Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Zero tolerance

By Tom Toles

c_08102010.gif

***

Gap years

The great part about not remembering everything is that you can see the significance of the things you do remember. The Bush-Gore recount in Florida is one of those things. I remember thinking as the argument was raging that there was a certain asymmetry in the emotional approach the two sides brought to the controversy.

You might have expected that the Bush side, having demonstrably and unequivocally received fewer votes nationally than their opponents, might have approached their claims to a disputed, technical electoral college victory with just a tiny bit of trepidation and humility. But it was just the other way around. The Gore side gingerly focused on the undercounts, whereas, if memory serves, the overcount ballots would have given them Florida and the White House. But, regardless, they seemed almost apologetic in asking for anything at all.

The GOP, on the other hand, roared into action, demanding to be given the election forthwith, which the Supreme Court obligingly handed them, once again demonstrating that the court's lip service to constitutional rigor is really in the shape of a kiss to Republicans. In hindsight, the lesson is that conservatives act as though they feel on a gut level that any Democratic president is simply illegitimate, PER SE, and will do anything to stop or undermine one. This is currently known as the "enthusiasm gap," but I think it might be better called the "fanaticism gap." And what do you do about that? --Tom Toles

***

sketchicon_ver1.jpg

s_08102010.gif

By Tom Toles  | August 10, 2010; 12:00 AM ET
Categories:  GOP  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Jumbo shrimp
Next: Fire escapism

Other Syndicated Editorial Cartoons:

Comments

The overriding evidence was that Bush won in Florida. The Florida lower courts - also with Dem Judges, actually produced fair decisions only to be overturned by the FL Superme Court's obvious political decisions. And SCOTUS's decision actually was mandated by the Florida Supreme's attempt to CHANGE the voting rules AFTER the fact.

In any event, a careful analysis of Al Gore's 8 years as Vice President lead to the obvious conclusion that his reaction to the events of 9-11 would have closely mirrored the actual decisions made by Bush43 ... and we'd have become militarily involved in Afganistan and yes, even in Iraq, where the situation with Saddam's duplicity and failure to abide by the Gulf War disarmament agreement had become untenable.

Acknowledging that this probability will not be accepted by most on the left, in reality it is the most likely scenario.

Posted by: Hazmat77 | August 11, 2010 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Remember when all the Florida news organizations said they were going to do a recount? Well they did. And Bush still came out ahead.

Only USA Today had the cojones to print that truth. The rest just swept that info under the carpet and very quietely slithered off.

Posted by: john_bruckner | August 10, 2010 6:19 PM | Report abuse

I thank Mr. Toles for finally setting the record straight on the recount. People kept telling the good citizens of the U.S. and Gore that it was "best for the country" if he did not demand a recount. Of course, we now know that was not true. The Bush 43 years were the darkest years of my life wrt governmental malfeasance. Obama can't repair the damage done by the Republicans from 2001 to 2009, in a mere 4 years. And that damage probably cannot be completely repaired in a full 8 year presidency, particularly when the Republicans block every positive initiative by Obama and the the congressional Democrats and Democrats seem to lack the guts to step forward and do the right things. And the people of the U.S. do want things made right (they want jobs), but also seem to think the solutions are simple, very short term, and w/o any sacrifices.
The Republicans offer, but can't deliver, fixes through tax cuts and other simplistic solutions that have not worked in the past.

Posted by: ptgrunner | August 10, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

someone asked why we were still arguing about the 2000 selection,yes i'm still a trifle bit tiffed bout that to this day!but whats done is done,and what we have today seems no better than then.yes, we will have a mosque right at the very center of ground zero,and signs all printed in spanish to tell us all about it.we always seem to fall all over the people who hurt us or take advantage of us, whyyou ask i don't know but it a sad,sad state of affairs when we just stomp on the brave men and women who lost their lives that fateful day,and honor that breed with a mosque!our forefathers have got to be spinning in their graves over how our past 2 presidents have degraded not only the presidency,but these UNITED STATES of AMERICA.

Posted by: samagirl | August 10, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

President Palin? The mind boggles. :) Let Obama get his two terms in. He is definately striking me as someone who is learning on the job, but I think he is starting to get the hang of it. He really did have good ideas, but he needs to get a better handle on not letting Congress swallow them up and spit out 2000-page health care bills that don't really incorporate his ideas, but do provide the usual exemptions for the people who feed them money. They're very good at it.

