So, OK, he's for change, he gives Chris Mathews a feeling "up his leg," and...

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 17:40:59 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
.. .
Tom, given the choice, most folks couldn't vote for Kerry.

assuming 'most' to mean 51%, you are correct.
Tom

....still, I don't think they were right to do so. A message should have
been sent at that point in the Bush presidency.


Bush received a larger percentage of the vote in 94 than Clinton ever
did. He beat Kerry. He is the president. Live with it for a few
more months. Then you can begin bitching about McCain. d;o)

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

Tom, that Gore
should never have lost in 2000. If he had carried his homestate, he
would have won.


If Bush carried Florida, he would have won.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 17 Feb 2008 17:44:31 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

Dave LaCourse wrote in
:

Tom, that Gore
should never have lost in 2000. If he had carried his homestate, he
would have won.


If Bush carried Florida, he would have won.

Bush *did* carry Florida. After a recount and a recount, followed by
recount, recount, recount, he won. Florida law stated that the
results of an election had to be tallied by such and such a date.
That date came and the Florida Supremes wanted to *make* law by
entending the date. No Judicial branch of our government can *make*
the law, only interpret it. Bush *won* Floriduh and he did it
legally after many recounts. Live with it instead of crying about it.

Dave

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:50:31 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
The same reason I said Bush, twice - he is the best in the (practical)
field of two, no more, no less.

gawd, I hope you are referring to Bush as in GHW, as I am astounded that
anyone of sound mind could look back on the second vote for George W as
anything based upon good sense.

Nope, I mean Bush, the younger, and I still think he is/was a better
choice than Kerry was/would have been. But once election day is past,
it's a little too late to get a do-over anyway, so I don't look with
hindsight at what/who "might have happened" as anything more than a
point of rhetorical discussion. I know you know this, but for others,
the idea that, IMO, Bush was a better choice out of a field of two
doesn't translate into my being a "Bush supporter" in general.

TC,
R



seriously, IMO, not much "change" can occur if the vote is yet another
50.01% versus 49.99% squeaker regardless of who actually "wins."

and this much I do agree with. Somewhere along the way, something of a
consensus has to be built, or the nation will continue to blunder forward,
to the detriment of us all.

Tom

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:55:56 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:50:31 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
The same reason I said Bush, twice - he is the best in the (practical)
field of two, no more, no less.

gawd, I hope you are referring to Bush as in GHW, as I am astounded that
anyone of sound mind could look back on the second vote for George W as
anything based upon good sense.

Nope, I mean Bush, the younger, and I still think he is/was a better
choice than Kerry was/would have been. But once election day is past,
it's a little too late to get a do-over anyway, so I don't look with
hindsight at what/who "might have happened" as anything more than a
point of rhetorical discussion.

cough

I know you know this, but for others,
the idea that, IMO, Bush was a better choice out of a field of two
doesn't translate into my being a "Bush supporter" in general.

TC,
R

Oh, gee, no, of course!

(ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!)

/daytripper (aren't you just the li'l cutest pipsqueek, ever! ;-)

On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 06:04:29 -0500, jeff miller
wrote:

not a washington
dc insider,

Uhhhh, he made a deal with Teddy Kennedy. *Think* about that for
awhile before you say he is not a dc insider. That's about as
"inside" as they get.....

wrote in message
...


Look, I'm willing to give the man a chance if someone is willing to give
me a rational, objective reason as to why I should...

From the pathological liars are funny desk to your eyes, boys and girls.
Read 'em and shriek.

Wolfgang