In all seriousness, given how much trouble she has with the English language, what is Helen Thomas doing in the White House?

The only reason the Supreme Court had anything to do with the 2000 election is because Gore and his folks brought it there.

GEORGE W. BUSH, et al., PETITIONERS v. ALBERT GORE, Jr., et al.

LOL..who has been out of the universe? No really,... try reading something other than left wing blogs all the time...

The only reason the Supreme Court had anything to do with the 2000 election is because Gore and his folks brought it there.

New jobs have been limping along at about half of what's needed to keep pace with population.

So Dick, how can that be??? Five years of not keeping up, yet it is at 4.6%?

Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-vote margin statewide.

On December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Florida Supreme Court ruling ordering a full statewide hand recount of all undervotes not yet tallied. The U.S. Supreme Court action effectively ratified Florida election officials' determination that Bush won by a few hundred votes out of more than 6 million cast. Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - About 46,000 people, most of them Democrats, are illegally registered to vote in New York City and in Florida, the liberal New York Daily News reported today. "The finding is even more stunning given the pivotal role Florida played in the 2000 presidential election, when a margin there of 537 votes tipped a victory to George W. Bush." Sixty-eight percent of those registered to vote in both states are Democrats. Sixteen percent did not list a party, and only 12 percent are Republicans...

as we have tried to explain to you many times before, many people have given up looking as evidenced by the decreased participation rate

''virtually irrefutable evidence of vote miscount.'' The discrepancies, the experts add, ''are consistent with the hypothesis that Kerry would have won Ohio's electoral votes if Ohio's official vote counts had accurately reflected voter intent.''(41) According to Ron Baiman, vice president of the archive and a public policy analyst at Loyola University in Chicago, ''No rigorous statistical explanation'' can explain the ''completely nonrandom'' disparities that almost uniformly benefited Bush. The final results, he adds, are ''completely consistent with election fraud -- specifically vote shifting.''

To help prevent a repeat of 2004, Kerry has co-sponsored a package of election reforms called the Count Every Vote Act. The measure would increase turnout by allowing voters to register at the polls on Election Day, provide provisional ballots to voters who inadvertently show up at the wrong precinct, require electronic voting machines to produce paper receipts verified by voters, and force election officials like Blackwell to step down if they want to join a campaign. (205) But Kerry says his fellow Democrats have been reluctant to push the reforms, fearing that Republicans would use their majority in Congress to create even more obstacles to voting. ''The real reason there is no appetite up here is that people are afraid the Republicans will amend HAVA [Help America Vote Act]* and shove something far worse down our throats,'' he told me.

Due to the unprecedented nature of these changes, it's difficult to predict how successful or unsuccessful the midterm election balloting might be five months from now. Still, Lewis says that while 2006 might seem like the country has gone "backwards" things will get better. He adds that voters must understand that implementing changes of this magnitude takes time. "My guess [sic] is -- honestly [!] -- by the time we get through [the] 2008 elections, we will have noticed a fairly significant improvement in terms of the voters being able to cast and count ballots accurately throughout the system."