Posted by: EyeintheSkyy | August 10, 2010 4:28 PM | Report abuse

If we Americans are so tolerant, why is the Muslim center even an issue? Answer, because it was intentionally made into a(nother) political football in order to keep people arguing. Because, for goodness' sake, where would this country be without something, no matter how silly, to argue about?

Speaking of which, why ARE we arguing about the election of 2000? The facts are the facts, and bringing them up again isn't going to change anything, so let's move on.

No? Okay, then. How about this:
Gore intentionally threw the election by not contesting, in the courts, the fact that Katherine Harris illegally declared thousands of voters ineligible with no time to do anything about it.
Gore did this because he was prescient... because he knew things had been going WAY too well under Clinton and that the Republicans had to be allowed to do some magnificently stupid things, like turn the successful economy completely around, cut taxes drastically on income that had not been earned, start a war or two, and turn what had been a surplus into a mountain of crushing debt. He did this, mind you, with the hope that sanity would win in the end, which it to some extent has done.

Part of the problem with the Obama administration is that, some problems are actually being to an extent solved. Which is really very bad political strategy because, well, once a problem is solved, it no longer has value as a campaign issue.

That's too bad, because there are still plenty of problems to solve beyond doing a better job of health care delivery to Americans ("United We Stand," after all)and re-regulation of the banking industry.

Sarah Palin claimed last week that phasing out the Bush tax cuts would result in a $35 trillion surplus over ten years. Which wasn't accurate in any case, but she said it as if a surplus was a BAD thing!?!
Elect this woman president next time around, for just one term, and (if the country survives) we won't elect another Republican for a generation!

Posted by: jonroesler | August 10, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

"Interesting how fond Republicans are of revisionist history (check out the new Texas history books, f'rinstance). The fact is, had the votes in Florida been fairly counted, Al Gore would have won and it would not actually have been very close -- the margin would likely have been in the neighborhood of 200,000 to 220,000 votes.

Some things would have been different today had the President Elect been inaugurated on January 20, 2001, instead of the usurper who benefited from his brother's coup d'etat. The World Trade Center would still be standing. War would be rapidly fading into the hazy distance, a relic of our more primitive and barbaric past. The crash of 2008 would never have occurred; the DJIA would be upwards of 30,000, with unemployment down in the 2% range or lower. Our national debt would be falling rapidly as the surpluses began to overcome the off-budget expenditures. Social Security would be solvent forever. We would have REAL national health care -- Medicare for All. We would be not only the military, economic, and industrial leader of the world, but its ideological and intellectual leader as well.

People who think elections don't matter ought to look back at that one for a refutation of that theory. This next one, the mid-term elections of 2010, are also important. At a time when we GRAVELY need the power of our government to be brought to bear on behalf of working Americans, a Republican congress will certainly obstruct every effort to succeed, and we risk falling into an abyss unprecedented in our economic history.

It would behoove us not to make that mistake.

Posted by: FergusonFoont"

This has gotta be a troll, right? Gore by 200,000 votes? When every recount (people still counted after the election) showed Bush really did win Florida? Osama would have trashed plans that had been in the works for years (Clinton years, if it matters) if Gore had been elected. But no sign that he is joking, so I guess this poor guy has just lost touch with reality.

You, Mr Toles, on the other hand, have no such excuse. Your retelling of the 2000 election is just weird. Next time, don't rely on "if memory serves". If you are going to opine, at least do some research, k?

Posted by: EyeintheSkyy | August 10, 2010 2:34 PM | Report abuse

Hmm that is a very selective memory going on with those Bush / Gore recount comments.

First off, we have an Electoral College system in the U.S. We use it in order to be fair to the entire country, and allow all of the eligible citizens to have some say in who leads our country. If we simply used a popular vote only a few states would matter, New York and California would pretty much control the presidency. That would not be a good thing, and certainly not fair to all citizens.

The real issue was whether or not to follow the laws governing elections and recounts or modify them in an attempt to discover the actual intent of the voters.

In presidential elections federal law prohibits states from changing the election rules during an election cycle. (The United States Supreme Court ruled that existing state and federal laws must be followed)

Florida had rules governing what ballots to count or not count, and also on how recounts were to be handled, as well as deadlines for each precinct to send their results to the Secretary of State for certification. Oh, and the Secretary of State also had a deadline of when to certify the states election results to the feds.

The U.S. Supreme court simply told Florida they had to follow the election laws that were in force at the time, and that Florida must certify the election result by the deadline as stated in law and by the federal election commission. This effectively ended the recounts (especially those with modified counting systems) Leaving George W. Bush the winner of that election.

