His fall 2002 comments when he was considering running again notwithstanding, I think that Gore would have responded to 9/11 in a fairly "neoconservative" manner. When he was Senator and Vice President, his instincts on foreign policy were quite hawkish.

My first vote for a Republican was for Pres. Nixon ... I was only in grade school, so you can't count that against me.... unfortunately, I voted the "stupid economy" for Clinton in 1996 . . . after 22 years, I still hadn't learned my lesson about voting....

I see no one running who I like better than Bush, yet. I hope he doesn't disappoint - no matter the party, we just don't want to be embarrassed by our vote (Democracy is a very personal thing).

Ipsofacto, how were you of voting age while still in grade school? You don't sound like such a dummy :-)

"I still think that Gore should have won, in the sense that the decisive majority of people who showed up at the polls clearly intended to vote for Gore, even in Florida."

IIRC, the recounts, the re-recounts and even the media re-re-recount do not bear this out. Unless, of course, you are also counting the inordinate number of Buchanan votes as intended for Gore. But if you count those, why not also count the tens of thousands in the Panhandle, who abandoned the long lines at the polls after the media had falsely called the state for Gore?

The government in Florida disenfranchised voters who were mistakenly identified as felons. If these people had been permitted to vote, how would the election have turned out? Does anyone know the answer?

You sound a lot like me. Welcome to Neoconville. Personally, the post 9-11 personal paradigm-shift caused me to re-examine a lot of the things I would have been far more hostile to in the past, including faith-based initiatives and "missile shields."

Oh, and I think you're right, according to Ken Pollack's book, Gore was always a Clinton Administration hawk on Iraq. So we can't know for sure what he would have done, but it's not completely unlikely he would have persued a similar course. The domestic political dynamic certainly would have been interesting...

I fail to see what 9-11 has to do with faith based initiaitves (aka, government sanctioned employment discrimination)

Regarding the Florida Recount -
Putting aside the Buchanan Jews, the felons, the people in the Panhandle -- about which nothing could be done -- the fact is that if a manual recount had occured using a single statewide standard - a conservative standard, in which three of the four chads would have had to have been detached - and if the illegal military votes that were postmarked AFTER election day where thrown out - and if overvotes where also counted -THEN GORE WOULD HAVE WON VERY VERY NARROWLY. Ironically, if what the Bush campaign claimed they
wanted publicly as far as recount standards had actually happened, Gore would have actually won.

I fail to see what 9-11 has to do with faith based initiaitves

It doesn't have anything directly to do with it. It has to do with causing a chain-reaction shake up and re-examination of a number of previously held positions.

I'll let Solomon speak for himself. I'm still firm in my own opposition to Bush's "faith-based initiatives" and other forms of pandering to the religious Right. And I still think that Ashcroft is a terrible A-G.

I think you just nailed the key problem the Democrats fact in 2004.

Yeah, Bush Sr. lost his re-election bid the year after winning war in Iraq, but back then foreign policy had gone off the public radar after the Iraq victory. September 11 guaranteed that this will NOT happen in 2004. National security and incumbency will (barely) trump a poor economy in 2004, and a strong economy will yield a Bush landslide.

The big problem with the Democrats is that (excepting Lieberman) they are STILL treating national security as you would a domestic policy initiative -- trying to please both sides of the issue at the same time, reading the polls, talking out of both sides of their mouths. However, the average voter who had reservations about the war in Iraq isn't going to remember that Kerry's position was closer to his before the war, he's going to remember that Bush toppled Saddam and Kerry, if he had his way, would have been content to leave him in place (his eventual vote for use of force notwithstanding), and will likely conclude (as I have) that Bush is the better choice to face our (inevitable) future conflicts in the war on terrorism.

I think Bush's myopic obsession with tax cuts and free-spending budget impulses are disturbing, but unless the Democrats come to their senses and nominate Liebermann, it looks like I'll be casting my vote for Bush too.

Re:

Regarding the Florida Recount -
Putting aside the Buchanan Jews, the felons, the people in the Panhandle -- about which nothing could be done -- the fact is that if a manual recount had occured using a single statewide standard - a conservative standard, in which three of the four chads would have had to have been detached - and if the illegal military votes that were postmarked AFTER election day where thrown out - and if overvotes where also counted -THEN GORE WOULD HAVE WON VERY VERY NARROWLY. Ironically, if what the Bush campaign claimed they
wanted publicly as far as recount standards had actually happened, Gore would have actually won.

Do you have a link or reference to back this up?

This link:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

Disagrees with your statement.

