"His hand-picked successor, vice president Al Gore, won the 2000 election by such a narrow margin that Republicans were able to steal it away."
They will never give up on this, even after countless recounts confirmed Bush's victory. What a bunch of dorks.
Isn't the congressional approval rating around 26% ?
I can think of few things more likely to re-energize Bush's base.
This has got to be the dumbest idea I've ever heard.
I guess Ricky does not get that President Bush cannot run for another term.
Yahoo actually posted a news item that said Bush "stole the election away"?
I guess though they are right, Bush won't win re-election.
BTW, note how they talk about the "8" since 1950 who went below 40% (before Bush). Well, there were only 10 during that time, and 1 died after 3 years. The other one, the one that never dropped below 40%? Eisenhower, who couldn't get HIS VP elected either, even though he (unlike Clinton) didn't suffer from falling below 40%.
To the left of the article, it said it was an op/ed by Rall. He certainly has disdain for our Constitution.
It's by Ted Rall. He has it on his website.
I say we tick them all off and have the new supreme court reselect Bush for another term. Freep 'em if they can't take a joke. LOL
"Since 1950, five of the eight other presidents who fell below 40 percent--Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush--lost their bids for reelection or opted not to run again"
Another fool who's forgotten GWBush isn't going to run again. And, as one who actively participated in the California recall, let me tell you Pres. Bush's present "unpopularity" (even assuming it exists and is not just a bunch of rigged polls) is nowhere near what the anger against Davis was. Pres. Bush still has the strong support of 80% of Republicans, I think I saw somewhere; so if you take 80% of Republicans and 0% of dems, you probably get somewhere around 35% popularity. Not a poll I'd care to stake a recall on.
NOTE TO THIS NIMROD: if you are serious about this. There is a CONSTITUTIONAL process in place. So get busy and try to put your "recall" in the US constitution.Otherwise shut up!
writes Richard Benedetto in USA Today
Richard benedetto, = liberal Moron
USA Today= Liberal Rag.
Sum Total...Worthless Story.
You mean that guy who won the '92 election with only 43%?
In fact, President Bush is doing a fine job, polls be damned. Those same poll numbers may start rising soon and this kind of gibberish about non-constitutional 'recall elections' from the deranged left will quickly subside.
The booming U.S. economy - once the rationale the Clinton defenders used to justify his weak presidency - the slow but steady success of the democratization of Iraq and the rarely talked-about safety of the nation from terrorist attacks since 9/11/01 all add up to a successful presidency that the left - naturally - hates. Tough.
Were Bush actually all that politically vulnerable, the congressional Democrats would have had the guts to vote 'Yes' when given the chance to end thr Iraq 'war' just a few weeks ago. They did not. Not even close. End of story.
ROFL!!!
Let me Guess.
They now don't think they'll capture the House and the Senate, so they cannot impeach him for purely partisan reasoning. So now they want a recall because they think they can win that? LOL
Why endorse a recall anyway? I thought G.W.B. was illegitimate. Shouldn't we be in Gore's second term and Kerry's first?
You know what really frightens them and steams them at the same time?
The prospect G.W.B. will go down as one of the greatest Presidents in our country and prescient Leaders in Time. They hate this man more than they did Reagan or Nixon at this point. The prospect that he will not only serve two terms, but may make gains for the party successfully throughout his terms and rank beyond their reach in history shakes them to the core.
he's shaking down their idol FDR if he makes the Republican Party Majority permanent. He's shaking down Clinton's non legacy (saving impeachment and Monica). he's matching up Reagan, Washington, Lincoln and Churchill (I'd add Truman and to some extents Kennedy and FDR) the greats on what is truly important. WOT. Plus probably reshaping the Judiciary.
The reason the Dems want to replay 2000, 2002, and 2004 in 2006 as a race against Bush is because they feel it's one of the last chances they have to beat him in theory if not electorally. 2008 will be about Bush as well. We beat them in 2006 and 2008 then they've effectively lost the opportunity to ever run against him again, saving in trying to distort history's interpretation of him that will not be successful after their deaths.
How long has Yahoo been publishing its own editorials? Who would pay attention to editorials by a company named Yahoo?