Does Bush think we're morons?

[EWolfe]

Get more on

[tomtom]

If I cannot PROVE there was election fraud and that it actually changed the outcome I should not be so irresponsible as to note that I remain even a wee bit skeptical?

The obvious bias is that you are assuming that the net outcome of *all* of the fraud in the election swung the vote Shrub's way. I seriously doubt the Democrats were completely on the up-and-up either.

[JayB]

So what's your point here, Jay?

 

If I cannot PROVE there was election fraud and that it actually changed the outcome I should not be so irresponsible as to note that I remain even a wee bit skeptical?

 

Whether you think anything was proved or not, the election had some problems.

 

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts."

 

I'm glad that their are skeptics watching every election, but it skepticism is one thing and paranoia is another. Skepticism contains an implicit obligation to base one's beliefs upon the best available evidence and the most rigorous analysis. If there's no evidence to support a given claim, even after there's been ample time and scrutiny, I don't think it's reasonable to perist in believing that the said claim is true, or even the most probable explanation.

 

The analogy with creationism is especially apt here. No one can prove that a supreme being didn't create the universe from scratch 6,000 years ago, complete with a fossil record, geologic record, astronomical record, genomic record, etc, etc, etc, that provides overwhelming physical evidence to support evolution in the confines of a very old universe, but in the face of the evidence at hand - it's not reasonable to maintain that such a cosmic deceit actually occured.

[mattp]

Tom, I do not assert that dems are honest and repubs are not. If there was vote fraud that changed the outcome, it could only have changed it one way. Try another brand of herring.

 

Jay, are you continuing to say that where I offered an off-hand comment that there remains room for skepticism I am veering off into paranoid delusion?

 

What is so scary about the idea that there might remain some lingering questions?

[Mal_Con]

Speaking of "creation science" here is a link to Harrietts Church http://vvcc.org/ which in turn includes a link to a Museum of Creation Science, whatever that is. My personal prefference is Ozzie on SCOTUS rather than Harriett.

[JayB]

It all depends on the questions, Matt. If someone says "Do you think it's reasonable to conclude that Bush's re-election in 2004 was dependent on systemic- yet-undocumented electronic voter-fraud in Ohio, despite the fact that that no credible evidence has materialized to suggest that such a thing actually occured, despite nearly a year's worth of scrutiny" my answer would be no.

 

If the question was "Do you think its reasonably likely that some votes cast in the 2004 election were fraudulent?" I'd say - yeah, that's probable - but there's a mighty big difference between the two propositions.

[tomtom]

What is so scary about the idea that there might remain some lingering questions?

 

Not a thing. But looking backward isn't always a good use of time and energy. It's obvious that the Democrats didn't learn much from the '00 election, no matter how many lawyers they put on the payroll. They should be focusing on identifying a half-assed candidate for '08.

[mattp]

I'm with you there, TomTom. The democrats SUCK! Its not just a candidate they need - but a platform and some integrity.

[bunglehead]

I agree as well. I don't how the dems can just roll over.

That party has absolutely no direction or leadership.

[JayB]

Do you guys think that the Democratic party had these same deficiencies under Clinton, or that this is a new phenomenon? Would you vote for a Blair/Clintonesque candidate or are you looking for someone closer to an "old" labor, England-in-the-70s kind of guy?

[ChrisT]

But she's really a centrist

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I'm with you there, TomTom. The democrats SUCK! Its not just a candidate they need - but a platform and some integrity.

 

It's not looking good for either party right now. Prepare to hold your nose for the next election when you cast your vote.

[tivoli_mike]

Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu ( "Why settle for the lesser evil!" )

 

 

 

3:05 P.M. - Nov 3, 2004

 

The Votes Are Counted! It is suspected that George W. Bush will be the President of the United States of America for another four years. We expect his victory speech to begin at any moment. Stay tuned for further updates!

 

2:53 P.M. - Nov 3, 2004

 

Kerry Concedes! Earlier today John Kerry conceded to the Elder Party. “The Elder Party obviously got more of their supporters out to the polls,” he said. At this point in the speech, the crowd began to chant “NO MORE YEARS!” and soon had completely drowned him out.

 

10:51 A.M. - Nov 3, 2004

 

It's a Landslide for Cthulhu! Thanks to the Cthonians, a huge chunk of Ohio has slid into Lake Erie. Votes are still being tallied, although the question of whether now submerged precincts still count has been raised.