Fair or not, don’t you think it's only proper and correct to follow the law? After all it is the rules that both parties had planned on, and had worked under. Well right up until the time that some didn’t like the results and then wanted change the rules.

Posted by: robinTX54 | August 10, 2010 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: whineridentifier

Why in the world are you bringing up Gore/Bush now?
---------------------------

Because their new cult leader has:

- tripled our involvement in Afghainistan
- launched more Predator attacks in Pakistan

You see, it's not that liberals are against wars. Just the ones they didn't start.

Posted by: john_bruckner | August 10, 2010 1:33 PM | Report abuse

It's amazing how liberals, who were thrilled that Al Gore was predicted to win the 2000 election via the Electoral College, suddenly turned on the Electoral College after they lost via it. But then again, rank hypocrisy is one of the core elements of the disease of liberalism.

And for Tom Toles/those of you who think multi-culturalism is such a wonderful idea, I invite you to take a look at the photo in the below link and take a gander at what the worlderful, multicultural aspects of Sharia law would have in store for western women:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Desperate-stakes-for-women-under-Sharia-1008710-100300154.html

Posted by: john_bruckner | August 10, 2010 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Just because a cartoonist thinks his comic art is funny doesn't mean it's true to life. Why don't you do more comics about the current President; he should supply you with plenty of laughs for the rest of us. Do your job! Why in the world are you bringing up Gore/Bush now?

Posted by: whineridentifier | August 10, 2010 1:10 PM | Report abuse

As I remember it, neither side looked good. Bush clearly lost the popular vote, but Gore wanted votes recounted in those certain areas where he was most likely to pick up additional votes.


The presidency should be decided by one-person, one-vote across the entire country. Otherwise, if you are a Republican in Massachusetts or a Democrat in Alaska, your vote is worthless.

Posted by: dpo2x | August 10, 2010 12:38 PM | Report abuse

It is not a mosque but a community center. It would have no minarets and who the h cares ? Only those narrow minded less than true christian Republicans.

Posted by: Falmouth1 | August 10, 2010 11:50 AM | Report abuse

I think what you said in your comments is basically correct in that it is a symptom of the differences between progressives and conservatives. Scientist have shown that those that label themselves as Democrats or progressive tend to question authority while those who label themselves as Republicam amd conservative tend to accept authoritative figures without question. That goes a long way to explain why Rush has his ditto-heads and why liberal pundits have a much harder time gaining popularity. I also believe that it is in the inherent nature of Democrats to see things not in black and white but in shades of varying grays. Whereas Republicans know they are right and if a conservative was told by an authority figure that the sky was green with pink polka dots they would swear it was true despite tons of evidence to the contrary. If a Democrat is challenged to his assertions they welcome the opportunity to debate and begin to question of themselves "Is this the right answer?" On the other hand when you challenge a Republican they take it in the same vein as a Civil War-era slap on the face with a pair of gloves kind of effront. Maybe the 90s' cliche needs to be amended to read "Republicans are from Mars and Democrats are from Venus."

Posted by: dre7861 | August 10, 2010 11:47 AM | Report abuse

What I remember about that episode (and I was in Florida) is that Republicans were threatening to start rioting and assaulting people if Bush, who had fewer votes, wasn't declared the winner. I doubt that this had much effect on the Supremes, but it shows once again what sore losers the Republicans are.

Posted by: DaveHarris | August 10, 2010 11:44 AM | Report abuse

"And what do you do about that?" TT, there isn't much TO do. Most GOPers I know usually think with their reptilian brain far more than Dems. They "react", and usually out of fear. Look at Fox News. This is what they trade in and bank on. Get people scared! Scared of "socialists". Scared of black people. Scared of Muslims. Scared of immigrants. Scared of Dems. Scared of everything. So, naturally, they have to get all riled up, lots of emotion, lots of yelling, lots of red faces, lots of scare tactics. Is it any wonder this is how they approached the 2000 election results?

When you act out of fear (eg. Afghanistan, Iraq), you usually make bad decisions. I'll never understand why so many of the blue-collar GOPers claim to be "Christian", yet completely fail to embrace Jesus' philosophy of acting out of love. GOPers should be Jews, it seems...very "old testement"...very "wrath of God" kind of stuff. Jesus was a revolutionary, not because He wanted to smite sinners, or beat up or kill everyone He disagreed with or who disagreed with Him. He was a revolutionary because He didn't.

Posted by: PrairieDog60 | August 10, 2010 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Regarding the "zero tolerance" cartoon -- really? NYC alone already has dozens if not hundreds of mosques. Nobody cares. Nor was there ever any "backlash" against Muslims at those mosques.

