« NBC Reports No Extra Youth Turnout | Main | Wizbang Calls Ohio For Bush »

Wizbang Calls Florida For Bush

With 95% of the vote counted I'll third (Jeff, NZ Bear) the calling of Florida for Bush. The percentages have stayed the same all through the vote...

Stupid gun-shy networks...

Update: Sure, now the get onboard.

Update 2: It's about time to call Ohio for Bush....


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Wizbang Calls Florida For Bush:

» The Truth Laid Bear linked with Florida: Makes MSM Feel All Funny Inside

» Evilwhiteguy's Blog linked with Ok, I'll Do It

Comments (16)

Great Kevin, but... Fox New... (Below threshold)

Great Kevin, but... Fox News reported that the ACLU already filed a lawsuit in Florida. They had all the paperwork already done. That gives you an indication the state will go to Bush. They obviously waited to see who was winning that state before proceeding with their bogus lawsuit. I've always hated the American Communist Liberals Union.

ABC's called it. Look for ... (Below threshold)

ABC's called it. Look for the others to follow soon.

Jim, the number of ballots ... (Below threshold)

Jim, the number of ballots at issue in the ACLU lawsuit wouldn't bridge the gap.

- Well its at 97% now and w... (Below threshold)

- Well its at 97% now and with the vote count lead Bush has the Dem's are going to have to dig up a hell of a lot of dead people to make any difference....Whats more the big block of absentee ballots is supposed to favor Bush...Think Florida's out of play so Ohio will probably be the litigate state.....

Ohio looks good for Bush. T... (Below threshold)

Ohio looks good for Bush. The black turnout in Cleveland was considered very disappointing. They saw right through Kerry's bopping up and down in black churches. Also, Dick Morris on NewsMax predicts Bush will win by a sizable margin in the popular vote which will take the wind out of the sails of those moonbats who would claim Bush stole the election again. Ain't gonna work this time with most people. Morris also states that Kerry did worse than Gore in the states he won and Bush did better than he did in 2000 in those states. But, I'm still nervous and don't think I'll get much sleep tonight.

Kerry would have to get alm... (Below threshold)

Kerry would have to get almost every single vote uncounted at all to win at this point in Florida.

- Susan (DemHack) Estrich d... (Below threshold)

- Susan (DemHack) Estrich did her best spin with a smile that could have been painted on with super glue....But I'm willing to bet My home state Ohio will stay in the Bush win column and this will be all over by morning......I'm sticking with My original call of 52% for bush and 47% for Kerry nationwide give or take a few tenths.....Hell bush may even carry NH.....

This is a very sad day for ... (Below threshold)

This is a very sad day for America, I believe. What I've witnessed over this campaign season is a herd of Republicans who have eaten up Bush campaign propaganda almost unquestioningly, without regard for the facts or carefully weighing what is truly best for the future of this country. I feel so terrible about America today. I cannot overemphasize what a potential disaster eight years of President Bush may mean for America. His foreign policy is reckless and threatens world security as we know it. His domestic policy is the most simplistic and poorly-thought-out perhaps in history, not to mention un-American. That's right. John Ashcroft said America has "no king but Jesus," but that's not what our nation's founders said. Killing the separation of church and state -- which will accelerate in a second Bush term -- is one of the dumbest things we could do either for the US or for churches themselves. We unilaterally, preemptively attacked a nation just a few weeks after Mohamed ElBaradei, one of the most capable nuclear inspectors on the planet, told us Saddam had no nuclear program. We already knew Iraq had not been collaborating with al-Qaeda. SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME, in straightforward terms, why this president is competent to lead this country? His policies have represented one disaster after another, and he has never even shown an indication that he understands the issues. People from the administration tell us they rarely discuss policy in-depth, and his cabinet meetings are just scripted events to reinforce what they're already doing -- which is NOT productive. No fiscal responsibility whatsoever; we cannot go on like this. No energy policy whatsoever; when the oil companies say "jump," Bush jumps, so he cannot possibly implement the creative, long-overdue reforms that are needed (not only for prosperity but for national security). Bush doesn't understand how the world works so he is easily manipulated by policy radicals with which he is closely aligned and which have nothing to do with American values. He's close to the neoconservatives, who are working on a project to plow through the Middle East using military force, and the radical evangelicals, who believe in embedding religion into the state and among other things, preparing the world for Armageddon (I wish I was kidding).