 

12:44 A.M. - Nov 3, 2004

 

Democratic Party Hounds thwart the Elder Poll Watchers! Our fine Yithian Poll watchers were foiled tonight while shifting space-time to keep several places of polling open “after they should be.” Attempting to insure each and every registered Elder Party voter (even the dead) had a chance to cast a ballot the Yithian known only as Zrachachatak used a little known technique to do what he called “turn back time.”

 

Tindalosian Hounds, obviously in the employ of the Democrats, showed up to put a stop to the time shifting.

 

The Great Race may have been foiled this time, but they promised to return and contest the situation. With lawyers.

 

12:22 A.M. - Nov 3, 2004

 

There is no such thing as Too Many Tentacles! The Elder Party has its "feelers" out, literally! Poll results are coming in! Mighty Cthulhu could very well be your next President. Stay tuned for updates later today!

off the homepage for Cthulhu for President 04

 

 

[Fairweather]

She's worked for him forever. He says he knows Harriet Miers' soul and she shares his values. But in this morning's press conference, I think I heard Bush say he has not discussed her views on abortion with her. Say what?

 

Of course you realize, Matt, that a justice can detest abortion and still rule it legal. You realize that even if Roe v Wade were overturned, abortion would remain legal in most, if not all states. You realize that Roe v Wade was as much about state's rights as it was abortion. Why do liberals insist on this litmus test above all others? I just don't understand.

 

I think Miers is the wrong choice. Bush has many qualified conservatives from which to choose. He has a chance to put the brakes on the "progressive" agenda in a big way. The abortion issue notwithstanding, I would prefer a known conservative quantity - the hysterics from the left be damned.

[mattp]

Fairweather, I don't know if you are watching the same "liberal biased" news reports I am, but so far it appears that the hard right is much more concerned about her nomination than anyone from the left.

 

(What do you think about that statement he made today, though, when Bush said he had never discussed her views on abortion with her despite the fact that he said he'd been working with her closely for over ten years and intimately knew her judicial philosophy?)

[Fairweather]

...Which is why I am surprised by your (assumed) opposition to Miers. She has supposedly been a strong advocate for gay rights. Again, not the hallmark of a conservative. I would have thought you would be singing Bush's praises re this nomination. I am not.

[marylou]

But she's really a centrist

 

Too much of a centrist for me, plus this country is not ready to put women into that job, unfortunately.

[Mal_Con]

Hardly a strong advocate for Gay rights, she answered a questionar from a gay group in 88 that said she supported rights for all but she also supported the Texas sodomy law that made gay sex a felony.

[Fairweather]

The next abortion case to come before the court will be a parental notification law in New Hampshire. Hopefully that law will be upheld.

[mattp]

Fairweather, I didn't say I was for or against her. You ASSUME I am against her just because he is for her, I suppose, but if that is the case wouldn't you be just as narrow minded and prone to putting words in somebody's mouth (mine) as you so consistently seem to decry in others on this board?

 

I really don't know if she's good or bad (though I would guess the latter) -- but there is another thread on that topic and I started a new one. My point in this thread has been about how completely stupid it is for him to have said he has never, in over ten years, discussed abortion with her.

[Fairweather]

This is why I put the word assumed in parenthesis. Comprende'?

[marylou]

The thing about the appointee that makes me scratch my head is "why her"? The only thing that seems remarkable about her is that she thinks GWB is "a brilliant man." I'm nervous about her because she makes absolutely no sense as a Supreme Court nominee. Maybe it is true, the rumor that GWB has started drinking again.

[iain]

My point in this thread has been about how completely stupid it is for him to have said he has never, in over ten years, discussed abortion with her.

 

It would seem this mis-worded blunder was more a byproduct of his inadequacy to control a press conference. I think few would disagree that press conferences, where GWB must actually piece together a series of thoughts in a row and articulate them on the fly, are almost universally a political negative for this president. Even his own administration seems to agree, only scheduling the bare minimum. Without queuing or teleprompter, this president does not carry himself well when he is challenged with tough questions.

[mattp]

Mis-worded blunder?

 

It sounded to me more like a poorly conceived lie. You're right, he didn't "control" the press conference well.

[mattp]

OK, Fairweather, you'll admit you were only assuming what I thought of her. What about these "historionics from the left?" Where have we seen that today or yesterday?