What DOES trigger a backlash is trying to plant a mosque as close to Ground Zero as possible. You have to be a purposefully obtuse student of history to not know that militant Islamists ALWAYS try to build their mosques atop the most cherished religious sites of their conquered foes. There are dozens of clear examples of this, from Istanbul to Spain. The Dome of the Rock itself is built atop a destroyed Jewish temple. The very name "Cordoba" house is a reference to this happening in a conquered Spanish city that the radical Islamists still lament "losing" back to the infidels.

America is one of the most tolerant countries on Earth. We are the melting pot of nations, where someone can start again without prejudice or fear, without the baggage or shackles of the old world. But we are not freaking idiots. If a bunch of Islamists knock down our buildings and try to build mosques on them, we have every right to resist. Calling US the bigots instead of the Islamists is deeply wrong and insulting. If you ever want to see real radical bigotry, you should google "Dar Al-Hijrah" and read up on the Saudi-funded mosque we tolerate right here in Northern Virginia despite the fact that it trained everyone from 9/11 hijackers to Ft. Hood shooter Major Hasan. Yet somehow even trying to stand up to the people attacking us is considered bigotry or hatred.

And although I don't even think they are in the same ballpark, I still can't help but wonder how our liberal overlords would react if we built an air force base in the middle of Hiroshima, or the KKK wanted to build a white supremacy themed amusement park next to Martin Luther King's cemetery. Something tells me all that diversity talk would vanish into the ether. Indeed, when liberals blather on about respecting diversity, what they really mean is respecting the few things that they have collectively decided are politically acceptable (apparently including radical Islam). It apparently makes them feel cultured and sophisticated to be played for saps by malicious Islamists while chopping their own culture off at the knees.

"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." -- Thomas Mann

Posted by: zippyspeed | August 10, 2010 10:29 AM | Report abuse

Interesting how fond Republicans are of revisionist history (check out the new Texas history books, f'rinstance). The fact is, had the votes in Florida been fairly counted, Al Gore would have won and it would not actually have been very close -- the margin would likely have been in the neighborhood of 200,000 to 220,000 votes.

Some things would have been different today had the President Elect been inaugurated on January 20, 2001, instead of the usurper who benefited from his brother's coup d'etat. The World Trade Center would still be standing. War would be rapidly fading into the hazy distance, a relic of our more primitive and barbaric past. The crash of 2008 would never have occurred; the DJIA would be upwards of 30,000, with unemployment down in the 2% range or lower. Our national debt would be falling rapidly as the surpluses began to overcome the off-budget expenditures. Social Security would be solvent forever. We would have REAL national health care -- Medicare for All. We would be not only the military, economic, and industrial leader of the world, but its ideological and intellectual leader as well.

People who think elections don't matter ought to look back at that one for a refutation of that theory. This next one, the mid-term elections of 2010, are also important. At a time when we GRAVELY need the power of our government to be brought to bear on behalf of working Americans, a Republican congress will certainly obstruct every effort to succeed, and we risk falling into an abyss unprecedented in our economic history.

It would behoove us not to make that mistake.

Posted by: FergusonFoont | August 10, 2010 10:28 AM | Report abuse

With the dumbing-down of the country, gut-activated politics will dominate increasingly.

The vociferous will ascend by nurturing and channeling public outrage, like that guy with the bad haircut and funny mustache in Germany did.

The reasoned response already is academic and "elite."

So, if outrage and anger will claim the day politically, let's make sure our outrage and anger are aimed at the right targets.

(HINT: taking frustrations out on "Government" is just killing the messenger.)

Posted by: HumanistPatriot | August 10, 2010 10:17 AM | Report abuse

The Repugs thought that Bill Clinton had no legitimacy, too. How dare the peasants revolt against the fiefdom?

Posted by: GeneTouchet | August 10, 2010 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Simple enough. The Electoral College should be eliminated. There was a real problem with the recount because of the chads. But now we have electronic machines that does not even give a copy of how you voted. These electronic machines can also be easily hacked into just like any computer. Just ask someone from the NSA. That is the real problem with our elections today.

Posted by: JONAHandtheFISH | August 10, 2010 9:37 AM | Report abuse

The point about the GOP gut tending toward righteous delegitimizing of any Democratic president was one of the most interesting observations I have read in a while. Cool.

