himself by: 1) re-inventing
himself every couple of weeks; 2) constantly coming up with bizzarre
untruths and out-and-out lies, and 3) waffling on Bill Clinton -- whether
to include him in the race or not.
Gore had an incredibly strong economy on his side. It's rare that a VP
can mess up so badly. Remember, he didn't even win Tennessee or Arkansas.
Kim
Chris Williamson wrote:
>
> general_mauser@itchy+scratchy.com wrote:
>
>
>>They lapdogs are in some other lap. They are certainly not concerned
>>about AWOL "President" Bush's little AWOL thing,
>>
>
> Please explain. I thought George W Bush was an upstanding American. Was
> he charged with going AWOL? I missed that one. Can you point to a web
> site or something on this charge you're making
>
>
>>or the fact that he
>>got less votes not only in the United States,
>>
>
> He certainly did get fewer votes than Al Gore in the United States. And
> because the electoral college is the way we elect presidents, George Bush
> won.
>
>
>>but also in Florida.
>>
>
> No, all the research shows that if Gore had gotten his way, he would have
> lost. Where do you get the idea that Gore got more votes in Florida?
Actually, Gore DID get more votes in Florida if ALL votes had been
recounted. But you're right, if he had "gotten his way" and they
recounted ONLY the votes in the counties he was going after, it still
wouldn't have been enough. It was the legal strategy that was flawed.
The fact remains that he did have more votes in Florida. Read the
fine print, folks. Anyone have a link?
Chris Williamson
Kim wrote:
>
> > No, all the research shows that if Gore had gotten his way, he would have
> > lost. Where do you get the idea that Gore got more votes in Florida?
>
> Actually, Gore DID get more votes in Florida if ALL votes had been
> recounted. But you're right, if he had "gotten his way" and they
> recounted ONLY the votes in the counties he was going after, it still
> wouldn't have been enough. It was the legal strategy that was flawed.
> The fact remains that he did have more votes in Florida. Read the
> fine print, folks. Anyone have a link?
>
I've heard both ways, that Gore would have won, and that Bush would have one. I
think the data on the whole state is not conclusive. But then, we have to
follow rules. There was no way Gore was going to be allowed to throw more votes
into the till legally. Even the chief justice of Florida pointed that out.
Klay
believe Bush has a clear policy on the Mideast conflict." This is true for
much of Bush's "policies".
"Fox Americana" <ner...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:25b22837.02041...@posting.google.com...
fuller
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 13, 2002; Page A06
The Democrats are getting fed up with watching President Bush on
television.
In an unusual letter to the heads of the three cable news networks,
Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) and House Minority
Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) complained about "the lack of
television coverage of press events featuring elected leaders of the
Democratic Party."
At the same time, the Bush White House "has received an extraordinary
level of attention and coverage of their events," said the letter sent
yesterday to Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes, CNN Chairman Walter
Isaacson and MSNBC President Erik Sorenson.
The lawmakers are taking the issue so seriously that they asked the
Democratic National Committee to study CNN's coverage. From Jan. 1
through March 21, the letter said, CNN carried 157 live events
involving the Bush administration, or 96 percent, and seven involving
elected Democrats, or 4 percent. They said anecdotal evidence suggests
a similar pattern at Fox and MSNBC.
Privately, Democratic officials said party activists often complain
that Daschle and Gephardt aren't doing much because the two men are
rarely seen on cable newscasts.
While Republicans sometimes grumbled that the cable networks were
lavishing too much coverage on President Bill Clinton, the decision by
the Democratic Party leaders to air their gripes reflects a growing
degree of frustration as the midterm elections approach.
The networks shouldn't use a "stopwatch," they wrote, but "we are
concerned that cable news coverage tilted toward the White House
muffles the voice of the Democratic Party."
"Every time the president opens his mouth, he's covered live," said
Erik Smith, Gephardt's spokesman. "Every single utterance from the
White House on domestic policy gets treated with equal importance and
equal relevance to the war on terrorism. You have Democrats on the
Hill doing things relevant to the war on terrorism that should at
least be considered for coverage."
Said Ranit Schmelzer, Daschle's spokeswoman: "We're not saying we want
equal, exact, balanced coverage. We understand an administration gets
more coverage than a party only partly in the majority." But while
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer's briefings are covered
live, she said, "Daschle holds a dugout [meeting with reporters]
almost daily and they don't get covered."
