New Sisyphus on Bush vs Gore

We know what the Left, including law professors like Lawrence Tribe, think of the opinion: that the 5-justice Republican-appointed slim majority stopped the re-counting of valid votes, thereby selecting Geo. Bush as the next President of the United States.

This is nothing but a lie and a myth. The most cursory reading of Bush v. Gore lays to waste the entire Democratic mythology that has arisen about Florida. A quick look at the lies and the reality set forth in the opinion makes this plain.

New Sisyphus exposes three lies:

First Lie: The Democrats only wanted to count all the votes! The Republicans don't want to count the votes, they're disenfranchising people!!!
Second Lie: The Republican cronies in the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to stop the recount! How obvious can you get?!?
Third Lie: The U.S. Supreme Court anointed Bush President. He was selected, not elected!!!

And explains,

the first move to the courts to protest the election result was Vice President Gore's, and in his petition Gore asked only for recounts in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade Counties. (Facts hurt, don't they?)

7 out of the 9 justices (and not, say 5 out of 9) found the Gore-sought, Florida Supreme Court-approved "a few counties only" recount plan in violation of the Constitution of the United States.

The Constitutionally sound election had taken place. In that election, people registered to vote in Florida voted, not the 9 justices of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court stopped the Florida Supreme Court's mandated "recount" because the recount was illegal and in violation of basic protections afforded by the Constitution. Thus, rather than "selecting" Bush, the Supreme Court stopped an illegal sham vote from proceeding in favor of the real vote, in which Bush won the plurality of votes.

Don't stop there; go read what he has to say about the Washington State election.

In his book No One Left to Lie To: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton, Christopher Hitchens points out how Clinton "took every shred of New Deal Liberalism in his party and tore it to shreds", as the introduction tells us. New Sisyphus explains in today's post how the the Democratic Party, starting with Al Gore, have called into question the very legitimacy of elections. As The Economist was saying, "The biggest problem with the current Democratic leadership is not that it has lost the will to fight but that it has lost the power to think."

And by the Democrats doing this, we all lose.

Speaking of Hitchens (yet again) the NY Times Book review would have come up with a much more interesting review on the Abu Ghraib books (cashing in on current events, anyone?) if they had Hitchens review the books instead of Andrew Sullivan. At least Hitchens has been there, both in Saddam's time and after 2003.