After 9/11, everyone got scared and jumped on the Bush bandwagon. Republicans never even considered jumping off. They have chosen to support Bush over considering the true needs and values of America, and anyone who even considers thinking about this moment as a victory -- just wait a few years. Someday you'll understand that patriotism means taking the time to evaluate what's really best for the country, not blindly believing whatever nonsense is fed to you by the most spin-centric president in history.

Empires fall, you know. This isn't a game. Toast yourselves tonight. In a few years, you'll wonder why you didn't pay attention when you had the chance.

I am open to arguments from all sides, and no one has yet presented me an even half-way reasonable argument for voting for this president. Usually vaguely cite Bush's commitment to the "war on terror" without citing any specifics. His record on the war on terror is terrible. The State Department tells us terrorism and anti-American anger around the world are going UP. Don't you get it? These attacks don't occur constantly. They build up over time. Bush's policies are clueless and suicidal. He knew nothing about foreign policy when he came into office in 2001. What makes people think he suddenly became a foreign policy genius in eight months, a record-breaking amount of which he spent on vacation, including nearly the entire month and a half leading up to 9/11? This isn't about criticizing a Republican. It's about holding a president accountable. He's a good evangelical Christian. That's great. So are millions of other people, and it doesn't make him qualified to be leader of the free world. Please tell me why this man is qualified, why he is competent, and what SPECIFICALLY he has done for this country. Don't tell me he's created jobs. Job creation has not kept up with population growth and his jobs record is the worst of any president since the Great Depression. Clinton created more than 20 million jobs. Don't tell me he's "cut" taxes. He's BORROWING MONEY from our future in order to give -- mainly the richest of the rich -- money back. There are no free rides; we, or our kids, will have to pay for this someday. Don't tell me his energy policy is competent. Drilling in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge is his solution. Give me a break; that's a short stopgap at best, and not a permanent solution in the least. We need radical energy policy change, and he's too close to the oil industry to implement it. Under Bush, millions have lost healthcare. America is increasingly hated around the world, where before it was respected and considered a leader. People don't trust us anymore. They only grudgingly cooperate with us, at a time when cooperation is fundamental. Why did we feel the need to throw away the foreign policy ideals of every president since George Washington? Was it worth it? Now anyone can invade anyone else for any reason and simply say that America did it, so why can't we.

Someone, please explain to me why you voted for Bush. And don't give me the BS fed to you by the Bush campaign, because I'd say about 1% of it was based in reality. (No campaign spin in based in reality, but this year it was more true than ever.)

I will check back in on this discussion. I know this isn't what people feel like discussing. They're too busy celebrating Bush's victory. But Bush's victory is a great, great loss for America, and it's just too bad that Republicans didn't bother to do their research ahead of time, rather than wait until history determines the mistake.

I am angry at Republicans, and I blame every last person who listened to the Bush campaign spin without honestly seeking what's best for this country.

- My state didn't let me do... (Below threshold)

- My state didn't let me down .... FOX calls Ohio for Bush (deaniac immitation).....


trp,Briefly: becau... (Below threshold)


Briefly: because I think George W. Bush has what it takes to defend America aggressively, and to promote growth by keeping taxes low, privatizing Social Security so that I might actually live to see it, and promoting a society where the government helps people to invest in themselves, instead of merely giving them handouts.

trp said "What I've witness... (Below threshold)

trp said "What I've witnessed over this campaign season is a herd of Republicans who have eaten up Bush campaign propaganda almost unquestioningly, without regard for the facts or carefully weighing what is truly best for the future of this country."...

Funny, I feel exactly the same way about the herd of Democrats who have swallowed the DNC's talking points (and Michael Moore's distortions, and Kerry's finger-to-the-wind speeches) whole.

As in most things, I'm sure the truth is somewhere in between.

trp: Because I believe he's... (Below threshold)

trp: Because I believe he's the only reasonable choice to do the job for the next 4 years. And you don't get to tell me what I should or should not believe.