Phil Griffin, an MSNBC vice president, said that "the people dictating
foreign policy are in the White House. Unfortunately for Democrats,
Republicans got the White House and they're in charge. We did that
with the Clinton White House as well. If you've got the White House
you're going to get the attention, especially at a time like this."
Contrary to the Democrats' perception, Griffin added, "we're not
taking every Bush speech."
CNN spokesman Matthew Furman said his network, "like all news
organizations, makes decisions about its coverage based on the stories
of the day. In covering a war at home and military action overseas, it
is necessary to cover the administration making the decisions,
regardless of political party."
A Fox News spokeswoman declined to comment.
The networks' usual tilt toward the party in the White House
intensified after Sept. 11, when they switched to "America at War"
mode and began regularly covering briefings by Fleischer, Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other administration officials. The
DNC study cites such news events as Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
and Jordan's King Abdullah meeting reporters, and a news conference by
Vice President Cheney and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
All this has left the Democrats feeling neglected, and worried. On
March 20, Daschle and Gephardt said, the cable channels ignored their
press briefings, even though the House was voting on the Republican
budget and the Senate was moving toward passage of campaign finance
reform. That same day, the networks carried live appearances by the
president, Laura Bush, Fleischer and Attorney General John D.
Ashcroft.
-------------------------
Chris Williamson
> Bush Is Darling of Cable News, Democrats Gripe
>
> By Howard Kurtz
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Saturday, April 13, 2002; Page A06
>
> The Democrats are getting fed up with watching President Bush on
> television.
>
Yeah, it's true. The White House always gets the coverage. Now if Daschle
and Gep want more coverage of their own, they should say things like, "We
believe that an investigation as to why the administration did not stop
the September 11 attacks is warranted. It's terrible that they knew, as
we're sure an investigation will show, and didn't stop it. We think this
was a political move to make Mike Bloomberg the next mayor of New York."
They could also introduce bills that would stop funding of the Defense
Department or some other part of the Executive Branch. They've got the
power, ultimately....
Kim
It's only been reported both ways because either outcome was
possible depending on whether all or some of the counties votes were
recounted. All sources agree that based on the research Gore did have
more votes. But nearly all of the media buried it at the end of the
stories, and ran misleading headlines. ANYONE HAVE A LINK???
You are right about following the rules, however. The questions is,
why did the Supreme court decide to ignore the rules and just put
Dubya in office without FOLLOWING the rules? Oh wait, they're supreme
court justices, they get to make their own rules. I forgot.
Kim
Klay wrote:
> "But fewer than half of those questioned in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll
> believe Bush has a clear policy on the Mideast conflict." This is true for
> much of Bush's "policies".
So, in other words, more that half the people polled know this guy is
clueless, yet "support" him anyway? Wow, that's sad...
Klay
"Klay" <kla...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a9abgk$5pt$7...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> "But fewer than half of those questioned in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll
> believe Bush has a clear policy on the Mideast conflict." This is true for
>
> "Fox Americana" <ner...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:25b22837.02041...@posting.google.com...
> > "Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote ... nothing.
> > <snip usual copy/paste copyright infringement>
> >
> > Remember when the DNC lapdog, so-called US media (daily)
> > trumpeted clintoid's alleged "popularity", with such
> > pathetic leftist partisan fawning, is became silly?
> >
> > Over. And over. As if some kind of real story?
> >
> > 60% tops. And a majority strongly disapproved of his character.
> > Yet the seemingly Gregorian media chant:
> >
> > "And now, another report on clintoid's alleged job approval"...
> >
> > Despite DAILY spin, deliberate propaganda,
Think about it. why would the corporate media, owned and operated by
conservative stockholders and businessmen with link to the military and
industrial complex appoint left-winged editors - that would undermined their
businesses? The answer is, they don't! The flawed logic of these crackers on
this newsgroup is astounding!
Chris Williamson
Kim wrote:
You can certainly make the argument that politics was all the Supreme Court ruling
was about. But then that goes for both sides, too. So if there were five Dems in
charge it would have gone the other way. It's politics, pure and simple, no law
involved at all, you would have to conclude.
I prefer to think that the Florida court screwed it up, and royally. Now there was
partisanship. Check the chief justice's comments out. He saw that his colleagues were
making a mockery of the law.
By the way, ever hear a Supreme Court justice appointed by the Dems make a comment
about how that was a politically motivated decision?
