Print
February 9, 2010 | 8:47 pm -
February 9, 2010 | 4:08 pm -
February 9, 2010 | 2:12 pm -
February 9, 2010 | 4:24 pm -
February 9, 2010 | 10:40 am -
February 9, 2010 | 10:10 am -
February 9, 2010 | 2:31 am -
February 8, 2010 | 5:05 pm -
February 7, 2010 | 9:15 pm -
February 9, 2010 | 4:40 pm -
February 9, 2010 | 3:06 pm -
February 9, 2010 | 1:15 pm -
February 9, 2010 | 11:35 am -
Reinhold Niebuhr at TNR
get the magazine
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (11)
Now Jason, ACORN (what is that?) "stealing" the election for the candidate with the highest margin of victory in over 20 years is equivalent to the candidate with hundreds of thousands of fewer votes nationally "stealing" the election based on 500 contested ballots in the state where the candidate's brother is the governor? Me, I think GWB "won" because he had better lawyers than AG (and, of course, a sympathetic US Supreme Court).
Now Jason, ACORN (what is that?) "stealing" the election for the candidate with the highest margin of victory in over 20 years is equivalent to the candidate with hundreds of thousands of fewer votes nationally "stealing" the election based on 500 contested ballots in the state where the candidate's brother is the governor? Me, I think GWB "won" because he had better lawyers than AG (and, of course, a sympathetic US Supreme Court).
Another key difference is that it is factually true that President Bush did not "legitimately win" the 2000 election, as the poll question asked. His victory in the election was delivered not by the legitimate operation of legal and constitutional processes, but by legal fiat so blatantly unconstitutional that the Supreme Court itself declared the legal illegitimacy of its ruling in the text of the ruling.
And that's the worst thing about the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore: Had the Supreme Court honored the Constitution and refused to hear the case, or unconstitutionally heard the case but allowed the legally empowered state administrative and judicial authorities to proceed, ... view full comment
Another key difference is that it is factually true that President Bush did not "legitimately win" the 2000 election, as the poll question asked. His victory in the election was delivered not by the legitimate operation of legal and constitutional processes, but by legal fiat so blatantly unconstitutional that the Supreme Court itself declared the legal illegitimacy of its ruling in the text of the ruling.
And that's the worst thing about the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore: Had the Supreme Court honored the Constitution and refused to hear the case, or unconstitutionally heard the case but allowed the legally empowered state administrative and judicial authorities to proceed, Bush would have become president anyway. Except he would have done so as the result of a legitimate process, and thus his victory, while arguably unjust, would have been legitimate.
Come on, Jason. That is some major false equivalence there. Bush lost the popular vote by about a half-million votes and had a dubious claim to winning Florida (not just the chads... remember all those Elderly Jews for Buchanan voters?) to give him an electoral college victory. Obama won the popular vote by a margin of ~9.5 million and the electoral college in a landslide. And more than that: those 52% of Republicans aren't just questioning the legitimacy of Obama's victory... they specifically believe ACORN stole it from him!
Come on, Jason. That is some major false equivalence there. Bush lost the popular vote by about a half-million votes and had a dubious claim to winning Florida (not just the chads... remember all those Elderly Jews for Buchanan voters?) to give him an electoral college victory. Obama won the popular vote by a margin of ~9.5 million and the electoral college in a landslide. And more than that: those 52% of Republicans aren't just questioning the legitimacy of Obama's victory... they specifically believe ACORN stole it from him!
Jason, what are you trying to do, get yourself linked by Matt Drudge? As the others have said, false equivalences abound..
Jason, what are you trying to do, get yourself linked by Matt Drudge? As the others have said, false equivalences abound..
redgrimes, yeah right, makes me wonder what Jason was smoking today. Bush freaking lost the popular vote, and in all the world as far as I know it is through the electoral college that the loser of the popular vote can still win, can anyone tell me of any other election where the loser wins? The only other time in American history, Rutherford Hayes was called Rutherfraud Hayes. The electoral college was one of the few mistakes of our founding fathers, and most people wouldn't argue otherwise.
Fair or not, that simple fact tainted Bush's victory. Beyond that, as you say, Bush won Florida by a paper thin margin (if he did in fact win). To compare this to Obama's resounding victory is craz ... view full comment
redgrimes, yeah right, makes me wonder what Jason was smoking today. Bush freaking lost the popular vote, and in all the world as far as I know it is through the electoral college that the loser of the popular vote can still win, can anyone tell me of any other election where the loser wins? The only other time in American history, Rutherford Hayes was called Rutherfraud Hayes. The electoral college was one of the few mistakes of our founding fathers, and most people wouldn't argue otherwise.
Fair or not, that simple fact tainted Bush's victory. Beyond that, as you say, Bush won Florida by a paper thin margin (if he did in fact win). To compare this to Obama's resounding victory is crazy.