All you did was spout Michael Moore/DNC talking points, and you have the balls to tell others what they are allowed to use as basis for their choice?

There's a word for that. It used to be "hypocrite." Now it's just "Democrat."

You lost. Get over it.

For trp:On a brigh... (Below threshold)

For trp:

On a bright Tuesday morning about 38 months ago, I ran down 82 flights of stairs from a burning building. I escaped falling rubble by about 15 minutes. My wife nearly lost her husband; my sons nearly lost their father; my family nearly lost its main source of income.

Fast forward to today. My wife wants me to come home to her tomorrow, next month, and hopefully keep coming home for a long time to come. The last thing I want is to look out my window at home or in my office and see a mushroom cloud.

I am not a neocon; I am a classic Reagan conservative. In fact, I don't agree with the whole bit about compassionate conservatism. My wife and sons happen to agree with me. Either you protect U.S. strategic interests, or you don't. If you want to be compassionate, then turn the other cheek and don't go to war at all.

The war in Iraq was brillantly executed. It is the follow-up nation building that has been problematic. Unlike the President, I believe that democracy and those imbeciles in the Mideast are incompatiable. I would have removed SH and then withdrawn. As far as I'm concerned, rebuilding Iraq isn't our problem. In fact, I have a problem with the President not doing enough. By now, I would have gone after Hamas, Hezbollah and all the other Shiite and Sunni idiots as well. Remember Reagan and Libya? Its a miracle how much some F-14s and Phoenix missiles can do to influence a nation's appetite for terrorism.

I happen to be a Methodist, just like the President and the Vice President. But that is inconsequential. I don't think that they have allowed their faith to skew their judgment.

I won't bother engaging in a discussion about the economy. Just as you won't change my point of view, I won't bother convincing you.

I'll leave it at that for now.

Thank you for your thoughtf... (Below threshold)

Thank you for your thoughtful comments (those that were thoughtful). Actually, I CAN be convinced. I am not unshakably set in my ways, although I know exactly what I believe. I believe in listening to reason, and following it to whatever end. I'm not a Democrat, and I don't really pay that much attention to Democrat spin, so I can't comment on what the Democrats are saying, but I can tell you that I did not get my information from the DNC. My beliefs are derived from honest reflection, and from carefully considering the facts. I didn't dismiss Bush because he's a Republican. I have great respect for his father, and for Reagan too.

Iyeoh, I appreciate your comments and believe me, I think I understand exactly where you're coming from. I disagree with you that the war in Iraq was brilliantly executed, because I don't think you can separate the peacekeeping from the rest of it. We impatiently jumped on Saddam without having any feasible plan for winning the peace, and what's the point in toppling Saddam if we're simply going to let the country devolve into chaos? I don't follow that. In fact, Saddam was notoriously hard on Islamic extremists, believing them to be a threat to his SECULAR regime. Al-Qaeda called his government "infidels," and the paranoid Saddam was certainly not offering free hugs to the al-Qaeda leadership.

There are a lot of people these days who say it's a matter between being hard and being soft. I disagree. I think it's between being reasonable and being unreasonable. At any given moment, there are dozens of possible paths we can pursue as a nation. The one we chose has been incredibly, incredibly expensive. Yes, we overthrew a guy who wasn't exactly well-liked, but it's costing us HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars and distracting us from our true priorities in the war on terror.

Should we have tried to overthrow Saddam? That's not the point. The point is that following a tragic disaster, we had a very solemn duty, I believe, to pursue a foreign policy path directly related to that disaster. We had an obligation to nab bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Mullah Omar (of the Taliban). We had an obligation to carefully reflect on how to reduce the threat to America from terrorism. Instead of doing these things, we impatiently rushed into a war that neoconservatives had planned in the 1990's, at a time when they were all oblivious to the threat from al-Qaeda and had no access to government intelligence.

