[nky]

Rick Perry sees "no viable path forward" in campaign, endorses Newt Gingrich who has "heart of conservative reformer."

[LWC]

Who is left now?

Romney
Santorum
Paul
Gingrich

[RunItUpTheGut]

^
Yup.

Who could everyone see as the potential candidates running mates.

Its been looking like Romney likes Christie and awful lot to be his VP.
Would anyone think about taking Rubio?

[SKINNYPIG]

^
Yup.

Who could everyone see as the potential candidates running mates.

Its been looking like Romney likes Christie and awful lot to be his VP.
Would anyone think about taking Rubio?

If they have any sense Rubio is on their short list. I hope he stays out and runs as president.

[Hoot Gibson]

I would rather Rubio keep his powder dry and run for president in 2016 or 2020. Ditto for Gov. Haley, Gov. Jindal, and Col. Alan West. The GOP has some very bright rising stars but they need to gain the strong experience that Obama sorely lacked in 2008.

If Romney wins the nomination, I would go with Newt as his VP. With Romney at the top of the ticket and Newt being Newt as his running mate, I think that Obama would be in some serious trouble.

Whoever gets the nomination for the GOP, they need an attack dog on the ticket because Obama has no choice but to run an extremely dirty and dishonest campaign. If he runs on his record, he loses big time. If he runs a blame Bush campaign, he loses. He can only win by convincing people that he is the lesser of two evils and that will not be easy and it is why he needs to speend $1 billion dollars on the campaign.

[SKINNYPIG]

I would rather Rubio keep his powder dry and run for president in 2016 or 2020. Ditto for Gov. Haley, Gov. Jindal, and Col. Alan West. The GOP has some very bright rising stars but they need to gain the strong experience that Obama sorely lacked in 2008.

If Romney wins the nomination, I would go with Newt as his VP. With Romney at the top of the ticket and Newt being Newt as his running mate, I think that Obama would be in some serious trouble.

Whoever gets the nomination for the GOP, they need an attack dog on the ticket because Obama has no choice but to run an extremely dirty and dishonest campaign. If he runs on his record, he loses big time. If he runs a blame Bush campaign, he loses. He can only win by convincing people that he is the lesser of two evils and that will not be easy and it is why he needs to speend $1 billion dollars on the campaign.

A Romney/Gingrich ticket is fine with me. Newt can easily be the attack dog while decimating Obama's pick for VP.

[Hoot Gibson]

A Romney/Gingrich ticket is fine with me. Newt can easily be the attack dog while decimating Obama's pick for VP.

:Thumbs: With Newt on the bottom of the ticket, I would expect him to focus almost exclusively on attacking Obama. Then, when the media demands, on behalf of Obama, that Romney put Newt on a leash, Romney needs to support him by saying that Newt speaks for millions of Americans who voted for him in the primary. McCain lost the election in part by refusing to let Palin more freedom on the campaign trail and reacting to media criticism of legitimate attacks on Obama's shady past.

If Republicans let the media run their campaign again in 2012, Obama will win. (Remember how the media scrutinized the large crowds that attended Palin's rallies and demanded that McCain condemn signs and comments coming from individuals in those crowds?) Otherwise, I don't see any way for somebody with Obama's record to win a second term. Hopefully, Republicans learned some lessons from McCain's weak, ineffective campaign in the last general election.

[LWC]

Will the SOPA-thing hurt Rubio if he was a running mate this time? Wasn't he one of the co-authors?

[Hoot Gibson]

Will the SOPA-thing hurt Rubio if he was a running mate this time? Wasn't he one of the co-authors?

Very few people base their votes on the credentials of the VP. The SOPA issue might hurt Rubio a little but not as much as it would have if he had not withdrawn his support for it. Rubio is not an attack dog and IMO, that is what is needed if Romney wins the nomination. Rubio reminds me more of Reagan than any of the young Republicans. He is very positive and optimistic and those are traits that make for a great president. Reagan was our last great president and Rubio may be our next one.

[TheRealVille]

A Romney/Gingrich ticket is fine with me. Newt can easily be the attack dog while decimating Obama's pick for VP.

Gingrich said he could never be on the ticket as a VP. He's too strong in his opinions.

[Hoot Gibson]

Gingrich said he could never be on the ticket as a VP. He's too strong in his opinions.

That's what most presidential candidates say as long as they believe that they have a real shot at the top spot on the ticket. Gingrich may actually believe what he is saying but I don't believe that he would pass up an opportunity to claim some credit for defeating Obama this fall if he fails to win the nomination. Besides being well qualified to serve as an attack dog in contrast to Romney's gentlemanly demeanor, Gingrich would give the ticket some geographical balance.

