Chris Matthews: Final tally gives Bush legitimacy

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 11/18/2001 | Chris Matthews

[Pokey78]

Washington -- The real loser of the 2000 presidential election was hardball politics.

George W. Bush thought he would lose the limited recount ordered by Florida's Supreme Court, so the Republican presidential candidate got the U.S. Supreme Court to stop it. The result was a victory in the Electoral College that gave Al Gore backers reason to question Bush's legitimacy.

[Pokey78]

Gee, thanks for the insight Chris. </sarcasm>

[mdittmar]

It was the people, not the courts, who made him president.

What a frick'in genius,it only took him a year to figure it out.

[cantfindagoodscreenname]

George W. Bush thought he would lose the limited recount ordered by Florida's Supreme Court, so the Republican presidential candidate got the U.S. Supreme Court to stop it.

I didn't realize Chris had a direct line to Bush's mind.

[Hari_Seldon]

"What Bush personally got was bragging rights..."

No Chris, the media recount didn't give Bush bragging rights. Those rights, should he choose to use them, come from his 90% approval rating, which the media had nothing to do with. That rating is based on his own performance as President.

By the way, Chris, get a freakin' life. The election was over a long time ago. A lot has happened since then. Try to keep up, won't you?

[LarryLied]

George W. Bush thought he would lose the limited recount ordered by Florida's Supreme Court

No he didn't Chris. He knew the Democrats were stuffing the ballot boxes. You know that too. In fact, you crack up when you mention dead people voting in Chicago. To low life Democrats such as yourself, voter fraud is funny. Others wouldn't mind the death penalty for engaging in it.

[Lizavetta]

Chris Matthews: Final tally gives Bush legitimacy

Can anyone give Matthews legitimacy?

[Bigg Red]

No Chris, the media recount didn't give Bush bragging rights. Those rights, should he choose to use them, come from his 90% approval rating, which the media had nothing to do with. That rating is based on his own performance as President.

By the way, Chris, get a freakin' life. The election was over a long time ago. A lot has happened since then. Try to keep up, won't you?

Exactly! Love your perspicacity!

[Hari_Seldon]

"Love your perspicacity!"

Thanks, I think....

[RnMomof7]

Well it is now offical we finally have a President...Chris said so

[corkoman]

OK - here is a big question: what was the justification for doing a recount? I remember. Anyone else???

[The Man]

Among other gaping flaws in this column, I wish to challenge the premise that Bush was not playing it straight.

Bush's position throughout the failed attempt by Al Gore to steal the election was that the rule of law should be followed. It was Al Gore's attempts to change the law as it suited him which epitomized the larger struggle surrounding this particular battle.

[mass55th]

"A ballot-by-ballot analysis by a consortium of newspapers shows that Bush would have won the election clean if he'd let Florida go ahead with the partial recount that Gore wanted."

Uh, Chris? I think your friend Al got his partial recount...like three times over if I'm not mistaken...and he still lost!

[lexington minuteman 1775]

Feel the love !!<\sacasm>

[alnick]

Here's the e-mail I sent to Matthews:

Al Gore cheated. Period.

That democrat spin that both sides were "playing cute games" is bull.

Since when is following the rules "playing cute"?

The Supreme Court stepped in because the Florida Supreme Court changed the law, which they did NOT have the right to do.

Furthermore, the latest re-re-re-re-re-recount proves only one thing: Hand recounts are unreliable. The FACT that every single hand recount has resulted in different numbers is proof positive of that.

One last thing, the ONLY scenario in which Gore's numbers are higher than President Bush's is if you count ILLEGAL overvotes AND EXCLUDE military ballots.

So your spin to try to make the democrats look justified in their year-long temper tantrum over losing the election falls flat.

[beckett]

Last week we discovered the irony in this game-playing. A ballot-by-ballot analysis by a consortium of newspapers shows that Bush would have won the election clean if he'd let Florida go ahead with the partial recount that Gore wanted.

Not true, because the corrupt officials in charge of those recounts, notably Carol Roberts in Palm Beach county, despite all the "controls" that were in place, would have found the votes to put Gore over the top. Gore chose those counties precisely because he knew he could depend on the officials in chare to find votes he needed.

[hellinahandcart]

Thanks for reminding me that we still haven't seen a "final tally" unless those military ballots are included. And they never have been!

[Allegra]

One last thing, the ONLY scenario in which Gore's numbers are higher than President Bush's is if you count ILLEGAL overvotes AND EXCLUDE military ballots.

Exactly. If you had counted all the illegal votes, Gore would have won. Which was the RATS' intention all along. And now they can't stop whining that they failed to steal the election. Get over it, libs; go chain yourselves to a nuclear power plant or something.

[Bubba_Leroy]

[Mo1]

Hey Chris Matthews .. you MORON .. kiss this

[Mahone]

Hey, ever clueless Chris Matthews, I bet even you are smart enough to figure this one out, if the election were held today, who would win?