Pigs Sleep
The media won't confront such a lie ... it would be inconvenient for them to do that.
did anyone correct him (why am I asking this, its MSNBC)?
Did Matthews correct him, or was he complicit in the lie?
and I bet ole Chrissy didn't tell him that he was wrong either.
Just to set the record straight (unlike Ron) didn't President Bush win every recount?
The truth is Matthews DID challenge him seriously on this.
You know, refering to this abomination as a "former ballerina" really doesn't acknowledge his outstanding work as a dog show commentator.
What is a "media" recount?
May Ronnie Jr. forget where his butt ends and his mouth starts!
Did twinkle toes say this while in fairyland?
All the newspapers, TV, etc. got together, pooled assets and the pool decided that GOre LOST by, what was it, 523 votes!?!?!
Now that his father is dead, I expect little Ronnie to crawl out of the closet he was never really in.
That's a blazing lie!
Just like a 'rat to ignore the facts. Throw enough lies at the wall and some are bound to stick. Must be the talking points. Drama queen Algore spent a quarter of his speech commiserating about election 2000, then said he's not there to talk about the past. Two minutes later he's exhorting everyone to not go back to 2000 and let the Supreme Court select the President, and don't let Bush select the Supreme Court.
Ron...Al...We still have a Constitution. It covers elections. Read it. Move on.
The media is having fun interviewing delegates who repeat over and over their anger at the "stolen election." They were too stupid to cheat by a sufficient margin. I'm sure they'll try harder this time.
The truth is exactly opposite,
& Matthews knows it. Only G_d
knows what Baby Ronnie knows...
A six-month study by a consortium including the New York Times, Washington Post and CNN disproves Fahrenheit's claim that Gore won under any scenario.
As USA Today summarized, on May 11, 2001:
Who would have won if Al Gore had gotten manual counts he requested in four counties? Answer: George W. Bush."
"Who would have won if the U.S. Supreme Court had not stopped the hand recount of undervotes, which are ballots that registered no machine-readable vote for president? Answer: Bush, under three of four standards."
"Who would have won if all disputed ballots — including those rejected by machines because they had more than one vote for president — had been recounted by hand? Answer: Bush, under the two most widely used standards; Gore, under the two least used."
Throughout the Florida election controversy, the focus was on "undervotes"--ballots which were disqualified because the voter had not properly indicated a candidate, such as by punching out a small piece of paper on the paper ballot. The recounts attempted to discern voter intentions from improperly-marked ballots. Thus, if a ballot had a "hanging chad," a recount official might decide that the voter intended to vote for the candidate, but failed to properly punch out the chad; so the recounter would award the candidate a vote from the "spoiled" ballot. Gore was seeking additional recounts only of undervotes. The only scenario by which Gore would have won Florida would have involved recounts of "overvotes"--ballots which were spoiled because the voter voted for more than one candidate (such as by marking two names, or by punching out two chads). Most of the overvotes which were recoverable were those on which the voter had punched out a chad (or made a check mark) and had also written the candidate's name on the write-in line. Gore's lawsuits never sought a recount of overvotes, so even if the Supreme Court had allowed a Florida recount to continue past the legal deadline, Bush still would have won the additional recount which Gore sought.
A very interesting web widget published by the New York Times allows readers to crunch the data any way they want: what standards for counting ballots, whose counting system to apply, and how to treat overvotes. It's certainly possible under some of the variable scenarios to produce a Gore victory. But it's undeniably dishonest for Fahrenheit to assert that Gore would win under any scenario.
Moore amplifies the deceit with a montage of newspaper headlines, purporting to show that Gore really won. One article shows a date of December 19, 2001, with a large headline reading, "Latest Florida recount shows Gore won Election." The article supposedly comes from The Pantagraph, a daily newspaper in Bloomington, Illinois. But actually, the headline is merely for a letter to the editor--not a news article. The letter to the editor headline is significantly enlarged to make it look like an article headline. The letter ran on December 5, not December 19. The Pantagraph has contacted Moore's office to ask for an explanation, but the office has refused to comment.
[Moore response: Cites articles consistent with my explanation. Fails to acknowledge that the only scenarios for a Gore victory involved recounting methods which Gore never requested in his lawsuits. To tell viewers that Gore would have won "under every scenario" is absurd.]
This raises the nature vs. nurture argument. Here you have the flesh and blood son of the greatest president in our lifetimes, and he's a girlie-man. Apparently, he didn't even vote for his father.
Then, you have Michael - the adopted son. Now, he is the one who learned from his father and who understands the things his father taught him.
Nature vs. nurture....
I'll bet that Mr. Dog Show Host forgot to mention that the media even declared that Al Gore WON Florida before the polls CLOSED there.