Second of all, if you want to question my maturity on the issue of the 2000 election, I really have nothing to say to you based on your previous rambling about it.

Are you really uninterested in having a serious discussion about anything that happened more than 6 years ago? Some student of history you are! I guess I shouldn’t have expected much more from an “international relations” major (Can you say Bulls*!t degree?)

Langley’s point about the ballot-counting after the fact is moot; the process was hijacked in an illegitimate way. The fact that it may or may not have reached the same outcome via a legitimate process is irrelevant.

You can take it to the bank that I’m better-informed than anyone else on this blog about the matter. Being a FL native, I was very upset by the outcome, and for several years read everything I could on the topic (from many perspectives). One thing is clear: more people showed up on election day intending to vote for Gore in FL. I could detail 100 ways that poor circumstances and deliberate disenfranchisement cost him thousands of recorded votes relative to his actual total.

But, none of that matters. The fundamental problem is that the case never belonged in federal court to begin with. The equal protection argument that the supreme court cooked up was the most bogus and asinine rationale imaginable to achieve a political end; I can refer anyone interested to several detailed analyses.

The democratic party should never have squandered away the momentum they had to cast Bush as an illegitimate thief for his whole term.

Thanks, I appreciate that, Michael. I can tell the difference between the occasional teasing interspersed between respectful debate and the constant ridiculous name-calling that certain others on this blog utilize.

However, my point remains the same- accusations of manipulating a primary vote against the will of the people are different form accusations of manipulating the general election.

Mr. Shiffman, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this blog is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

He said, “gone will be the claims…” So I think it’s pretty clear that he doesn’t believe that a theft actually happened.

Maybe Michael C didn’t explicitly explain that he found the claims baseless because at this point in the American political dialogue it’s a done issue, and anybody who cared to pay attention would know that Bush didn’t “steal” anything. When an independent counting of the ballots is done by a ring of liberal newspapers after the election including the NYT, and they even say that Bush won Florida, your argument is kaput.

Now, if you’re arguing that since Bush didn’t win the popular vote he “stole” the election, that dog won’t hunt with me either. You can whine about the Electoral College, and call it unfair if you wish, but don’t say that a President “stole” an election under the election procedure we have in place in the Constitution. Advocate for changing it all you want, but don’t give me this hogwash that Bush stole an election because the Electoral College is as of right now completely legitimate in our presidential election system.