response 101 of 117:

Apr 1 07:29 UTC 2002

resp:87  I honestly wanted McCain to be a presidential candidate, but 
it didn't happen =(  No, George W. was the Republican's boy.  Oh 
well.  One thing I can say about W is at least he's honest in the fact 
that he stays bought.. i.e., in big oil.  Not many politicans do that 
anymore.

I never brought up the ballot thing because I forgot about that long 
ago, but yeah, I do agree with brighn.. geez, to think people didn't 
take the time to assure their ballots were done right?  That is a 
little lame..

What I remember about the recounts was the battle for the method of a 
recount that would be most favorable to one or the other.

Again, I wanted McCain to be in the seat, really.  I wouldn't be 
moaning if Gore was in the White House, but I voted for W because I 
really didn't want a micromanager running the country.  Also-- I'm 
Independent.  By definition, I tend to vote Republican at times 
because it's slightly right of center.

W isn't the best candidate in the world, but then, he isn't a seasoned 
politican.. I think this is a similar situation to when Carter was 
elected, and we all remember how wildly popular Carter was in office 
(not).  He seems to be doing a moderately reasonable job, and my mind 
is that he's keeping up the majority of the nation's morale.  Sorry, 
Grex does not constitute the majority.

I don't see W lasting two terms unless the nation has indeed shifted 
to a Republican outlook as far as the executive branch.  I don't 
know.  I really didn't want Clinton to be re-elected, but, there it 
was.  I voted for Bob Dole.

Lest anyone think I do favor Republicans, I think Newt Gingrich was a 
turd and I was so glad when he left.  It's a real shame much of the 
party power went down South; I wasn't terribly surprised Jim Jeffords 
decided to go Democrat.  I understand it was heartwrenching for him, 
but most folks in Vermont support him.

Again, I think McCain is kick-ass, so to speak, although I know many 
Republicans consider him a bit of a rogue or a maverick.

Anyone remember the name of the maverick Democrat senator that was 
thinking of defecting to the Republican party?

I was so happy when Washington state's blanket primary was upheld, at 
least for now.  It will be a sad day for Independents when it done 
away with, since our vote will truly be excluded from the primaries.  
Some may say that our votes in the primary are ignored, but, well, I 
want to vote for the person I want to with impunity.  The decision was 
kinda hilarious in the fact that the judge issuing the statement 
basically told the parties that they were incompetent gimps in failing 
to provide a burden of proof.

response 103 of 117:

Apr 1 23:54 UTC 2002

W may not be a seasoned "politician", but then again, he doesn't have to
be.  What he is first & foremost is a loyal front man for his family and
his party, and he hasn't shown any evidence of having any other
principles.  Unfortunately, his party hasn't demonstrated much interest
either in independents or in political fairness for that matter.  This
is almost the complete opposite of Carter, who was very much an
outsider, both to his party, and to Washington.  Carter was also a man
of principles and of honor and fairness; I've never heard anyone, even
the republicans, question Carter or his presidency on that.

Regarding W's chances for re-election; the two determining factors,
unfortunately, won't be princples at all, but will be the economy, and
the "war on terror".  In the past few months, the "war on terror" has
done great things for his reputation, far out of sync with his actual
abilities, which seem mostly limited to the ability to insult both the
Iranians and the N. Koreans in one sentence.  It will be interesting to
see if the Israel/Palestinian confict erodes his reputation.  So far as
the economy goes, it's hard to say, but I'm thinking the recent spike in
gasoline prices doesn't bode well for him.

response 105 of 117:

Apr 2 17:15 UTC 2002

Re #103: Interesting you should mention a spike in gas prices.  A coworker,
who's very proud of his 4-wheel-drive pickup, recently said, "I've started
driving my wife's car to work.  The gas prices got too high."  It surprised
me, partly because after what happened last summer $1.46 doesn't seem all
that high to me anymore.

response 107 of 117:

Apr 3 08:51 UTC 2002

resp:102  ahhh, I see.. "..I will leave the Republican Party and 
become an Independent.  Control of the Senate will soon be changed by 
my decision.  I will make this change and will caucus with the 
Democrats for organizational purposes, once the conference report on 
the tax bill is sent to the President," reads his statement on 
5/24/01, which can be in full at his webpage at
http://www.senate.gov/~jeffords/524statement.html 

I knew there was a good reason why I did like him.

response 109 of 117:

Apr 6 10:40 UTC 2002

btw, it should be noted that Abraham Lincoln lost the popular vote but 
won the electoral votes.  Similar things have happened in history.

response 111 of 117:

Apr 7 02:21 UTC 2002

Re 109-110.  Right -- Lincoln got fewer votes than all of his opponents
combined, but he got more votes than any of them separately.

The only U.S. presidential elections where the candidate who received the
largest number of popular votes did not win the electoral vote were 1876
(Hayes v. Tilden), 1888 (Harrison v. Cleveland), and 2000 (Bush v. Gore).
Tilden, Cleveland, and Gore all got more popular votes than their
opponents Hayes, Harrison, and Bush, who in each case received more
electoral votes.

The 1876 case is especially galling, because various states where Tilden
got more votes than Hayes ended up with Hayes electors (very long story I
won't go over right now).  Hayes ended up with 1 vote more than Tilden in
the electoral college.

Some say the 1824 election is yet another example, and indeed, Andrew
Jackson led in popular votes but was not elected.  However, the popular
vote figures in 1824 don't include states like New York where the
legislature chose the presidential electors without any direct input from
the voters.  And besides, no candidate won a majority of the electoral
votes, so the House of Representatives chose the winner (John Quincy
Adams).

response 113 of 117:

Apr 7 06:17 UTC 2002

I'd always thought T. Jefferson was the only President chosen by the House.

response 115 of 117:

Apr 7 18:58 UTC 2002

I guess I heard about the Jefferson incident, then, only because it resulted
in an amendment to the Constitution.  The Quincy incident was not so
effective, so it got no mention in the overview that passes for an education
in American history.

Still learning, though. :)