WHY WE HATE BUSH (It's the Stolen Election, Stupid)

NEW YORK--"Have the Democrats totally flipped their lids?" asks David Brooks in The Weekly Standard, quasi-official organ of the Bush Administration. "Because every day some Democrat seems to make a manic or totally over-the-top statement about George Bush, the Republican party, and the state of the nation today."

True, Democrats loathe Dubya with greater intensity than any Republican standard-bearer in modern political history. Even the diabolical Richard Nixon--who, after all, created the EPA, went to China and imposed price controls to stop corporate gouging--rates higher in liberal eyes. "It's mystifying," writes Brooks.

First but not foremost, Bush's detractors despise him viscerally, as a man. Where working-class populists see him as a smug, effeminate frat boy who wouldn't recognize a hard day's work if it kicked him in his self-satisfied ass, intellectuals see a simian-faced idiot unqualified to mow his own lawn, much less lead the free world. Another group, which includes me, is more patronizing than spiteful. I feel sorry for the dude; he looks so pathetic, so out of his depth, out there under the klieg lights, squinting, searching for nouns and verbs, looking like he's been snatched from his bed and beamed in, and is still half asleep, not sure where he is. Each speech looks as if Bush had been beamed from his bed fast asleep. And he's willfully ignorant. On Fox News, Bush admits that he doesn't even read the newspaper: "I glance at the headlines just to kind of [sic] a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read [sic] the news themselves." All these takes on Bush boil down to the same thing: The guy who holds the launch codes isn't smart enough to know that's he's stupid. And that's scary.

Fear breeds hatred, and Bush's policies create a lot of both. U.S. citizens like Jose Padilla and Yasser Hamdi disappear into the night, never to be heard from again. A concentration camp rises at Guantánamo. Stasi-like spies tap our phones and read our mail; thanks to the ironically-named Patriot Act, these thugs don't even need a warrant. As individual rights are trampled, corporate profits are sacrosanct. An aggressive, expansionist military invades other nations "preemptively" to eliminate the threat of non-existent weapons, and American troops die to enrich a company that buys off the Vice President.

Time to dust off the F word. "Whenever people start locking up enemies because of national security without much legal care, you are coming close [to fascism]," warns Robert Paxton, emeritus professor of history at Columbia University and author of the upcoming book "Fascism in Action." We're supposed to hate fascists--or has that changed because of 9/11?

Bush bashers hate Bush for his personal hypocrisy--the draft-dodger who went AWOL during Vietnam yet sent other young men to die in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Iraq (news - web sites), the philandering cocaine addict who dares to call gays immoral--as well as for his attacks on peace and prosperity. But even that doesn't explain why we hate him so much.

Bush is guilty of a single irredeemable act so heinous and anti-American that Nixon's corruption and Reagan's intellectual inferiority pale by comparison. No matter what he does, Democrats and Republicans who love their country more than their party will never forgive him for it.

The United States enjoyed two centuries of uninterrupted democracy before George W. Bush came along. The Brits burned the White House, civil war slaughtered millions and depressions brought economic chaos, yet presidential elections always took place on schedule and the winners always took office. Bush ended all that, suing to stop a ballot count that subsequent newspaper recounts proved he had lost. He had his GOP-run Supreme Court, a federal institution, rule extrajurisdictionally on the disputed election, a matter that under our system of laws falls to the states. Bush's recount guru, James Baker, went on national TV to threaten to use force to install him as president if Gore didn't step aside: "If we keep being put in the position of having to respond to recount after recount after recount of the same ballots, then we just can't sit on our hands, and we will be forced to do what might be in our best personal interest--but not--it would not be in the best interest of our wonderful country."

Bush isn't president, but he plays one on TV. His presence in the White House is an affront to everything that this country stands for. His fake presidency is treasonous; our passive tolerance for it sad testimony to post-9/11 cowardice. As I wrote in December 2000, "George W. Bush is not the President of the United States of America." And millions of Americans agree.

Two months after 9/11, when Bush's job approval rating was soaring at 89 percent, 47 percent of Americans told a Gallup poll that he had not won the presidency legitimately. "The election controversy...could make a comeback if Bush's approval ratings were to fall significantly," predicted Byron York in The National Review. Two years later, 3 million jobs are gone, Bush's wars have gone sour, and just 50 percent of voters approve of his performance. If York is correct, most Americans now consider Bush to be no more legitimate than Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), who also came to power in a coup d'état.

He doesn't "need" to. He has bigger fish to fry and access to the real information that the papers turn around and misreport. His staff is there to tell him how the libs are spinning it and what the tone and such is. But when it comes to the news, he has the authentic sources and knows what's really going on.

I KNOW this.... But if I try viewing it as someone who is not sure of Bush, I can interpret him as not real engaged with the news. "I got people to do it." doesnt work in my book.

