One of the President's 3 brothers (Jeb) was governor of Florida during the 2000 election - the state that votes for Al Gore are still unaccounted for.
George Bush won the 2000 election having only 47.9% of the popular vote and the 2004 election by a mere 51.6%
Bush's cousin, John P. Ellis, was the Fox News Election Team Manager when the network reversed their call for Florida in 2000. He had been on the phone all night with his cousins, Jeb and George.
From 1993 to 2000, another one of the President's 3 brothers, Marvin P. Bush was on the board of directors for Securacom, the company that takes care of security for both United Airlines AND The World Trade Center. Securacom is backed by the Kuwait American Company - an foreign investment firm.
Bush's cousin Marvin currently serves as an advisor to HCC Insurance Holdings which sells millions of dollars worth of "terrorism insurance".
In 2006, George W. Bush's Newsweek rating dropped below that of Richard Nixon's lowest.
2007-11-24 07:21:22 · 13 answers · asked by rabble rouser 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
the 2nd to last statement should read, Bush's BROTHER, Marvin... typo...
2007-11-24 07:28:03 · update #1
Only one of these statements is FALSE... and nobody has answered correctly yet...
2007-11-24 07:35:08 · update #2
You jerk :) I had to look at all the data, and all I found wrong was the 51.6% for Bush in 2004, is actually around 50.7%.
2007-11-24 08:13:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
It's not the statements that are false. It's the implications about the election in 2000.
1. There are uncounted Al Gore votes in every state in the U.S., just as there are uncounted George W. Bush votes in every state.
2. It was the Gore attorneys who wanted to prevent the absentee ballots from members of the armed services from being counted.
3. All the election irregularities in Florida took place in counties with Democrats as their elected Election Supervisors.
4. It was the early call for Gore that was irregular, not the later call changing to Bush. The networks called it for Gore before the polls had even closed in the Florida Panhandle, which is a strongly Republican area. This early call is assumed to have reduced turnout in those regions, and probably reduced the votes for Bush. Until that time, networks had agreed to never call a state as a win or loss until AFTER the polls closed, yet the media jumped the gun and went for Gore in a way that could have affected the outcome.
5. The election was called for Bush by the entire cabinet, not the governor alone. The cabinet included an even mix of Democrats and Republicans, all of whom saw it the same way.
Personally, I hate George W. Bush, and I'm embarrassed that he's our president, but the facts don't bear out your allegations about the election. If anyone was trying to manipulate the election, it was the Gore people.
2007-11-24 07:38:03 · answer #2 · answered by skip742 6 · 5⤊ 4⤋
Did you know that Abraham Lincoln got only 39.8% of the vote in the 1860 presidential election and eleven states did not count in his 1864 re-election?
Did you know that Bill Clinton never got a majority in his two
presidential elections (43% in 1992, 49.2% in 1996)?
Are you saying that Lincoln and Clinton should not have been president?
How about the 1824 election, where Andrew Jackson received more popular and electoral votes than John Quincy Adams, but still lost the election. Or in 1876, when Sam Tilden won the popular vote over Rutherford B. Hayes, but lost the electoral college.
Try reading and understanding the Constitution before ranting on the InterNet.
BTW. Harry Truman had an even lower approval rating, but many historians see him as an effective president.
2007-11-24 07:36:47 · answer #3 · answered by wichitaor1 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
actual that our government did little or no to supply up 911. i does not call it an interior interest yet extra like a gadget to assist push the schedule. actual and confident Hilary Clinton could be an aggressive Democratic chief. i could vote for a woman after 8 years of Bush. fake, there's a canine living in my basement and he does not like it whilst i pass on the computing gadget.
2016-12-10 04:54:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Here we go with the 2000 election drivel. More conspiracy theories from the twighlight zone. I think you forgot the part about the Clinton appointed judge who cast the deciding vote in the Supreme court to hand Bush the election?
Must have overlooked that one in your carefully chosen true-false list of drivel that has no meaning. Funny thing about this subject is... I voted for Gore!... lol.
Whats done is done man... stop crying about it and move on.
If its all the same... I will send you a crying towel signed by someone who cares less.... if you pay for shipping!
2007-11-24 07:32:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 6⤋
All are false except for item # 2
2007-11-24 07:32:11 · answer #6 · answered by sorry sista 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Your first one is totally false...all votes were counted, then recounted, and 5 major newspapers, {including that lib fishwrap, the Washington Post } all did thier own recounts. All agreed that Gore LOST !!!
Facts have never been liberals, or Democraps, strong suit !
2007-11-24 07:32:16 · answer #7 · answered by commanderbuck383 5 · 4⤊ 7⤋
The 2nd. Bush was appointed by the Supreme court because he was the incumbent who appointed many of them. It's called payback.
2007-11-24 07:32:34 · answer #8 · answered by The Wiz 7 · 4⤊ 5⤋
It's easier to tell you which was closest to the truth and that would be the election results in your second statement.
2007-11-24 07:28:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋
All true,seems there is a Bush behind every Bush !
2007-11-24 07:30:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 5⤋