If Romney wins the nomination, I don't see Gingrich getting another opportunity to be on a national ticket and if Republicans lose in 2012, I think that the field will be strong and crowded in 2016. Also, Gingrich's age will be a factor in a race against Rubio, West, Jindal, Haley, et al.

[LWC]

Very few people base their votes on the credentials of the VP. The SOPA issue might hurt Rubio a little but not as much as it would have if he had not withdrawn his support for it. Rubio is not an attack dog and IMO, that is what is needed if Romney wins the nomination. Rubio reminds me more of Reagan than any of the young Republicans. He is very positive and optimistic and those are traits that make for a great president. Reagan was our last great president and Rubio may be our next one.

You answered my question but I meant would it hurt him as a VP pick. From your answer, it must not hurt him.

[WideRight05]

:Thumbs: With Newt on the bottom of the ticket, I would expect him to focus almost exclusively on attacking Obama. Then, when the media demands, on behalf of Obama, that Romney put Newt on a leash, Romney needs to support him by saying that Newt speaks for millions of Americans who voted for him in the primary. McCain lost the election in part by refusing to let Palin more freedom on the campaign trail and reacting to media criticism of legitimate attacks on Obama's shady past.

If Republicans let the media run their campaign again in 2012, Obama will win. (Remember how the media scrutinized the large crowds that attended Palin's rallies and demanded that McCain condemn signs and comments coming from individuals in those crowds?) Otherwise, I don't see any way for somebody with Obama's record to win a second term. Hopefully, Republicans learned some lessons from McCain's weak, ineffective campaign in the last general election.

Gosh I hope your right that obama won't win a second term.

I didn't think Bush would be re-elected the second time but he did. I was in high school then, couldn't stand Bush at the time. I went from being moderate/liberal to conservative in college and know a lot more now, but I thought there was no chance in the world Bush would win given his low ratings at the time but he did. Hopefully, obama does not come through again...hopefully people will be able to see through the media this time.

[Bob Seger]

Gosh I hope your right that obama won't win a second term.

I didn't think Bush would be re-elected the second time but he did. I was in high school then, couldn't stand Bush at the time. I went from being moderate/liberal to conservative in college and know a lot more now, but I thought there was no chance in the world Bush would win given his low ratings at the time but he did. Hopefully, obama does not come through again...hopefully people will be able to see through the media this time.

If you remember he barely did. It all came down to the Florida recount, didn't it?

[TheRealVille]

If you remember he barely did. It all came down to the Florida recount, didn't it?

Hehe, Yea, that was it.:Thumbs:

[WideRight05]

If you remember he barely did. It all came down to the Florida recount, didn't it?

My bad, I was referring to the one against Kerry - wasn't the election in 2000 the one that came down to Florida?

[RunItUpTheGut]

^
I believe your right.
It was the same year that he lost the popular vote to Gore, however wont the electoral to win i believe.
Someone correct me if im wrong.

[Hoot Gibson]

If you remember he barely did. It all came down to the Florida recount, didn't it?

That is one way of looking at it. I prefer the view that Gore lost because the majority of people most familiar with Gore, the voters of his home state of Tennessee voted for Bush.

[TheRealVille]

That is one way of looking at it. I prefer the view that Gore lost because the majority of people most familiar with Gore, the voters of his home state of Tennessee voted for Bush.

That's one way of looking at it, but it would be wrong. At the time, Tennessee had 11 electoral votes, compared to Florida's 25.

[Hoot Gibson]

That's one way of looking at it, but it would be wrong. At the time, Tennessee had 11 electoral votes, compared to Florida's 25.

How so? If Gore had won Tennessee, his loss of Florida would have been irrelevant. Do the math. (Hint: add 11 votes to Gore's 266 and then subtract 11 votes from Bush's 271.) Who wins under that scenario?

[TheRealVille]

How so? If Gore had won Tennessee, his loss of Florida would have been irrelevant. Do the math. (Hint: add 11 votes to Gore's 266 and then subtract 11 votes from Bush's 271.) Who wins under that scenario?

Tennessee wasn't in question, Bush won it fair and square. Florida was the "stolen" state.

[TheRealVille]

It's a flawed system, when the majority of Americans vote for a President, plus the fact that a single state can steal the Electoral vote, and that man didn't get put into office. America didn't get the President they voted for in 2000.

[nky]

under the system we use -yes they did

[TheRealVille]

under the system we use -yes they did

Not when the system we use allows a single state to be able to steal it. When America get's out and votes, and the majority votes for the one they want, then the system steals it, no America didn't get who they wanted.

[Hoot Gibson]

Tennessee wasn't in question, Bush won it fair and square. Florida was the "stolen" state.

