Well, that's actually paraphrasing the title of the latest lunatic column by Ted Rall, in which he asks if George Bush is going to cancel the elections next year.

Yes, Ted, he's going to cancel the elections. That's why he's out raising a quarter of a billion dollars in campaign funds.

Well, OK, at the end of his little binge of mindlessness, he does come back to within screaming distance of reality:

Bush may be the kind of guy who sees 99 percent odds as 2 percent short of a sure thing, but I bet he'll look at his $200 million campaign war chest and decide to let the people decide. He'll surely want to win legitimately in 2004--albeit for the first time. Though they're capable of anything, Bush's people probably know that Americans wouldn't stand for two putsches in four years.

They still can't get over the fact that the Supreme Court wouldn't allow Gore and his brigade of lawyers to steal the election...

The more Leftists act as if their fantasy of Bush-the-Moron is reality, and plan accordingly, the farther they get from their goal. Even better is their inability to learn from anyone else's past mistakes, but their insistence on repeating them. (see Vast Right Wing Conspiracy v. Clinton, and who came out on top).

I say we need more Ralls, and to make sure his becomes the dominiant theme of the upcoming campaign. Because until he and his kind suffer the repudiation of a complete and totally disastrous defeat, we won't have an intelligent and rational opposition to the Republicans/conservatives. Look to Canada to see what can happen when a democratic country becomes a one-party nation. It ain't pretty.

I remember when Clinton was going to cancel the next election. Funny how this idea keeps turning up -- must be something about it that appeals to crackpots of all kinds.

Why give that creep the google hits? Just call him T3d R@ll.

"Just call him T3d R@ll."

Wouldn't "Barking Moonbat" be more accurate? :-)

Raoul, I have to disagree with you there. The problem is that once the Ted Rall's of the world fubar the Democrat party, they'll get "disillusioned" and switch over to the other party and break it as well. OTOH, I don't have any interest in the continued existence of either the Democrat or Republican parties. Maybe destruction by idiots wouldn't be so bad.

"They still can't get over the fact that the Supreme Court wouldn't allow Gore and his brigade of lawyers to steal the election..."

Oh please. Don't let anything like facts get in the way of your bogus opinions.

I am always amazed at the conservative tendency to abandon all principal when it is to their political advantage. Hypocrisy in action...

Go back to your ravings...I shall leave now.

I'm not a conservative. I just call 'em the way I see 'em.

Jimbo2k3, perhaps you were too busy cleaning your bong to notice, but Gore seemed pretty intent on holding recounts until either Hell froze over or he became president.I'll say it again, and I'll type real slow since you're such a slow reader: You don't get to change the rules of the game after the game is under way.

Yes, funny how the Dems don't like to talk about that. Florida law clearly states that recounts must be for all precincts, you don't get to pick and choose which ones. If they hadn't dilly dallied around getting the Florida Supreme court to ignore Florida law, they would perhaps have time for a full state recount. But the statistical analyses after the fact show they would have lost in a full recount, as they would have had it gotten kicked to the FL legislature, where the GOP had a majority too.

The Supremes were just enforcing Florida law.