Kim
Chris Williamson wrote:
That's a reasonable conclusion to make. Either way, the Supreme Court
shouldn't have had anything to do with it, IMHO. They should have
either just agreed to recount everything, or thrown the whole thing
out and held a new election in Florida. The margin of error was
greater that the margin of victory. But I suppose you can't really
explain that to someone who uses the term "fuzzy math"...
> I prefer to think that the Florida court screwed it up, and royally. Now there was
> partisanship. Check the chief justice's comments out. He saw that his colleagues were
> making a mockery of the law.
I'm sure I've seen them, but it's been a while. Got a link?
> By the way, ever hear a Supreme Court justice appointed by the Dems make a comment
> about how that was a politically motivated decision?
Nah... no political motivation here... :-P
Chris Williamson
Kim
digging to find the chief justice's comments I was interested in...
:-)
Of course, I can also thank you for helping me locate a link to my
earlier claim about the votes in Florida:
Headline: "Bush Won Recounts"
http://www.gopbi.com/news/special/ballot_special_report.html
Sigh. I guess we'll never know for sure, eh?
Julian D.
wrote:
He got the votes required in the Electoral college.
Just thought of something...if even big Enron is a dud when it comes
to smearing Bush...how can you expect your awol conspiracy to take
hold?
Better find an issue fast. You got to stop those high poll numbers of
his.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-
JD
"We need honest, reasoned debate, and not fear-mongering. To those . . .
who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is
this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity
and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies and
pause to America's friends. They encourage people of goodwill to remain
silent in the face of evil."
-- John Ashcroft -
Testifying before congress defending military tribunals and upholding the
Constitution of the United States of America
Julian D.
>"But fewer than half of those questioned in the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll
>believe Bush has a clear policy on the Mideast conflict." This is true for
>much of Bush's "policies".
Name the past President's or any previous PM of Israel that had a
clear policy and a solution to the Mideast conflict.
>"Fox Americana" <ner...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:25b22837.02041...@posting.google.com...
>> "Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote ... nothing.
>> <snip usual copy/paste copyright infringement>
>>
>> Remember when the DNC lapdog, so-called US media (daily)
>> trumpeted clintoid's alleged "popularity", with such
>> pathetic leftist partisan fawning, is became silly?
>>
>> Over. And over. As if some kind of real story?
>>
>> 60% tops. And a majority strongly disapproved of his character.
>> Yet the seemingly Gregorian media chant:
>>
>> "And now, another report on clintoid's alleged job approval"...
>>
>> Despite DAILY spin, deliberate propaganda, from the entire
>> left-leaning media, from hollyweird, and every left coast
>> bubblehead who ever laid on a casting couch, that was the
>> best clintoid could ever do??
>>
>> (Hardly impressive.)
>>
>> When's the last time you heard the same media nitwits
>> mention George W Bush's record-breaking approval rating?
>>
>> Highest ever measured.
>>
>> The fact it's now been at over 80% for nearly a year?
>>
>> Never once in recorded history, has any president ever
>> recorded higher approval...
>>
>> So where are all those slobbering, lapdog nitwits??
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>
Cisco Kid
>"Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote ... nothing.
> <snip usual copy/paste copyright infringement>
>
>Remember when the DNC lapdog, so-called US media (daily)
>trumpeted clintoid's alleged "popularity", with such
>pathetic leftist partisan fawning, is became silly?
>
>Over. And over. As if some kind of real story?
>
>60% tops. And a majority strongly disapproved of his character.
>
But they re-elected him. Overwhelmingly.
>
>Yet the seemingly Gregorian media chant:
>
>"And now, another report on clintoid's alleged job approval"...
>
Alledged?
>
>Despite DAILY spin, deliberate propaganda, from the entire
>left-leaning media, from hollyweird, and every left coast
>bubblehead who ever laid on a casting couch, that was the
>best clintoid could ever do??
>
>(Hardly impressive.)
>
>When's the last time you heard the same media nitwits
>mention George W Bush's record-breaking approval rating?
>
It was only achieved by virtue of the horrendous events of 9-11.
>
>Highest ever measured.
>
>The fact it's now been at over 80% for nearly a year?
>
LOL! Hint: It's belolw 75% now and it hasn't been anywhere NEAR a
year.
>
>Never once in recorded history, has any president ever
>recorded higher approval...
>
And never has any US president had 3,500 of his own civilians attacked
and massacred on US soil. I can't remember the last time the Pentagon
was bombed either.
