On Saturday, January 4, 2003, at 10:31 PM, Eric B. Richardson wrote: > Somewhere I misplaced the place where you said that Bush was > unelected. He was clearly elected by the only vote that counts the > electoral college. Or don't you just care about the constitution and > the rules? No, I didn't think that you did. Oops. He was elected by one vote on the Supreme Court who ignored the Constitutional provisions for just the sort of problem encountered in a problematic vote. There was no need to bypass the Constitution when it provided a clear method of handling a disputed election. Why where these Republican Judges so interested in rushing the election process and upholding a tainted vote count? Please note that our country is so magnificent that it can survive these tainted votes and a rush to judgment by the Supreme Court. And Al Gore has proven himself a worth American by constantly referring to George Bush as the elected President. In other countries an individual in a similar position might lead a coup. Granted that the final outcome might have been the same had the recounts been allowed and the Supreme Court acknowledge that the Constitution was prepared to deal with a disputed election. But wouldn't that have been a better outcome than the present one where Republicans deliberately used political force to create the outcome? --- I propose that all elections for public office be advanced two years so that anyone elected to office can serve a two year jail term for the crimes they are about to commit and that we will probably find hard to prove. Jack Rodgers Email: jackrodgers at earthlink.net Web: www.jackrodgers.com iCal: coming soon iBlog: coming soon