Since you will not say it, I will. I was right. All Gore had to do in 2000 to avoid being a sore loser was to carry his home state. Contrary to what you said, 11 more electoral votes would have swung the election in Gore's favor.

As for Florida, it was not stolen. Gore tried to steal it by requesting limited recounts in areas where he thought he would pick up votes. Maybe he should have asked for a statewide recount to begin with, to ensure that everybody's votes were counted, instead of attempting to cherry pick precincts.

There was no recount of votes in Florida that indicated that Gore won the popular vote. Bush did not steal the state's electoral votes and no matter how many times liberals repeat that lie, the facts will not change. Fortunately, the modern day P. T. Barnum of American politics, Al Gore, will never become president.

[TheRealVille]

Since you will not say it, I will. I was right. All Gore had to do in 2000 to avoid being a sore loser was to carry his home state. Contrary to what you said, 11 more electoral votes would have swung the election in Gore's favor.

As for Florida, it was not stolen. Gore tried to steal it by requesting limited recounts in areas where he thought he would pick up votes. Maybe he should have asked for a statewide recount to begin with, to ensure that everybody's votes were counted, instead of attempting to cherry pick precincts.

There was no recount of votes in Florida that indicated that Gore won the popular vote. Bush did not steal the state's electoral votes and no matter how many times liberals repeat that lie, the facts will not change. Fortunately, the modern day P. T. Barnum of American politics, Al Gore, will never become president.

Oh....you are right in an 11 vote swing(I did pass advanced math in school), but if all the votes in Florida had been properly counted, Gore would have been the President, just like the popular vote wanted. Gore won the popular vote, nationwide. But, if the Florida vote count had been right, Gore would have and should have been President. Tennessee didn't matter if Florida had been counted right in the first place. Plus, the nationwide popular proved it even more. Don't get me wrong, I won my vote, as the election stood, but I'm smart enough to know right from wrong.

[vundy33]

Can you imagine if we had to go through 4 years of Gore?? Gah..

[Hoot Gibson]

Oh....you are right in an 11 vote swing(I did pass advanced math in school), but if all the votes in Florida had been properly counted, Gore would have been the President, just like the popular vote wanted. Gore won the popular vote, nationwide. But, if the Florida vote count had been right, Gore would have and should have been President. Tennessee didn't matter if Florida had been counted right in the first place. Plus, the nationwide popular proved it even more. Don't get me wrong, I won my vote, as the election stood, but I'm smart enough to know right from wrong.

Gore did not want a statewide count until his attempts at cherry picking precincts failed to change the results. Bush played by the rules and won the election. You have absolutely no evidence that Gore won a majority of votes in Florida and neither does anybody else. It was Gore who tried to circumvent the law in Florida and the US Supreme Court smacked his hands for it.

[Hoot Gibson]

Can you imagine if we had to go through 4 years of Gore?? Gah..

I think that it would have been similar to going through the past 3 years under Obama - maybe worse in some regards. Maybe 4 years of Gore would have torpedoed Obama's chances for ever becoming president. I am not sure which one is a bigger doofus. Both are clowns but Obama's big ears and dependence on dual teleprompters may give him a slight edge.

[TheRealVille]

Gore did not want a statewide count until his attempts at cherry picking precincts failed to change the results. Bush played by the rules and won the election. You have absolutely no evidence that Gore won a majority of votes in Florida and neither does anybody else. It was Gore who tried to circumvent the law in Florida and the US Supreme Court smacked his hands for it.

Gore won a majority of the votes nationwide, and by counts that were made after the fact, Gore won the majority of Florida.

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html

So Al Gore was the choice of Florida’s voters -- whether one counts hanging chads or dimpled chads. That was the core finding of the eight news organizations that conducted a review of disputed Florida ballots. By any chad measure, Gore won.


Gore won even if one doesn’t count the 15,000-25,000 votes that USA Today estimated Gore lost because of illegally designed “butterfly ballots,” or the hundreds of predominantly African-American voters who were falsely identified by the state as felons and turned away from the polls.

Gore won even if there’s no adjustment for George W. Bush’s windfall of about 290 votes from improperly counted military absentee ballots where lax standards were applied to Republican counties and strict standards to Democratic ones, a violation of fairness reported earlier by the Washington Post and the New York Times.

Put differently, George W. Bush was not the choice of Florida’s voters anymore than he was the choice of the American people who cast a half million more ballots for Gore than Bush nationwide. [For more details on studies of the election, see Consortiumnews.com stories of May 12, June 2 and July 16.]

The Spin

Yet, possibly for reasons of “patriotism” in this time of crisis, the news organizations that financed the Florida ballot study structured their stories on the ballot review to indicate that Bush was the legitimate winner, with headlines such as “Florida Recounts Would Have Favored Bush” [Washington Post, Nov. 12, 2001].