>
>So where are all those slobbering, lapdog nitwits??
>
Sounds like I'm speaking to one right now.
Thumper
They support him only because they support any President in the early
stages of a "war."
Thumper
Zepp the Weasel
> "Gandalf Grey" <ganda...@infectedmail.com> wrote ... nothing.
> <snip usual copy/paste copyright infringement>
>
> Remember when the DNC lapdog, so-called US media (daily)
> trumpeted clintoid's alleged "popularity", with such
> pathetic leftist partisan fawning, is became silly?
>
> Over. And over. As if some kind of real story?
>
> 60% tops. And a majority strongly disapproved of his character.
> Yet the seemingly Gregorian media chant:
Fauxy gets it wrong again. Amazing.
Clinton's ratings peaked at 76% -- the highest ever recorded for a
second term president -- three days after the House impeached him.
They AVERAGED 66% for the entire second term (compare to 47% for
Reagan).
Without his buddy Osama bin Laden to make him look good, Putsch is
strictly a 43% approval one-term wonder.
Zepp the Weasel
> general_mauser@itchy+scratchy.com wrote:
>
> > They lapdogs are in some other lap. They are certainly not concerned
> > about AWOL "President" Bush's little AWOL thing,
>
> Please explain. I thought George W Bush was an upstanding American. Was
> he charged with going AWOL? I missed that one. Can you point to a web
> site or something on this charge you're making
Being a tad disingenuous, aren't you? Rich white boys in the toy army
("Fortunate Sons" as they were called) got to come and go pretty much
as they pleased. The National Guard was a disgraceful fig leaf for
rich kids who didn't want to go to Vietnam but didn't want to dodge
the draft, either. That way, they got to "serve their country", only
without putting thier little pink asses on the line. The Republican
party is jammed with those, along with what were called
"Chickenhawks", an even lower life form that approved of the war but
avoided serviing.
That Putsch blew off the last four months of his "national service" is
a matter of public record. Rich boys didn't get tossed in the
stockade in those days, which was one of the reasons the war in
Vietnam got so unpopular.
>
> > or the fact that he
> > got less votes not only in the United States,
>
> He certainly did get fewer votes than Al Gore in the United States. And
> because the electoral college is the way we elect presidents, George Bush
> won.
>
> > but also in Florida.
>
> No, all the research shows that if Gore had gotten his way, he would have
> lost. Where do you get the idea that Gore got more votes in Florida?
>
The trouble is, every survey based on what the Florida laws said
showed Gore winning, along with the recounts proposed by the Putsch
camp.
> By the way, Gore got way more votes than Clinton ever did, definitely an
> accomplishment. But he lost the election himself by: 1) re-inventing
> himself every couple of weeks; 2) constantly coming up with bizzarre
> untruths and out-and-out lies, and 3) waffling on Bill Clinton -- whether
> to include him in the race or not.
>
No, he lost 4 million votes to Nader, and a lot of people supported
Putsch because he claimed to be a moderate on social issues and a hawk
on spending. He lied about both, of course, and I know quite a few
Republicans who regret voting for him.
> Gore had an incredibly strong economy on his side. It's rare that a VP
> can mess up so badly. Remember, he didn't even win Tennessee or Arkansas.
But he DID win Florida. But was cheated.
Chris Williamson
> Chris Williamson <cdw...@erols.com> wrote in message news:<3CB8D948...@erols.com>...
> > general_mauser@itchy+scratchy.com wrote:
> >
> > > They lapdogs are in some other lap. They are certainly not concerned
> > > about AWOL "President" Bush's little AWOL thing,
> >
> > Please explain. I thought George W Bush was an upstanding American. Was
> > he charged with going AWOL? I missed that one. Can you point to a web
> > site or something on this charge you're making
>
> Being a tad disingenuous, aren't you? Rich white boys in the toy army
> ("Fortunate Sons" as they were called) got to come and go pretty much
> as they pleased. The National Guard was a disgraceful fig leaf for
> rich kids who didn't want to go to Vietnam but didn't want to dodge
> the draft, either. That way, they got to "serve their country", only
> without putting thier little pink asses on the line. The Republican
> party is jammed with those, along with what were called
> "Chickenhawks", an even lower life form that approved of the war but
> avoided serviing.
>
> That Putsch blew off the last four months of his "national service" is
> a matter of public record. Rich boys didn't get tossed in the
> stockade in those days, which was one of the reasons the war in
> Vietnam got so unpopular.
