Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zoltan! who wrote (161243)	7/16/2001 10:57:51 AM
From: CYBERKEN	Respond to of 769667

From Mark Levin at NRO: <<Who Won in 1960? The next New York Times investigative series. July 16, 2001 10:05 a.m. Always on the cutting edge of news reporting, eight months after last November's presidential election, the New York Times confirmed on Sunday that, in fact, George Walker Bush is a legitimate president. In no less that five news stories, the Times tells us what really happened in Florida, i.e., Bush won the large majority of overseas military votes, but many of those votes shouldn't have counted. Nonetheless, Bush would have won Florida anyway. The Times spent an enormous amount of time and money sorting this out for us, culminating yesterday in not one but five news stories on the subject: "How Bush Took Florida: Mining the Overseas Absentee Vote"; "Lieberman Put Democrats in Retreat on Military Vote"; Timely but Tossed Votes Were Slow to Get to the Ballot Box"; and "How the Ballots Were Examined." There you have it. Bush won the presidency. He's legitimate after all. Actually, if you think about it, Bush has won this presidency at least half a dozen times ? recount after recount, media ballot analysis after media ballot analysis. However, I do have one lingering question for the New York Times: Who really won the 1960 presidential election? Yes, I know history records that John Kennedy beat Richard Nixon by about 100,000 votes. But unlike Al Gore last November, Nixon didn't challenge the result, despite voter fraud in Illinois and Texas. He didn't bring lawsuits challenging the ballot-counting methods of local and state officials, he didn't demand recounts, he didn't seek more time for conducting recounts, and he didn't try to exclude votes that went to his opponent in hopes that some judge, somewhere, would reverse the outcome. So, the question isn't whether George Bush won the 2000 presidential election, but whether JFK won the 1960 presidential election. I wonder when the New York Times will get around to checking that out?>>