Re:

Regarding the Florida Recount -
Putting aside the Buchanan Jews, the felons, the people in the Panhandle -- about which nothing could be done -- the fact is that if a manual recount had occured using a single statewide standard - a conservative standard, in which three of the four chads would have had to have been detached - and if the illegal military votes that were postmarked AFTER election day where thrown out - and if overvotes where also counted -THEN GORE WOULD HAVE WON VERY VERY NARROWLY. Ironically, if what the Bush campaign claimed they
wanted publicly as far as recount standards had actually happened, Gore would have actually won.

Do you have a link or reference to back this up?

This link:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/florida.ballots/stories/main.html

Disagrees with your statement.

There is NO WAY Gore would have won the election, except by throwing out all the laws governing elections that existed on election day. (No one has ever counted "over-votes, ever!) Not one media investigation, government audit or any other attempt to reconstruct or analyse the results ever put Gore on top. To the contrary, Bush's win was validated in every single re-take.

Isn't it time that Democrat partisans accept the fact that they LOST Florida, fair and square.
It was statistically a dead heat, but elections can be decided by a single vote. That's our system.

There was all kinds of nasty gamesmanship on election day and after the election which really mucked up perceptions (and probably significantly deflated the Bush vote in Florida) -- and these were perpetrated by Democrats and their sympathizers in the media. Still, Gore NEVER WON; BUSH WON.

We call this a democracy. You win some; you lose some. Then you make the best of it and keep trying.

You are a group of people most blue collar or guards, comfortable of your lifestyle of low education and low skills like you make it believe. But, why are taking hostage of the American oriented people (high learning, skill seekers,...)? jealousy and future confiscation will send you the slavery ROI of the Pdt Nixon and US Attorney General. Later, no statut of limitation of 14th Amendment cases, trouble in your resting mode.

I find it somewhat odd that much of this debate has turned to the 2000 election. I am in the Air Force and if I made a prediction about the 2004 Prez election, I would guess somewhere between a landslide and a routing. The man has surpassed all expectations, he commands respect because he does exactly what he says he is going to do and follows through. From a military standpoint he leads with courage and gives our forces the tools, inspiration, and fortitude to win wars... this is a good trait of a Commander-in-Chief. Now hear this pundits---- I DO NOT care if he served only in the National Guard. It doesnt phase military voters, so stop trying to woo us. We are impressed by leaders, not people who were sent to a country with bodyguards for a photo op for their fathers Senate re-election bid.

Economically, America is a free enterprise system that runs off of business cycles. Up and down like the crest and trough of a wave 16 times since the Great Depression. Bush is no more responsible for an economic downturn than Clinton was for the 90s boom, and to suggest he was takes credit and blame away from others >coughcough

Where else can I go with this? Whether you agree with Bush or not, you have to respect the guy, he believes in what he says and he sure as heck follows through with it every time.

[God I hate this topic]

Markus Rose you are simply in a state of self delusion. All the recounts only increased Bush's lead.

You can debate the coulda woulda shoulda stuff all day long. You can't however change reality. No matter how hard you try.

Bush did not win becuase his team was better etc etc etc. Bush won because on that day, in that that state he got more votes. You can call it an upset win, you can deabte the intet of the voters ad nausium.

In the end, on that day, in that state he got more votes.

Sorry.

Paul

And watch out Stefan... Any day now you will begin to listen to Rush Limbaugh and complain aobut the liberal media.... LOL

Welcome to the begining of the rest of your life. Once you start to question your liberal beliefs honestly, you (like most everyone else) will find they just don't hold up to intellectual scrutiny .

So your actually going to vote for Bush? what kind of ignorant sheep are you? or do you just enjoy fascism?

ITS OFFICIAL- BUSH BACKERS ARE MORONS!

The Gallup poll completed on June 10, 2003 shows 66% approval for Bush as president. Other recent polls show the following.

NUMBERS:

(1) An earlier New York Times/CBS poll showed that 45 percent of Americans believed Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11. Of course this is untrue.

(2) A Knight Ridder poll completed on June 15, 2003, that 34 percent of Americans believed WMD have been found in Iraq while 22% actually believed those chemical and biological weapons were used against U S forces in Iraq. The answer is of course that in fact no WMD have been found in Iraq and therefore could not be used against American troops.

BREAKDOWN:

Of the 66% that support the Presisdent, these conclusions can be drawn.

(1) 47% are profound morons

(2) 14% of them are radical rightwing war mongers.

(3) 39% are "spoon-fed" SHEEP. People stupid enough to fall victim to Karl Rove's public relations propaganda.

Finally each of you Bush supporters can select your proper category.

[A] I'm a moron.
[B] I'm a radical rightwing war monger.
[C] I don't know **

** Which means you are a moron, select [A].