Who is Putsch? And I still don't see anything here about a charge of AWOL....
>
> > > or the fact that he
> > > got less votes not only in the United States,
> >
> > He certainly did get fewer votes than Al Gore in the United States. And
> > because the electoral college is the way we elect presidents, George Bush
> > won.
> >
> > > but also in Florida.
> >
> > No, all the research shows that if Gore had gotten his way, he would have
> > lost. Where do you get the idea that Gore got more votes in Florida?
> >
> The trouble is, every survey based on what the Florida laws said
> showed Gore winning, along with the recounts proposed by the Putsch
> camp.
That's not what I remember. I remember that surveys showing just the opposite.
> > By the way, Gore got way more votes than Clinton ever did, definitely an
> > accomplishment. But he lost the election himself by: 1) re-inventing
> > himself every couple of weeks; 2) constantly coming up with bizzarre
> > untruths and out-and-out lies, and 3) waffling on Bill Clinton -- whether
> > to include him in the race or not.
> >
>
> No, he lost 4 million votes to Nader, and a lot of people supported
> Putsch because he claimed to be a moderate on social issues and a hawk
> on spending. He lied about both, of course, and I know quite a few
> Republicans who regret voting for him.
Yes, dear old Ralph did in the Vice President. "There's not a dime's worth of difference
between the Dems and Repubs." But then had Perot not won in 1992, we wouldn't have had Clinton
in office.
Gore certainly lost votes because of Clinton as well. That's why he worked so hard to keep
Clinton out of the campaingn.
> > Gore had an incredibly strong economy on his side. It's rare that a VP
> > can mess up so badly. Remember, he didn't even win Tennessee or Arkansas.
>
> But he DID win Florida. But was cheated.
How so? He lost on the electoral count, and the surveys by media show that even if they broke
the rules and counted invalid ballots, he still would have lost.
King Pineapple
news:a9adji$7i2$7...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
> Think about it. why would the corporate media, owned and operated by
> conservative stockholders and businessmen
Like Viacom, right Zippy? They gave 3 times as much dough to the Dems in the
1990s as they did to the GOP. They own CBS.
> with link to the military and industrial complex
Everybody has links to those.
>appoint left-winged editors - that would undermined their businesses? The
answer is, they don't!
Sure they do. Admitted liberal Peter Jennings is chief managing editor of
ABC World News Tonight. DNC Poster Boy Dan Rather, who works for the
above-named Viacom-owned CBS, is managing editor of HIS newscast too. You
remember Dan? The guy who gave Democrat Gary Condit a pass for nearly three
months?
> The flawed logic of these crackers on this newsgroup is astounding!
No, *your* logic is such. You throw around accusations about the media with
absolutely NOTHING to back them up, and I come in and clean your clock in 5
minutes with facts.
--
"I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things"-
Right Wing Media Whore and CBS News Managing Editor/Chief Anchor Dan Rather
Zepp the Weasel
> Zepp the Weasel wrote:
>
> > Chris Williamson <cdw...@erols.com> wrote in message news:<3CB8D948...@erols.com>...
> > > general_mauser@itchy+scratchy.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > They lapdogs are in some other lap. They are certainly not concerned
> > > > about AWOL "President" Bush's little AWOL thing,
> > >
> > > Please explain. I thought George W Bush was an upstanding American. Was
> > > he charged with going AWOL? I missed that one. Can you point to a web
> > > site or something on this charge you're making
> >
> > Being a tad disingenuous, aren't you? Rich white boys in the toy army
> > ("Fortunate Sons" as they were called) got to come and go pretty much
> > as they pleased. The National Guard was a disgraceful fig leaf for
> > rich kids who didn't want to go to Vietnam but didn't want to dodge
> > the draft, either. That way, they got to "serve their country", only
> > without putting thier little pink asses on the line. The Republican
> > party is jammed with those, along with what were called
> > "Chickenhawks", an even lower life form that approved of the war but
> > avoided serviing.
> >
> > That Putsch blew off the last four months of his "national service" is
> > a matter of public record. Rich boys didn't get tossed in the
> > stockade in those days, which was one of the reasons the war in
> > Vietnam got so unpopular.
>
> Who is Putsch? And I still don't see anything here about a charge of AWOL....
Yup. You're being disingenuous. You are the only one here talking
about formal charges, and ignoring the explanation of why there were
no formal charges.
