That's flat out false. There were numerous recounts that were actually finalized and produced the same result that Bush won. The problem was that the Democrats kept asking for more recounts until a point where the Supreme Court realized they were wasting time. There were at least two recounts which were finalized, so don't pretend as though the "Republican majority" were the ones being underhanded, when it was the Democrats that were just trying to prolong the inevitable. In fact, if we're going to talk about being underhanded, it was the Democrats who didn't even count military votes sent over mail (which would have been obviously for Republicans). Or should we take into consideration the Democrats who voted on behalf of dead people in Illinois?
RanchHand, the Florida election was a total mess. Perhaps a recount of the whole state may have been the answer, I don’t know. But I do know what Supreme Court did was the worst of all possible worlds.
You seem to forget that Bush throughout his first term had an approval rating similar to Obama's.
No he didn’t. A few months after he came to office, just before 9/11, his approval rating was down to 40 %. Bush was going down; he may not have survived the first term at the rate he was going. 9/11 saved him. His popularity soared after 9/11; people always rally behind the President whenever there is a crises.
But go back and check the numbers, Bush was down to 40% by July or August 2001, just a few months after he took office.
I wouldn't even call that election a "narrow" win.
I would. Bush won what, by 2 or 3% (against Kerry)? That is a narrow win, in my book. In terms of electoral votes, he won by Ohio. Flip Ohio and Kerry wins. It was a narrow victory, by all measures.
Not to mention the public approval of Bush's foreign actions were relatively high.
Not in November 2002, it was around 52% (or whatever votes he got).
I should see you against Clinton winning with a 43% vote (since the majority of right wing voters were divided between republicans and the independent).
And how do you know that to be the case? How do you know that most or all of Perot supporters would have voted for Bush? Nothing of the sort, Perot had no love lost for Bush, he hated Bush’s guts, that is why he was running against him.
In fact, when Perot withdrew from the race (he rejoined the race afterwards), he chose the right moment to do so, during Democratic convention. His withdrawal gave Clinton a big boost in the polls, for the first time he pulled ahead of Bush (for a long time he was running third, behind Bush and Perot).
So if anything Perot’s voters were more likely to vote for Clinton than for Bush.
Rabid right wingers don't include the long line of economists and foreign advisors who flat out disagree with his policies.
Hardly a long line. The consensus among economists is that the stimulus package was it was necessary. Many economists feel that stimulus package was not large enough. There are a few right wing economists who think that there would not have been any stimulus package at all, same as rabid right wingers. Most of these right wingers had no problem with Bush stimulus package, but they were vehemently opposed to Obama’s package.
Thank god for the internet, where none of that is an issue, and what matters is fact.
That is a good one, RanchHand. Facts matter on Internet? Anybody can publish any sort of rubbish, any sort of nonsense on Internet and those must be regarded as facts? Or is it only right wing propaganda that must be regarded as facts?
Well, you may believe propaganda of the right on the internet (such an American Thinker), I don’t’ believe anything I read on the Internet unless it comes from a reputable source. A right wing source is not a reputable source (neither is a left wing one for that matter).
This line provided me with today’s laugh, what matters on the Internet is facts.