Posted by: pdurand | August 10, 2010 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Well Said. I was hoping the election of 2000 was going to somehow get put on Congress to decide. Without a voting rep in congress - I was hoping DC would revolt/riot if bush was given the election.
anyway -keep at 'em mr. toles.... you stir the enthusiasm of many and probably bring out the fanaticism in just as many, I suppose.

Posted by: martin44 | August 10, 2010 9:34 AM | Report abuse

_


It's the vitriol itself that tears our nation down. How can we -- together -- do what is best for America is we are unable to honestly listen and respect? Of course, our nation's leaders will have to speak in ways that deserve an honest and respectful hearing.

Will they?

CAN they?

_

Posted by: egc52556 | August 10, 2010 8:52 AM | Report abuse

["And what do you do about that? --Tom Toles"]

First off, fire the cartoonist for deliberately trying to dupe his audience. None of the items Toles presents as 'facts' are remotely close to the truth of the 2000 election.

1 - Electoral college was and is the law of the land. Bush could have campaigned in Texas to 'get out the vote' if the popular vote was that important.
2 - You fail to mention Gore lost his home state of Tennessee - could have wrapped up the election right then and there but Tennesseans knew what they didn't want - and that was Gore.
3 - Even the liberal Miami Herald proclaimed Bush would have won the vote in Florida on the recount - didn't bother to post that info either, did you?
4 - The liberal media declared Gore the winner of Florida before the Florida panhandle (on central time) had the chance to finish polling -- a direct turn-off to would be Bush voters in that densely ex-military portion of the State.

Toles is fishing for a debate - a good thing. But his falsehoods in today's mosque cartoon and his falsehoods about the 2000 election stand out as clear evidence the level of hypocrisy Liberals will descend to in our country. His cartoon today desecrates the memories of our 9/11 fallen heroes just for a cheap political joke. I had respect for Toles as an honorable torch-bearer for the Libs before today - not anymore.

Posted by: pararanger22 | August 10, 2010 8:42 AM | Report abuse

Odd, I recall Bush winning the election by ONE vote: Clarence Thomas's.

Posted by: SubRosa2 | August 10, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Tom Toles shows his inability to see facts. He lifts Gore to heights in Florida forgetting the truth of the events. Gore sought to cherry pick through certain counties and ignore others. He took an army of lawyers (his favorite class) to change the rules for an election after the election. Entitlement - is the mantra of Democrats. Tom Toles is no historian but rewrites history. I thought he was educated.

Posted by: ghipp | August 10, 2010 8:12 AM | Report abuse

The venerable New York Times, the esteemed icon of the far left, concluded after its own study, that Bush indeed garnered more votes than Algore in FL. If the Gray Lady tells you you're drunk, you probably ought to lie down.

Posted by: jpost1 | August 10, 2010 8:12 AM | Report abuse

President Bush did win in Florida. Even with all the cheating by Gore's Democrat lawyers. They went down to Florida with a five-page list of instructions. One was to block as many overseas Military ballots as possible. Batches of ballots were even found later uncounted. "Felons for Gore" and the illegal Haitian votes could not give it to Gore. The Democrats cheat. Kennedy/Nixon was a disgrace. And to think that the chief vote counter for Gore was the son of ole Mayor Daley of Chicago. They used a pro and still couldn't win. And Gore lost his home State, Tennessee. Why didn't Gore win his home State?

Posted by: bobbo2 | August 10, 2010 8:11 AM | Report abuse

The problem in Florida was not recounting all the votes in all areas. Picking only one part or the other was not fair. Also, leaving out military votes was not a fair choice. With the military vote, Mr. Bush did win - in my opinion.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | August 10, 2010 7:15 AM | Report abuse


Though generally wrong, Toles, your respect has always been due. Unlike other liberals, you have not been overtly in the tank for Obama until now. It must have something to do with liberal wiring that at some point you all will blame Bush. But, listen, what a guy Gore is! To be “gingerly focused” on anything is difficult in itself. To be “gingerly focused” on undercounts requires, how can one say, “trepidation and humility.”

Posted by: quiensabe | August 10, 2010 6:23 AM | Report abuse

What you say is true. As I read your piece, you are not re-trying the Bush v Gore case, nor re-counting the votes. You are commenting on the sense of entitlement that Republicans feel regarding the executive power in the country: this goes back to the Nixon years which were supposed to begin the permanent Republican majority, or at least ownership of the Presidency. When it looks like they might not get it, they throw a tantrum. You might call it fanaticism, but I think entitlement is closer.