Accepted facts:

- Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11
- Iraq had not been collaborating with al-Qaeda
- Saddam had done little of note in the Middle East for nearly a decade, and had not been threatening America
- the IAEA determined BEFORE the invasion that Saddam had no nuclear program
- experts did not believe Saddam, a power-hungry dictator, would give "WMD's" to terrorists even if he had them
- al-Qaeda wanted to overthrow Saddam's government eventually, though it wasn't a top priority
- of the dozens of countries in which al-Qaeda had an active presence on 9/11 (including the US), Iraq was not one of them
- Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell said in 2001 that Saddam was not a big problem (Powell called him "fairly weak" and said he had "not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction")

In addition to these accepted facts, there are many other things that bother me. The Bush administration has preferred fear-mongering to objective analysis in regard to "weapons of mass destruction." Powell talked about how a single drop of VX on the skin can kill in minutes. Where does he get that? The CDC says a drop of VX on the skin can cause muscle twitching, and that mildly or moderately exposed people recover completely. Not only that, we were pretty sure Iraq's VX had been destroyed, and if it hadn't been, that it was useless. And EVEN IF IT WASN'T, it was impure because they'd never perfected the process of making it.

Ashcroft took this to the greatest extreme when he told us that "a radioactive 'dirty bomb'...not only kills victims in the immediate vicinity but also spreads radioactive material that is highly toxic to humans and can cause mass death and injury." BS. US Nuclear Regulatory Commission: "A dirty bomb is in no way similar to a nuclear weapon. The presumed purpose of its use would be therefore not as a Weapon of Mass Destruction but rather as a Weapon of Mass Disruption." It would not even cause "severe illness," and the greatest danger would be from the conventional explosives in the bomb, not the radioactive material. Ashcroft made this statement shortly after Bush signed an order permitting the US military to arrest American citizen Jose Padilla in Chicago and hold him indefinitely without access to the American legal system. Ashcroft said, "We have disrupted an unfolding terrorist plot to attack the United States by exploding a radioactive 'dirty bomb'." The next day, Wolfowitz said, "I don't think there was actually a plot beyond some fairly loose talk and obviously to plan future deeds." Padilla was maybe a "scout" or something, the administration said. But it still wouldn't give Padilla access to the American legal system. (More recently, the Supreme Court forced the Bush administration to permit people their Constitutional rights. The administration had argued that Yaser Hamdi, for instance, was so dangerous he could be held forever without access to an attorney. When the Supreme Court said, um, no you can't, you have to try him, the Bush administration simply released him without a trial. He is now free.)

Anyway, most of the weapons of mass destruction propaganda we heard from the Bush administration was ridiculously spun. Uranium from Niger? BS. The IAEA found the documents to be forgeries within hours, first by running names through Google. There were at least 10 major flaws with the documents. Aluminum tubes? BS. The Department of Energy said the tubes were very badly suited to centrifuges, and that Iraq had well-documented legitimate uses for the tubes. Iraq had practically openly shopped around the world for the tubes, and never tried to acquire the other necessary parts for a centrifuge. Mobile biowarfare trucks? BS. Most of the information came from a single Iraqi defector tied to Ahmed Chalabi, who'd vowed to overthrow Saddam. Some of these details have become clearer after the fact, but the degree to which the Bush administration skewed reality is simply mind-boggling, not to mention saddening.

"You forgot Poland." Remember that line? Polish president Aleksander Kwasniewski has said that Bush "deceived us about the weapons of mass destruction." He said, "We were taken for a ride." But not just him. We were ALL taken for a ride.

The only person in George HW Bush's cabinet who supported W Bush's reckless approach to this war was -- you guessed it -- Dick Cheney. Everyone else urged him to use a different approach. HW Bush even gave his 2003 George Bush Award for Excellence in Public Service to Ted Kennedy, one of the prime opponents of the war.

I don't know about you guys, but I just don't believe in accepting what our leaders say at face-value. And I don't believe it's American to do so. We SHOULD HAVE held this president accountable for his mistakes this year, and made him pay for manipulating us into an unnecessary war and distracting us from pursuing the guys who attacked us on 9/11. But we didn't, and I blame a lot of it on people who simply preferred to accept what Bush said over truly probing beneath the surface.

