But to grouse about Democrats is to ignore '92. Some might call it a double standard.

Officially? Probably not. But then again, there aren't any 'official' disputes now, are there? The Democratic Party does consider W. President and factions of the DP have stated that it's time to move on.

That said, we also know that:

• Dole claimed that the majority of people had voted against Clinton (directly after the election).
  
• It was Dick Armey who claimed that Clinton was "your President".
  

Frankly I can't see any difference in some of the claims made by certain conservaties directly after Clinton was elected and the statements made by certain liberals now. Furthermore, I disagree with individuals who wish to silence the opposition with one set of rules (example: he was fairly elected) without at the same time using the same set of rules upon themselves.

I am not accusing you of this. In fact, it's one of the reason why I dislike Rush Limbaugh, as he DOES do this.

In any case, individuals do (believe it or not) have the right to express their opinion. While I disagreed with the set of conservates that disagreed with Clinton, I never disagreed with their right to express these opinions. Likewise, I don't see any reason why individuals unhappy with W. should be unable to express their opinions now.

The first would be what I would assume you're talking about. The second is political commentary.

Perhaps I don't see the difference between what Dole grousing about Clinton winning and Democrats grousing about W. winning.

Don't know about that in context, but again, I've never seen anybody attacking the 92 or 96 elections as somehow being fraudulant.

Wouldn't that make Dick's quote even worse? However, I am sure you can find thousands of similar expressions in the right forums. Forgive me for not wanting to sift through FreeRepublic for quotes of "he's not my President" or expressions to that effect. Such expressions would be incorrect, but it would be a mistake to assume that they do not exist.

I do, from a standpoint of that they are continuing on harp on the actual election. That wasn't the case in the prior elections Not liking the winner and continuing to insist on recounts even a year later are different things to my frame of mind.

Again, I'm lost. Who is insisting on (official) recounts? All I can determine is that there are Democrats demanding investigations to irregularities and rumors regarding the election. Are you saying that such rumors and irregularities shouldn't be investigated? Wasn't that a charge against the Clinton administration? That there were irregularities...possibly felonies, being committed and that he wasn't investigating? Are we going to allow such irregularities to go uninvestigated now?

In other words, the current screaming about the system in FLORIDA is hypocritical. Sure, it has problems. I'm sure my district got miscounted by a few votes. I'm sure the state missed 1 or two somewhere. *Everyplace* has that problem.

But its "lets figure out how Bush "stole" the election, rather than what Bush is *doing now*." That's the concentration on Florida, Florida, Florida. Surely the Bush team broke the law. Surely they pushed for inclusion of ballots favorable to them, and exclusions of ones not favorable to them. (Both Gore and Bush's teams were very legalistic in their arguments, which allowed them to say "will of the people" with a straight face as they tried to toss out the ones they didn't want)

Okay, you're arguing multiple points, and I can't quite handle that many at one time. :-)

1. I surprised that your blaming the Democrats for the acts of news organizations. I certain don't blame Republicans for the actions of Fox News. (However, I do blame all Republicans when they claim that all news organizations are liberal and I can point to Fox news.)
   
2. The question of misuse of a congressional office has absolutely nothing to do with the state of Florida (Particularly when the office and representative has nothing to do with the state.) . Personally, I'd demand an investigation of that regardless of state.
   
3. The counting of military Florida ballots are a Florida issue, however postmarks missing from military ballots are a Federal issue. According to regulation, military mail is supposed to carry a postmark irregardless of whether or not postage is due. During the election, percentage of military mail missing postmarks jumped from 1% to 18% percent. This again, has nothing to do with Florida.
   
4. Democrats have demanded investigations into what Bush is doing now. In addition to the above, they've repeated asked for information on meetings Rove and Cheney have had. Hell, there was the entire issue of VP fundraising dinner.
   

I'd hoped that this might cause election reforms and improvements, but instead, its a witchhunt, only.

Frankly I hoped for some reforms also. I have a number of issues with the optical scanners. But that's a whole different issue.

However, as for witchhunts, might I point out to the numerous hoax scandels that were directed against Clinton.

I surprised that your blaming the Democrats for the acts of news organizations.

I'm not.

My first inclination was that you were saying that your were not surprised. Then I realized that your trying to state that you weren't blaming the Democrats for the actions of the news organizations. But you definitely appear to be, you have yet to point out where Democrats have asked for a recount and appear to be grousing about a news article and pointing at Democrats. At least, that what I'm reading in your posts.

The question of misuse of a congressional office has absolutely nothing to do with the state of Florida

But it has to do with the election. I'd agree it should be investigated, but one might also have to ask about what other members have done - quite often they exeed their grasp. The reason its being investigated, to be factual, is because of the election.

First off, it's not investigated (yet). People have asked it be to investigated, but that's because the office holder seemed to break the law. If they broke the law, somehow related to the election, this is mitigated somehow? (This is news to me, if you can find in the Constitution or US Code somewhere that one is allowed to break election laws, please enlighten me.)

The counting of military Florida ballots are a Florida issue, however postmarks missing from military ballots are a Federal issue.

And the above mentioned congresscritter was on the Military subcommittes, if I recall correctly... Which brings it back into his venue, at least potentially.

Correct, and if it stayed in his venue, there wouldn't be an issue. However, if he then forwards that information to a political party, then there's the question of misuse. Again, in my opinion, this THEN become STRICKLY A LEGAL MATTER irregardless of the election. I do NOT see why you think this is solely election orienteed.

However, as for witchhunts, might I point out to the numerous hoax scandels that were directed against Clinton.

Please do.. I can't think of any that were hoaxes. There were some that were utterly ridicolous (due, mainly to Clinton's behavior), but I don't know of any that were hoaxes. So you'll have to point them out.

We're off on a tangent now... (and I don't have my sources with me at the moment) but immediately following Clinton's election, rumors flew that Clinton was 'selling off' gravesites in Arlington to Democratic supporters. Nice and dandy, except it wasn't true. A congressman even demanded an investigation of the sell off.

But that's aside from what you said originally:

So...yeah, I expect Democrats are going to be going on about this for at least 3.5 years. Ya can't blame them, Republicans did the same exact thing with Clinton.

And I asked you when that had happened, because I didn't recall that every happening...

Well, I already gave you two examples. I don't know what else it'll take to convince you.

No, you didn't show me any examples of the *election* being challenged.
That would make it the "Exact same thing".
[...]
But you said that the Republicans did the "exact same thing" (recount and demand explanations and look for reasons that Florida were lost (even granting "election" instead of "Florida)) - and that's not correct.

My original quote was "So...yeah, I expect Democrats are going to be going on about this for at least 3.5 years. Ya can't blame them, Republicans did the same exact thing with Clinton."

Remember that 3.5 years...it'll be important. Apples to apples - oranges to oranges.

This could mean that Democrats are officially challenging Bush's Presidency for another 3.5 years. To keep apples to apples, oranges to oranges, this would require that Republicans to have officially challenged Clinton's Presidency for 8 years.

However, I haven't argued that. In fact, I admitted that officially, the Republican party has never challenged the legality of (either of) Clinton's election(s). Furthermore, I have repeatedly asked for references to Democrats continuing to officially challenge Bush's presidency. Since you haven't provided any, I have to assume that they are none.

So...apples to apples - no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

Now, you are correct that Democrats did officially and quite legally challenge Bush's election based on irregularities. But this was over, by what, February? So, a few months compared with 3.5 years. (Apples, oranges) So, I don't see how my statement can apply here. You're absolutely right. I do NOT expect to see Democrats OFFICIALLY challenging Bush's election over the next 3.5 years. (Amazing, I didn't think I was arguing that!)

Of course, my quote might have referred to how individual democrats are going to treat Bush over the next 3.5 years and how individual republicans treated Clinton during his last 8 years (I can even include similarities in how these individuals acted after the election.) But that would be apples to apples.

You can disagree with me, but it's unlikely it'll change the outcome.