It is not surprising that few comments responded to what you said, but rather inadvertently re-confirmed the truth of it. That is the state of the country. And the more painful memory is seeing Gore in the Chair of the Senate rejecting the appeals of the House members....

Posted by: askalib-CA | August 10, 2010 2:58 AM | Report abuse

"And what do you do about that?"

Find better presidents than Carter and Obama and candidates than Kerry, Gore, Dukasis, and McGovern.

Posted by: milevin | August 9, 2010 10:39 PM | Report abuse

Dump democrats day is mighty catchy.

Posted by: jornolibist | August 9, 2010 7:57 PM | Report abuse

Sorry about the double entry, computer problems. But about your cartoon. The next time you grace us with another Wal-Mart Rembrandt in printer's ink could you explain this? Why does the secular Left defend a Mosque in a most improper place but fight Christianity on every level? I doubt that the citizens of any Liberal enclave would allow one of those Mega-Churches in their neighborhoods. You know the ones that I mean? Where they have men dressed in black suits with badges direct traffic on public roads as if they were Police Officers. Liberals invented NIMBY. They also invented fear of envy.

Posted by: bobbo2 | August 9, 2010 7:23 PM | Report abuse

Are you serious Mr. Toles about your column? The Patron Saint of global warming, Al Gore, wanted every vote to count in the Florida election recount. The 1,400 votes from convicted felons, the illegal votes from non-citizen Haitian immigrants. All except the votes from every possible overseas absentee ballot from those serving in the United States military. The Democrat judges in Florida still couldn't pull it off for Gore. The Electoral count was 271 Bush, 266 Gore. MAYBE if the ultimate loser Mr. Gore would have carried his HOME State of Tennessee with 11 Electoral votes he would have pulled off the scam. I always thought that the voters of Tennessee knew what they were doing. But hey, don't fret Mr. Toles. The solid voting block "Felons for Democrats" got Franken into office. And you have all of those Acorn voter registrations to steal the next one. Democrats have a lock on voter fraud. Did you forget Illinois and John Kennedy?

Posted by: bobbo2 | August 9, 2010 7:14 PM | Report abuse

Are you serious Mr. Toles about your column? The Patron Saint of global warming, Al Gore, wanted every vote to count in the Florida election recount. The 1,400 votes from convicted felons, the illegal votes from non-citizen Haitian immigrants. All except the votes from every possible overseas absentee ballot from those serving in the United States military. The Democrat judges in Florida still couldn't pull it off for Gore. The Electoral count was 271 Bush, 266 Gore. MAYBE if the ultimate loser Mr. Gore would have carried his HOME State of Tennessee with 11 Electoral votes he would have pulled off the scam. I always thought that the voters of Tennessee knew what they were doing. But hey, don't fret Mr. Toles. The solid voting block "Felons for Democrats" got Franken into office. And you have all of those Acorn voter registrations to steal the next one. Democrats have a lock on voter fraud. Did you forget Illinois and John Kennedy?

Posted by: bobbo2 | August 9, 2010 7:11 PM | Report abuse

Tom:
While I completely understand the sensitivity of those who lost loved ones at Ground Zero versus out-of-touch Muslims who insist on placing their mosque so close by the area, defiantly challenging the Constitution, I have to say, your sketchpad jotting is priceless.
The contrast and hypocrisy of the noise about this in Congress is perfect.
Thanks!

Posted by: Judy-in-TX | August 9, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

This is currently known as the "enthusiasm gap," but I think it might be better called the "fanaticism gap." And what do you do about that?
--------------------------------

Well you could take a deep breath and realize your party has had 2.5 out of 3 branches of the government for the last two years, will probably have them for at least the next 2 years, that you will vote vehemently Democratic to ensure that the 'paranoia gap' remains in tact, and that maybe, just maybe, you could find something less brain numbingly mundane to splutter about. Or not.

Posted by: mattsoundworld | August 9, 2010 6:15 PM | Report abuse

I agree that the Republicans approached things more vociferously than the Democrats.
BUT--
(1) It is amusing that had the version of the recount that Democrats wanted been done, the Republicans would have won, and vice versa (at least as I remember).
(2) Also, if I remember correctly, when the media counted all the votes, they decided Bush had won in Fla., but I could be wrong.
(3) Perhaps most amusingly, it is quite clear that if Ralph Nader had not been on the ballot, Gore would have won Florida.
But that's just payback: Had Ross Perot not been on the ballot, Bush I would have beaten Clinton in 1992--I base that on looking at who the Perot voters appear to have voted for below the Presidency.

Posted by: keng | August 9, 2010 6:00 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company