The Economist says Bush was NOT ELECTED

The Economist ^ | 11/16/01 | The Economist

[Arthur McGowan]

It's a JOKE!!!!!

[Arthur McGowan]

It's a JOKE!!!!!

[Joe Bonforte]

"Last time I looked, the Economist was very much in support of President Bush and his coalition against the Taliban. They also endorsed him in the Presidential election."

Yes, they did, but they also endorsed Clinton in 1992 over W's father.

[Joe_October]

With all the latest attention that the big recount got, I reviewed the posts over the past few months. I don't need to restate the facts here but there are a few things that are obvious from what has transpired:

(1) The Democrats have been very effective in creating confusion regarding the votes. This is a simple matter of counting votes. They don't want to count them fair and square because they know what they will find and their guy lost.

(2) The Media are idiots, corrupt or both. After the big effort to count the votes, we know less now than we did 6 months ago. They counted some votes but not others and when they were done they summarized the effort with such incompetence, no one can figure out what they found. And they paid for this. They did this because they are towing the Democratic line or they're just plain dumb. Maybe both. (I don't know which is worst.) And until some magazine from the Right looks at it, I throw them in the same bag. How hard would it be to look at the ballots?

(3) Bush is the President, will be the President and that is immutable. However, those that fouled up the process will never be punished because the analysis has been so mucked up that the truth can never be established. No future recounts are possible because the 7 that have been done to day are so messed up, no result can be credible. (Some would argue, the losers wanted that in lieu of a new President.)

(4) Democratic operatives tampered with votes in Palm Beach to try to steal the election. There have been a number of well written analysis' of this effort and they are irrefutable. Votes in other States were tampered with as well (Wisconsin and New Mexico come to mind.) As a minimum, a number of Precinct Heads should go to jail. (Don't worry this won't happen.)

(5) Those that whine about who the President is now don't give a damn about the people they are so valiently defending. The vote is done and there is no remedy if a different result could be established. Bush resigning is ludicrous and harmful to the country. To specify that as a remedy only demonstrates that it is more important for some to win a trivial battle than to help the US.

(6) Voter fraud is rampant. And, will continue to be so because the Republicans cannot fix the problem while (some) Democrats see it as a positive for them. (I saw on television the other day, a member of NOW supporting the Taliban because, basically, they oppose everything that Bush stands for. NOW defending the Taliban? -- that is the mentality that we are dealing with).

(7) Katherine Harris is one of the true American heroes. She stood and took the heat and did not flinch. Any Republican that does not support her is a fool. Any woman that does not support her is a fool. If there was any justice in this world, she would be VP or President in about 12 years. Had the votes come back in a timely fashion and indicated a Gore win, she would have certified that result. That is clear. Any that attack her are swine, plain and simple.

(8) We have an electoral college. Votes should be counted as prescribed before the election. Those that said these things early have such wisdom, I applaud them. Any discussion past these points are pointless. If your cousin or brother or cube mate has not figured that much out, there is no point arguing with them. They want a result so much that they will twist whatever information is known to arrive at the predetermined conclusion. Save your breath.

(9) If it was not clear before, there are some members of the judicial branch that are a joke.

(10) It is up to clear-thinking Democrats to fix these problems. I say this because it is clear that their side has been effective in confusing the issue and making it untouchable by the Republicans. Any attempt to punish the offenders (all Democrats) would be effectively painted as partisan. Therefore, none will take the chance. Republicans need to stand behind honest investigations and control the urge to pound those that caused such difficulty.

(11) US voters have decided that the right guy won and that the system does not need big fixes. Therefore, none will be forth coming.

(12) There are some people that will never be convinced. There is enough information to conclude that Bush won confidently. Any other conclusion is simply wishful and twisted logic.

Thanks for your time. I hope this helps those that have had this argument with non-Freepers.