I guess it is crack smoking leisure Friday at TNR.
Perhaps if we had proper uniform national tools for registering voters and counting votes, instead of the 18th century comedy we've still got to deal with, the whole drama of "stealing" elections and popular versus EC results would vanish, or as good as.
Perhaps if we had proper uniform national tools for registering voters and counting votes, instead of the 18th century comedy we've still got to deal with, the whole drama of "stealing" elections and popular versus EC results would vanish, or as good as.
blackton, it's not just Hayes. Benjamin Harrison did so against Grover Cleveland, making Cleveland the first person to win the popular vote for president in three consecutive elections. Plus, Cleveland 22 was a much better president than Tilden would have been, so Harrison's unpopular majority was the worse for the country of the two. (Doubly so given the disaster that the Cleveland 24 administration turned out to be when Grove took Ben in the grudge match.)
blackton, it's not just Hayes. Benjamin Harrison did so against Grover Cleveland, making Cleveland the first person to win the popular vote for president in three consecutive elections. Plus, Cleveland 22 was a much better president than Tilden would have been, so Harrison's unpopular majority was the worse for the country of the two. (Doubly so given the disaster that the Cleveland 24 administration turned out to be when Grove took Ben in the grudge match.)
Yeah, sorry, Jason. There's no comparison between
a)a ridiculously close election, dragged out for weeks, that nearly broke not one but two branches of government and finally was resolved in a shamefully partisan 5-4 court ruling rather than by any election
and
b)an election where one candidate won the popular vote strongly, the electoral vote overwhelmingly, and the party of his opponents embracing a completely unsupported conspiracy theory to salve the humiliation of defeat.
You admit as much in your last line, rather like the Bush v. Gore decision describing its own illegitimacy. Funny, that.
Yeah, sorry, Jason. There's no comparison between
a)a ridiculously close election, dragged out for weeks, that nearly broke not one but two branches of government and finally was resolved in a shamefully partisan 5-4 court ruling rather than by any election
and
b)an election where one candidate won the popular vote strongly, the electoral vote overwhelmingly, and the party of his opponents embracing a completely unsupported conspiracy theory to salve the humiliation of defeat.
You admit as much in your last line, rather like the Bush v. Gore decision describing its own illegitimacy. Funny, that.
What everyone else said, Obama won by a large margin in both the popular and electoral votes. Bush lost the popular vote and needed Supreme Court intervention which itself was 5-4. If Florida could not count its votes properly in time for the actual electoral college accounting, then there are mechanisms in the Constitution to deal with that, i.e. a vote in the House of Representatives by state delegation. Bush's election the way it happened was most definitely illegitimate.
What everyone else said, Obama won by a large margin in both the popular and electoral votes. Bush lost the popular vote and needed Supreme Court intervention which itself was 5-4. If Florida could not count its votes properly in time for the actual electoral college accounting, then there are mechanisms in the Constitution to deal with that, i.e. a vote in the House of Representatives by state delegation. Bush's election the way it happened was most definitely illegitimate.
I think Jason is ahead of the curve. Of course you won't read about it in the liberal press, but Obama's first circuit court nominee, David Hamilton, worked as a canvasser for ACORN for one month - yes, you heard right, ONE WHOLE MONTH - while he was in college or something. Obviously, he's just the first of the coming ACORN horde that Obama's planning to plant all over the Federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court. Once five ACORNers are seated on the SC, the Dems will never lose another election.
I think Jason is ahead of the curve. Of course you won't read about it in the liberal press, but Obama's first circuit court nominee, David Hamilton, worked as a canvasser for ACORN for one month - yes, you heard right, ONE WHOLE MONTH - while he was in college or something. Obviously, he's just the first of the coming ACORN horde that Obama's planning to plant all over the Federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court. Once five ACORNers are seated on the SC, the Dems will never lose another election.
As to rampant conservative belief in conspiracy, I'm counting the days until "the Jews" are spoken of on the right in the same breathless anger as Acorn volunteers, Muslims, Kenyans, residents of Illinois, Indonesian schoolteachers, Hawaiian newspapers, Congregationalist pastors, has-been 1960s radicals, and other assorted members of the vast network of conspirators these idiots believe worked in perfect concert to install Obama. I mean, they've managed to smear just about everyone except Fermilab scientists and the Jews, so it can't be long now.
As to rampant conservative belief in conspiracy, I'm counting the days until "the Jews" are spoken of on the right in the same breathless anger as Acorn volunteers, Muslims, Kenyans, residents of Illinois, Indonesian schoolteachers, Hawaiian newspapers, Congregationalist pastors, has-been 1960s radicals, and other assorted members of the vast network of conspirators these idiots believe worked in perfect concert to install Obama. I mean, they've managed to smear just about everyone except Fermilab scientists and the Jews, so it can't be long now.