Re: In Bush, Loyalists See A Good & Steadfast Man Who Has Gotten A

On Nov 18, 12:43=A0pm, Jack Linthi*** <jacklinthi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On Nov 18, 12:32=A0pm, Paul J Gans <g...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In alt.history.british John Briggs <john.brig...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > >Paul J Gans wrote:
> > >> In soc.history.medieval John Briggs <john.brig...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrot=
e:
> > >>> John Briggs wrote:
> > >>>> Paul J Gans wrote:
> > >>>>> In alt.history.british James Beck <jdbeck11...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > >>>>>> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 01:43:09 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
> > >>>>>> <g...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> [large cuts]
>
> > >>>>> [About Obama]
>
> > >>>>>>> I still don't agree. =A0He has, in my opinion, quite
> > >>>>>>> properly, decided to do almost nothing. =A0He is not
> > >>>>>>> going to go against Bush, nor is he going to buy into
> > >>>>>>> the Bush agenda. =A0It is a lose-lose situation for him.
>
> > >>>>>> Unlikely true. It is win-lose for the country and for him
> > >>>>>> personally, respectively. It is win-win for the country and for
> > >>>>>> Bush. I fully expect to see him make the selfish choice, i.e,
> > >>>>>> pursue politics as usual in violation of his promise.
>
> > >>>>> As far as I know, NO incoming President has ever stated
> > >>>>> his opinions on current policy. =A0That's not pursuing
> > >>>>> politics, but custom.
>
> > >>>>> Perhaps it is a dumb custom, but then we should move
> > >>>>> up the inauguration to the day after the vote is ratified
> > >>>>> by Congress.
>
> > >>>> By my reckoning (I can't find the exact date), that will be
> > >>>> something like 14th January, so you won't save much time...
>
> > >>> Correction: I've now found the correct date - under your plan,
> > >>> Inauguration Day would be 9th January instead of 20th January :-)
>
> > >> My statement was rhetorical, not an actual proposal.
> > >The same situation arises whether it is rhetorical or not :-) =A0If
yo=
u want
> > >my advice, I'd recommend that the President be elected by popular
vote=
....
>
> > I agree, but it has no chance of being accepted now. =A0One major
> > advantage of it is that a vote is a vote, no matter where cast.
> > Candidates might even campaign in New York or California, which
> > they now do not do.
>
> > >> By the way, you do know that the Senatorial elections are
> > >> not over yet. =A0Three seats remain to be decided.
> > >Yes, in Alaska they are still trying to decide if Ted Stevens is the
> > >longest-serving in***bent to lose his seat, or the first convicted
fel=
on to
> > >be elected to the Senate... =A0(There's also a Minnesota too close to
=
call,
> > >and a run-off election in Georgia.) =A0And Obama has resigned from
the=
 Senate,
> > >and Joe Biden will also resign, presumably after he's counted the
elec=
toral
> > >college votes :-)
>
> > Always good to have someone present to check the count... =A0;-)
>
> > --
> > =A0 =A0--- Paul J. Gans
>
> But on the three Senators, two of the Democrats seem to have an edge.
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/17/frankens-position-looks-s_n_...
>
> http://www.adn.com/election/story/592907.html
>
> The Georgia race is a total revote, but favors the Republican
> in***bent.

Begich in Alaska has stretched to 2374 vote lead, which is beyond the
automatic recount number.