America has GOT to do better in the future if we're going to be safe, secure, and prosperous, and adhere to TRUE American values.

Soft on terrorism? No way. Smart on terrorism.

p.s. We've got to have the courage to vote for American values, not for the fears instilled in us by perhaps the most manipulative government in modern history. How can we beat terrorism if we're letting the terrorists define us? So we were attacked. So that means we throw away our ideals and two centuries of American foreign policy, become some completely new creature? Screw that. My vote is for staying true to our beliefs. To make matters worse, Bush's approach isn't even helpful. Imagine bugs crawling around on a window. Bush's approach to killing them is to take out a sledge hammer and start swinging. Sure, you get a few bugs, but you break the window, so more bugs come in. Then you have fix the window itself. Why not STOP AND THINK of a better approach first? Shooting first and asking questions later may work in a Western. But it doesn't have as good a record when employed by empires. History is littered with fallen empires who got too brash, too conceited, and too reckless for their own good.

I'll respond quickly to one... (Below threshold)

I'll respond quickly to one more thing.

"Briefly: because I think George W. Bush has what it takes to defend America aggressively..."

I hear this a lot. I know a lot of people have faith in Bush to defend the nation, but I think it's important to explore on our own whether Bush's approach is actually the one that makes the most sense. I've tried to pick it apart, because I don't think it's enough to believe in our leaders. We have to make sure they're really taking care of us. Alexander Hamilton said, "Here sir, the people govern." We can't simply trust our leaders. We have to hold them to the fire.

"and to promote growth by keeping taxes low, privatizing Social Security so that I might actually live to see it, and promoting a society where the government helps people to invest in themselves, instead of merely giving them handouts."

These are all good points, but I think they're more Republican ideology. I'm more talking about about what is SPECIFIC TO BUSH, not what Republicans believe overall. My main problem is not conservativism, but BUSH HIMSELF. However, I also think that an overreliance on ideology is dangerous. Bush believes in cutting taxes on the wealthy no matter what. I think it's wrong, for instance, to cut taxes while sending troops to war. War is sacrifice. How can we ask troops to put their lives on the line when we're filling our own pockets? There is no surplus; we have deficits that are approaching very dangerous levels.

As for promoting a society of self-sufficiency, that's definitely a worthy goal. But I hope you're giving Clinton credit for signing welfare reform; he worked with Republicans on it, but he also genuinely believed in it. However, there ARE certain government services upon which all of us depend, so I disagree with those who say that you can never cut taxes too much. We're spending $5 billion a month in Iraq. That's certainly one major expense. And Bush has not shown a willingness to reduce the size of government. Temporary deficits are OK, but we're now talking about large, long-term deficits at a time when there are many key expenses. I DO NOT trust Bush on economics, because he's never said a damn thing on economics that sounded vaguely intelligent. (Former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said somewhat the same thing.) He delegates everything, but I think we need a guy at the top who UNDERSTANDS everything he delegates.

There are some major risks involved in privatizing social security, and I wonder how many of them Bush has considered. He seems to deplore meditating on a topic. For instance, this is the sort of thing that amplifies financial risk in a society. In the 90's, if someone had had their social security invested in AOL or Red Hat, their financial losses would have been amplified. That's an extreme example, but there are plenty of other less extreme examples. If an 80-year-old loses everything because her social security was tied up in a bad bond, then what? Just let her starve to death? But what if we encounter a financial crisis similar to that in the 1920's, when all of the financial problems just started piling one-on-top-of-the-other. The lesson there is that you need to spread the risk, individually and collectively. If we put too many eggs in one basket, we risk financial collapse. I seriously doubt Bush has spent 3 seconds thinking about any of this. We do have a fiscal crisis, and it's one that's exacerbated by Bush's over-reliance on crude tax cuts (they don't provide intelligent stimulus, they just redistribute wealth to the upper 1%). But privatizing social security is no magic bullet, and we should be very wary. Bush likes easy solutions, but his easy solutions often don't work, because he doesn't pay attention to all the variables.

"I'm sure the truth is some... (Below threshold)

"I'm sure the truth is somewhere in between."

How do we know where the truth is if we don't even look for it?






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy