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.