>
> >
> > > > or the fact that he
> > > > got less votes not only in the United States,
> > >
> > > He certainly did get fewer votes than Al Gore in the United States. And
> > > because the electoral college is the way we elect presidents, George Bush
> > > won.
> > >
> > > > but also in Florida.
> > >
> > > No, all the research shows that if Gore had gotten his way, he would have
> > > lost. Where do you get the idea that Gore got more votes in Florida?
> > >
> > The trouble is, every survey based on what the Florida laws said
> > showed Gore winning, along with the recounts proposed by the Putsch
> > camp.
>
> That's not what I remember. I remember that surveys showing just the opposite.
>
You don't remember very well, then. Do a websearch for "NORC survey"
That was the big, definitive one. Came out last winter.
> > > By the way, Gore got way more votes than Clinton ever did, definitely an
> > > accomplishment. But he lost the election himself by: 1) re-inventing
> > > himself every couple of weeks; 2) constantly coming up with bizzarre
> > > untruths and out-and-out lies, and 3) waffling on Bill Clinton -- whether
> > > to include him in the race or not.
> > >
> >
> > No, he lost 4 million votes to Nader, and a lot of people supported
> > Putsch because he claimed to be a moderate on social issues and a hawk
> > on spending. He lied about both, of course, and I know quite a few
> > Republicans who regret voting for him.
>
> Yes, dear old Ralph did in the Vice President. "There's not a dime's worth of difference
> between the Dems and Repubs." But then had Perot not won in 1992, we wouldn't have had Clinton
> in office.
Actually, Perot had no effect. About 45% of Perots votes were
Democrats according to exit polls, so Clinton would have won any way.
>
> Gore certainly lost votes because of Clinton as well. That's why he worked so hard to keep
> Clinton out of the campaingn.
That's what cost him votes. The day he announced that he wasn't going
to have the immensely popular Clinton campaign for him was the day I
told friends that he had just lost this election. He nearly pulled it
out anyway -- in fact, DID pull it out, but got robbed.
> > > Gore had an incredibly strong economy on his side. It's rare that a VP
> > > can mess up so badly. Remember, he didn't even win Tennessee or Arkansas.
> >
> > But he DID win Florida. But was cheated.
>
> How so? He lost on the electoral count, and the surveys by media show that even if they broke
> the rules and counted invalid ballots, he still would have lost.
There was never a recount in Florida. The NORC survey shows clearly
that if the recount had been done according to existing Florida laws,
Gore would have won.
Micky Bitsco
> Being a tad disingenuous, aren't you? Rich white boys in the toy army
> ("Fortunate Sons" as they were called) got to come and go pretty much
> as they pleased. The National Guard was a disgraceful fig leaf for
> rich kids who didn't want to go to Vietnam but didn't want to dodge
> the draft, either. That way, they got to "serve their country", only
As with every war, including Viet Nam, Guardsmen have always been the first to
go. WW-1,WW-II, Korea, Viet Nam, Desert Storm and now Afganistan.
The part you missed about Vietnam was that because it was such a corrupt war
brought on by a egomaniac for a President (HEY HEY LBJ, how many kids did you
kill today?), after several thousand of his troups were called up, the governnor
of Massechusetts (Yes Stupid - Massechusetts- Home of the Kennedys) would not
give permission for the national guardsmen from his state to be called up. At
that time, the federal government had to have the permission of the State's
governor to call up the state guard. That's when, instead of the bad politics of
governors challenging the ligitimacy of Viet Nam, LBJ, his Democrat Congress
and the Feds escalated the Draft up to 58,000/month getting about 250 young
men's lives totally wasted (as in killed) per week killed in a no win war.
After it became apparent that the US was not going to call up the Guard or the
Reserve, millions of millions, far more poor than rich joined the ranks of the
national guard.
> without putting thier little pink asses on the line. The Republican
> party is jammed with those, along with what were called
> "Chickenhawks", an even lower life form that approved of the war but
> avoided serviing.
My bother and many of my friends were killed in Viet Nam and the rest of those
who survived came back quite damaged. I wish every one of those brave souls
would of joined the National Guard Zepp. They only got kicked in the face by
millions of americans -exactly- like you for thier efforts and for sure
blithering idiot flag wavers like you are not worth it and never will be.
Chris Williamson
Zepp the Weasel wrote:
I can only assume you're engaging in conspiratorial theories here, or worse, just name calling. A
little substance in your posts would be greatly appreciated.