[Henchman]

A good Brit would stand back and let the GI capture bin

[Henchman]

Somehow posted to the wrong article oops - sorry

[Libloather]

Do you have Altoast2000's number? A phone call may need to be placed...

[BrucefromMtVernon]

The Economist is the mouthpiece of the London School of Economics; which is a way of saying that The Economist does NOT convey so much as the most elementary understanding of economics. It lauds the so-called "liberal" school of economic thought which prevails in The City; having nothing in common with the American System of Political Economy.

[RonWebb]

The Economist is commenting (rather cryptically) on the findings of the media consortium that recently completed a detailed examination of the ballots:

"So there are two main findings: The Supreme Court's intervention probably did not affect the outcome of the limited recounts then under way, and more people probably cast valid votes for Gore than for Bush."

A minor detail that most of the mainstream American media "forgot" to mention.

[Excuse_Me]

As I recall, there were recounts going on in Florida in some counties, but there was a deadline written into state law by which the Sec. of State had to certify a winner. Since the finished count at that time favored Bush, it wouldn't have mattered even if someone counted the votes later and found that Al Gore had actually won, correct? Gore challenged the deadline in court, as is his right, and the Supreme Court finally ruled against him. Am I missing anything?

Yes. You're missing the fact that had the Supreme Court not stopped the state-wide recount, and had it been completed in time, then Bush would still have won the most votes, since overvotes would not have been counted. Even had they been counted, and the margin tipped to Gore by 171 votes, it would only have generated a challenge to the already certified electors for George Bush. It would have gone to the House to decide, and since the Republicans had a majority in 28 of the state delegations, George Bush would have been constitutionally elected to the Presidency, just as he actually was.

[Gimlet]

And The Economist endorsed Bush too. They had a few reservations but they were definitely for him. Unfortunately the story is true. Too close to call in the state of Florida. Loser by more than half a million in the popular vote. These are hards facts to swallow. I am worried though by the administration's power grab with the executive orders which I see as erosions of the Constitution. We must never use illegitimate ends to further our interests when the Constitition and our freedom are at stake.

[Gimlet]

Of course The Economist is supporting the war and Bush's leadership. Even the Labour Party, and especially Blair, are doing that. This is about the election. A very different matter. We may all be very happy that Bush is President but that does not mean the election was not too close to call and that most voters who voted did not want him elected.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

It's quite alright. British humor is a tad different than American (and occasionally quite a bit better too). Their low-ball humor is as bad, or worse, than ours (re: Austin Powers, Benny Hill, the Bean), but some of the slightly upper-crust or avant garde stuff is magnificent. It's a bit hard to "acquire" Monty Python at first, but once you get the "taste" (like learning to like coffee) it seems head and shoulders above most of our American humor.

The Economist line (specially look right at the end) is classic British upper-crust sarcasm. It drips throughout. Very droll, very dry. Just like Bond's martini.

[Dane]

Blah, blah, blah Gimlet. Aren't you all over at DU ever going to get over the election that Al Gore and his toadies at SCOFLA tried to steal?

I remember you from a couple of weeks ago where you said that Rudy Guiliani had a "nazi" side.

[Gimlet]

Not me who said Guiliani had a "nazi" side. Quite the opposite.I may have said he has a liberal side, and did say he lives with two gay men one of whom is a Democrat. Truth is often uncomfortable but it's a darn sight better than living a lie. Best to accept the truth and deal with the facts rather than protest them and look stupid.

[Gimlet]

Bruce - that is total nonsense. Congratulations on missing the humor AND the facts.

[Professional]

Regardless of this story, I gave up on the Economist. They were all over Bush on his tax plan and used extreme prejudice in reporting the "facts".

[Dane]

Not me who said Guiliani had a "nazi" side

Yes you are correct, mea culpa. I confused you with longtime_nyr.

LINK

[lowbridge]

Here's one Democrat that didn't get the joke:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=list_threads&om=8553&forum=DCForumID35