Post media critic Howard Kurtz took the spin one cycle further with a story headlined, “George W. Bush, Now More Than Ever,” in which Kurtz ridiculed as “conspiracy theorists” those who thought Gore had won.

“The conspiracy theorists have been out in force, convinced that the media were covering up the Florida election results to protect President Bush,” Kurtz wrote. “That gets put to rest today, with the finding by eight news organizations that Bush would have beaten Gore under both of the recount plans being considered at the time.”

Kurtz also mocked those who believed that winning an election fairly, based on the will of the voters, was important in a democracy. “Now the question is: How many people still care about the election deadlock that last fall felt like the story of the century – and now faintly echoes like some distant Civil War battle?” he wrote.

In other words, the elite media’s judgment is in: "Bush won, get over it." Only "Gore partisans" – as both the Washington Post and the New York Times called critics of the official Florida election tallies – would insist on looking at the fine print.

The Actual Findings

While that was the tone of coverage in these leading news outlets, it’s still a bit jarring to go outside the articles and read the actual results of the statewide review of 175,010 disputed ballots.

“Full Review Favors Gore,” the Washington Post said in a box on page 10, showing that under all standards applied to the ballots, Gore came out on top. The New York Times' graphic revealed the same outcome.

Earlier, less comprehensive ballot studies by the Miami Herald and USA Today had found that Bush and Gore split the four categories of disputed ballots depending on what standard was applied to assessing the ballots – punched-through chads, hanging chads, etc. Bush won under two standards and Gore under two standards.

The new, fuller study found that Gore won regardless of which standard was applied and even when varying county judgments were factored in. Counting fully punched chads and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes.

This core finding of Gore’s Florida victory in the unofficial ballot recount might surprise many readers who skimmed only the headlines and the top paragraphs of the articles. The headlines and leads highlighted hypothetical, partial recounts that supposedly favored Bush.

Buried deeper in the stories or referenced in subheads was the fact that the new recount determined that Gore was the winner statewide, even ignoring the “butterfly ballot” and other irregularities that cost him thousands of ballots.

The news organizations opted for the pro-Bush leads by focusing on two partial recounts that were proposed – but not completed – in the chaotic, often ugly environment of last November and December.

The new articles make much of Gore’s decision to seek recounts in only four counties and the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to examine only “undervotes,” those rejected by voting machines for supposedly lacking a presidential vote. A recurring undercurrent in the articles is that Gore was to blame for his defeat, even if he may have actually won the election.

"Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to 'count all the votes,'" the New York Times wrote, with a clear suggestion that Gore was hypocritical as well as foolish.

The Washington Post recalled that Gore "did at one point call on Bush to join him in asking for a statewide recount" and accepting the results without further legal challenge, but that Bush rejected the proposal as "a public relations gesture."

The Bush Strategy

Instead of supporting a full and fair recount, Bush chose to cling to his official lead of 537 votes out of some 6 million cast, Bush counted on his brother Jeb’s state officials to ensure the Bush family’s return to national power.

To add some muscle to the legal maneuvering, the Bush campaign dispatched thugs to Florida to intimidate vote counters and jacked up the decibel level in the powerful conservative media, which accused Gore of trying to steal the election and labeled him "Sore Loserman."

With Bush rejecting a full recount and media pundits calling for Gore to concede, Gore opted for recounts in four southern Florida counties where irregularities seemed greatest. Those recounts were opposed by Bush’s supporters, both inside Gov. Jeb Bush’s administration and in the streets by Republican hooligans flown in from Washington. [For more details, see stories from Nov. 24, 2000 and Nov. 27, 2000]

Stymied on that recount front, Gore carried the fight to the state courts, where pro-Bush forces engaged in more delaying tactics, leaving the Florida Supreme Court only days to fashion a recount remedy.

Finally, on Dec. 8, facing an imminent deadline for submitting the presidential election returns, the state Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount of “undervotes.” This tally would have excluded so-called “overvotes” – which were kicked out for supposedly indicating two choices for president.

Bush fought this court-ordered recount, too, sending his lawyers to the U.S. Supreme Court. There, five Republican justices stopped the recount on Dec. 9 and gave a sympathetic hearing to Bush’s claim that the varying ballot standards in Florida violated constitutional equal-protection requirements.

At 10 p.m. on Dec. 12, two hours before a deadline to submit voting results, the Republican-controlled U.S. Supreme Court instructed the state courts to devise a recount method that would apply equal standards, a move that would have included all ballots where the intent of the voter was clear. The hitch was that the U.S. Supreme Court gave the state only two hours to complete this assignment, effectively handing Florida’s 25 electoral votes and the White House to Republican George W. Bush.