> >
> > >
> > > > > or the fact that he
> > > > > got less votes not only in the United States,
> > > >
> > > > He certainly did get fewer votes than Al Gore in the United States. And
> > > > because the electoral college is the way we elect presidents, George Bush
> > > > won.
> > > >
> > > > > but also in Florida.
> > > >
> > > > No, all the research shows that if Gore had gotten his way, he would have
> > > > lost. Where do you get the idea that Gore got more votes in Florida?
> > > >
> > > The trouble is, every survey based on what the Florida laws said
> > > showed Gore winning, along with the recounts proposed by the Putsch
> > > camp.
> >
> > That's not what I remember. I remember that surveys showing just the opposite.
> >
> You don't remember very well, then. Do a websearch for "NORC survey"
> That was the big, definitive one. Came out last winter.
I thought I had heard Bush had won. Here's the research.
1. From the Guardian,:
"Ballot paper study makes Bush winner in Florida" -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,591993,00.html
2. From the New York Times:
"Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote" -
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html
"A comprehensive review of the
uncounted Florida ballots from last
year's presidential election reveals that
George W. Bush would have won even if
the United States Supreme Court had
allowed the statewide manual recount of the
votes that the Florida Supreme Court had
ordered to go forward."
3.From the Washington Post:
"Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush -
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A12623-2001Nov11
4. From the Palm Beach Post - http://www.GoPBI.com/news/special/ballot_special_report.html
"Bush Won Recounts
A ballot review by The Palm Beach Post
and news organizations indicates
over-votes cost Gore the election"
I actually think you're the one being disingenuous here...
> > > > By the way, Gore got way more votes than Clinton ever did, definitely an
> > > > accomplishment. But he lost the election himself by: 1) re-inventing
> > > > himself every couple of weeks; 2) constantly coming up with bizzarre
> > > > untruths and out-and-out lies, and 3) waffling on Bill Clinton -- whether
> > > > to include him in the race or not.
> > > >
> > >
> > > No, he lost 4 million votes to Nader, and a lot of people supported
> > > Putsch because he claimed to be a moderate on social issues and a hawk
> > > on spending. He lied about both, of course, and I know quite a few
> > > Republicans who regret voting for him.
> >
> > Yes, dear old Ralph did in the Vice President. "There's not a dime's worth of difference
> > between the Dems and Repubs." But then had Perot not won in 1992, we wouldn't have had Clinton
> > in office.
>
> Actually, Perot had no effect. About 45% of Perots votes were
> Democrats according to exit polls, so Clinton would have won any way.
So it would have had an effect!
> > Gore certainly lost votes because of Clinton as well. That's why he worked so hard to keep
> > Clinton out of the campaingn.
>
> That's what cost him votes. The day he announced that he wasn't going
> to have the immensely popular Clinton campaign for him was the day I
> told friends that he had just lost this election. He nearly pulled it
> out anyway -- in fact, DID pull it out, but got robbed.
Then why are there current former Clinton administration officials who are also trying to avoid
their Clinton record?
> > > > Gore had an incredibly strong economy on his side. It's rare that a VP
> > > > can mess up so badly. Remember, he didn't even win Tennessee or Arkansas.
> > >
> > > But he DID win Florida. But was cheated.
> >
> > How so? He lost on the electoral count, and the surveys by media show that even if they broke
> > the rules and counted invalid ballots, he still would have lost.
>
> There was never a recount in Florida. The NORC survey shows clearly
> that if the recount had been done according to existing Florida laws,
> Gore would have won.
I'm not sure I said there was a recount....
Silverback
listen up asswipe you weren't even in diapers during Nam that much is
clear from yer fucking stupidity.
>
>> without putting thier little pink asses on the line. The Republican
>> party is jammed with those, along with what were called
>> "Chickenhawks", an even lower life form that approved of the war but
>> avoided serviing.
>
>My bother and many of my friends were killed in Viet Nam and the rest of those
>who survived came back quite damaged. I wish every one of those brave souls
>would of joined the National Guard Zepp. They only got kicked in the face by
>millions of americans -exactly- like you for thier efforts and for sure
>blithering idiot flag wavers like you are not worth it and never will be.
>
>
>
=====================================================
GDY Weasel
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/whiterose.htm
The Nazi Hydra in America an online book of the
fascist influence in America.
http://www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/noon.html
===================================================