Time for democrats to admit they underestimated President Bush

[mindseye]

However, to the extent I do recall, the overvotes could not be counted legally because they had too many votes for president

The overvotes in question were legal under Florida law because they had two indications for the same candidate, eg. Gore hole was punched, his name was also circled. Yet, although legal, they were not counted. As the study shows, if the under- and over-votes were counted fairly for all counties, Gore won.

Don't know why the link won't work from Apolyton, but I just tested it, it's still there:

http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/index.asp

[DinoDoc]

mindseye: Gore didn't want a statewide recount so it's kind of futile to point to what the results of such a thing might have been.

[Ned]

Mindseye, I will check the link tonight. But, if what you say is correct, I stand corrected. However, I still recall the Gore did not ask for a recount of overvotes, or that it was not ordered by the Florida Supreme Court. I recall Bush's people talking about this issue. But as I said, all this is from memory. I will check the facts later.

[-Jrabbit]

The threadjack continues...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Even after his lurch to the left?

I will admit, his new found ability to say what he thinks or feels, and not what the pollsters tell him to say, has raised my opinion of him (somewhat). However, given how low it was, that wasn't much of a feat.

The truth is, despite the fact that he's willing to stand up to this president in a way that risks his reputation doesn't mean that if he became President we could expect a rebuilding of regulation and the welfare state, preservation of public lands, and American stormtroopers to stop marching across the globe (note: that last bit was hyperbole).

Gore is criticizing Bush not so much for his ultra-conservatisim but for his incompetence in leading the nation. Sure, Bush gets what he wants, but that's because he has hardly any opposition (though he did have to cave to France and Russia on the UNSC resolution).

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
The threadjack continues...

The whining continues.

[Ming]

The threadjacking will stop... If you want to continue to whine about an old election... create a thread so people can ignore the same old arguments...

Stay on topic... If you know what's good for you

[Kingof the Apes]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Gore is criticizing Bush not so much for his ultra-conservatisim but for his incompetence in leading the nation.

I'm sure Gore would be much more competent.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kingof the Apes
I'm sure Gore would be much more competent.

I don't think I made that argument.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Admiral PJ
Bush shows his ineptitude and inexperience by saying one thing and doing another.. he keeps changing his mind over issues such as Iraq (wether to go to war or wait for UN backing) as well as with any other decision.

You clearly haven't picked up on Bush's strategy. Although he will only go into Iraq with the allies, he acted like he was going to attack, allies or no allies for a number of reasons. The UN wants to feel like they have a say in things, so they will fall into line and go along with Bush if they think he's not going to listen to them anyway. Also, he scared Iraq significantly by saying he'd act unilaterally. If he had acted as though he was going to wait for the allies, then France and Russia would have made all sorts of objections, making the West look weak and divided. Saddam would decide that the attack would never get off the ground, and he wouldn't have given up like he did.

Please give an example of "any other decision" in which he says one thing and does another. Bush is a Black and White sort of person. He's not the type to contradict himself.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Also, remember Gore had an artificial advantage due to the media. The media networks all called Florida for Gore while the polls were still open in the Western panhandle, which is in a different timezone and is an area that is heavily pro-Bush. As a result, many voters stayed home. The call turned out to be inaccurate, but it was not until after the polls had closed that the media announced Florida to be in the too close to call column. Had the media not made it's errant call in favor of Gore, Bush probably would have gotten alot more votes.

Yes, but they weren't Black, and "disenfranchiser" doesn't sound as bad as "racist."

[Sava]

It's a shame that an unintelligent man with no compassion can become president.

Bush is a moron. 'nuff said...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Funny.... he seems to be infinetly smarter than you.

Are you thus saying you are an even bigger moron?

[Ned]

JW, In a thinkpiece analysis of US foreign policy published in 1999, the author identified US multilateralism as a significant weakness of US foreign policy. We had to form coalitions and obtain "world approval" in order to act. In order to form the coalition, we would have to moderate our goals to satisfy the most reluctant member. As well, the coalition was subject to being split by wiley strategems of opponents such as Saddam Hussein.

It is my understanding that Bush Sr. acted in the first place after the invasion of Kuwait at the insistence of Saudi Arabia. Ditto not setting Bagdad as an objective. Ditto pulling the plug on post-war support of Kurdish and Shi'ite rebellions.

While many praise Bush Sr. for forming the coalition, in the end Iraq was only a partial success because of the coalition.

Bush Jr.'s willingness to act without a coalition and without Saudi support is a significant difference this time around. The threat of war to the finish is clear. Because of this, Saddam may decide not to play games because he knows he cannot get away with it.

Bush's "unilateralism" is a significant departure from US foreign policy since 1941. By taking this stance, America's foreign policy has become significantly stronger. And, as we have seen, the UN Security Council for the first time in its history is united in taking a stand against tyranny where war is a likely outcome of defiance.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Bush's "unilateralism" is a significant departure from US foreign policy since 1941. By taking this stance, America's foreign policy has become significantly stronger. And, as we have seen, the UN Security Council for the first time in its history is united in taking a stand against tyranny where war is a likely outcome of defiance.

America's foriegn policy is VERY weak at this point in time. Our allies are pissed at us and things don't look good for the future.

As for the UN Security Council united in undertaking war if there is defiance... . You are kidding me. The resolution says the Security Council will look at the issue again if Iraq breached, and you can bet either France or Russia will veto a war. It seems you have no grasp of what the resolution said.