What he should have said
Brit: "Do you read newspapers?"
Bush: "Every morning I have important information and current events going on in the world ready for me. I like to stay informed and also like to know how my Rangers are doing."

Sounds engaged, yet news is still being provided. Also shows humor.

This is just my interpretation...which means other could be feeling it. Just saying that im wrong doesnt make people not think it, especially potential voters.

"If we keep being put in the position of having to respond to recount after recount after recount of the same ballots, then we just can't sit on our hands, and we will be forced to do what might be in our best personal interest--but not--it would not be in the best interest of our wonderful country."

After the military votes were thrown out, all the voter fraud that happened, the recount that was so ridiculous the supreme court had to stop it, I am surprised anyone could write such a hateful article. This writer needs to take a few days of R&R.

If the RAT party is so upset that they still insist Algore won the popular vote, why are they so intent on denying the Republicans a majority of representation in DC as they are in Texas? Texans have voted for Republicans 60+ over RATs. We still have less Republicans in DC than the RATs have.

Interesting observation that the left will never answer.

It is amazing that the Left still has this fascination over the recount when they know that even thier liberal press found that Bush won:

Recount Couldn't Elect Gore
Reed Irvine
March 2, 2001

"To borrow a phrase from Dan Rather, you can take it to the bank that CBS, NBC and ABC would have led their evening news shows on Feb. 25 with reports on the results of the Miami Herald/USA Today recount of the votes for president in Miami-Dade County IF it had shown that Al Gore got enough votes to win Florida. The New York Times and the Washington Post would have put it on page one. Editorials and columns would have cited it as proof that the wicked Bush people and the partisan U.S. Supreme Court had stolen the election from Gore. We were spared all that because the recount showed that Gore picked up only 49 additional votes in Miami-Dade. He needed 930 more votes to just draw even with Bush when the hand recounts began.

When the Miami-Dade canvassing
board voted not to proceed after a manual recount in 20 percent of its precincts had produced a net gain of 157 votes for Gore, the Democrats spread the story that a Republican mob had intimidated the canvassing board, forcing it to call a halt because Gore was sure to pick up enough votes to win if the remaining 80 percent of the precincts were counted.

There had been no intimidating mob. There were a number of young Republicans who noisily protested the fact that they were being barred from observing the recount. The board explained that it had decided not to proceed because it had taken them four days to recount 20 percent of the precincts and they did not believe they could complete the count in the four days remaining. The precincts already counted were predominantly Democratic, and as the Herald/USA Today recount has shown, it was not realistic to assume that Gore's net gain in those precincts would be replicated in the rest of the county.

There were 10,646 ballots in Miami-Dade that had shown no vote for any presidential candidate when counted by machine. There were over 60,000 of these "undervotes" in all of Florida, 28,000 of them in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties. The Gore campaign believed these three counties, whose canvassing boards were controlled by Democrats, would easily find enough Gore votes in their large undervote pools to overcome Bush's narrow lead. They requested manual recounts there and in Volusia County, where there had been a major anomaly in the vote count. The Broward canvassing board managed to give Gore a net-gain of 567 votes from its pool of 6,716 undervotes.

Palm Beach and Miami-Dade, with more than 10,500 undervotes each, were expected to help Gore as much as Broward, but in Palm Beach his net gain was only 215 votes. If they had not been submitted too late to be counted and if the Miami recount had been completed with the same results produced by the two newspaper recounts, first the Palm Beach Post and then by the Miami Herald and USA Today, Gore would have lost by 99 to 142 votes.

The Palm Beach Post manual recount of Miami-Dade produced a net gain for Bush of six votes. It got less attention than the Miami Herald/USA Today project which covers the whole state and is being conducted by the national accounting firm of BDO Seidman. As of March 1, they had examined the undervotes in all but two of Florida's 67 counties, but the totals will not be made public until all 67 are completed.

Maybe the votes needed to justify the claim that Gore really won Florida will be found in the other counties, but Mark Seidel, the Miami Herald city editor who supervised the project, says that the Miami-Dade results show that Bush would have won if manual recounts had been completed and the results counted in the four counties targeted by Gore. Millions of disappointed Democrats must come to grips with the fact that the evidence is now in: Bush won legitimately. The news media should report the evidence.
NBC's Nightly News ignored it. CBS and ABC gave it 30 seconds. Dan Rather used his time to cast doubt on the integrity and significance of the recount. He said the "study" by "what are called independent accountants" "suggests" that Gore "still might have lost the election" if the hand count had been completed in Miami. ABC was brief, but straightforward. Fox News and CNN provided good coverage, as did the Miami Herald, USA Today and the Washington Times. The New York Times and Washington Post, which are backing a rival recount, relegated the story to the inside pages. Terry McAuliffe, the Clintonoid chairman of the Democratic National Committee, still insists that the election was stolen.

http://www.newsmax.com/commentarchive.shtml?a=2001/3/2/154817

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.