Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

trespassers will wrote:

I happen to believe in the tradition of former presidents keeping mum on the actions of current presidents, but I do not read PD's comments to be that narrowly directed, and will await his response to my question. (Thank you for yours though, Snood!)

Besides, it isn't asking special treatment to ask that Carter and Clinton simply afford Bush the same treatment they and other presidents have enjoyed.

To be perfectly honest, I'd never heard of this so-called "traditional" taboo, until this current resident of the white house.

We did a piece for "Parade" magazine during the Clinton impeachment and I called all of the former presidents -- of course, Ronald Reagan is ill, so you can't speak with him. And Carter, Ford, and Bush the elder, all told me -- they said, Look, we can't comment on the record because protocol dictates that former presidents do not criticize sitting presidents.
History News Network

Perhaps the means by which Bush came to office reduces his entitlement to the respect of his predecessors?

Absolutely true that protocol has been there, at least during my lifetime. But Bush isn't a sitting president in the eyes of many who believe, quite legitimately, that he wasn't elected. Rather than argue that point ad infinitum, why not concede that there are special circumstances here, with serious questions about the president and about the invasion of Iraq. These questions may be very uncomfortable for many conservatives, but they are real and serious for about half the voting citizens of this country and wishing them away or trying to drown them out isn't going to stop them.

50,455,156 47.87% Bush// 50,992,335 48.38% Gore and the minority is?

Sorry, Tres, but I don't think you're right -- either about proving your point or about those who oppose you in this matter. Talk to moderate Republicans about this -- you'll find that many have their doubts about the election and about the war. So we're not talking about a vocal minority (though it's true that many vocal minorities have turned out to be right), we're talking about a vocal majority plus.

(4)(a) Any candidate whose name appeared on the ballot, any political committee that supports or opposes an issue which appeared on the ballot, or any political party whose candidates' names appeared on the ballot may file a written request with the county canvassing board for a manual recount. The written request shall contain a statement of the reason the manual recount is being requested.

(b) Such request must be filed with the canvassing board prior to the time the canvassing board certifies the results for the office being protested or within 72 hours after midnight of the date the election was held, whichever occurs later.

(c) The county canvassing board may authorize a manual recount. If a manual recount is authorized, the county canvassing board shall make a reasonable effort to notify each candidate whose race is being recounted of the time and place of such recount.

(d) The manual recount must include at least three precincts and at least 1 percent of the total votes cast for such candidate or issue. In the event there are less than three precincts involved in the election, all precincts shall be counted. The person who requested the recount shall choose three precincts to be recounted, and, if other precincts are recounted, the county canvassing board shall select the additional precincts.

(5) If the manual recount indicates an error in the vote tabulation which could affect the outcome of the election, the county canvassing board shall:
(a) Correct the error and recount the remaining precincts with the vote tabulation system;

(b) Request the Department of State to verify the tabulation software; or

(c) Manually recount all ballots.

Dys - Why don't you tell us how many tall people voted for each? It would be just as pertinent to the outcome.

Quote:

Dys - Why don't you tell us how many tall people voted for each? It would be just as pertinent to the outcome.

sorry you dont care for the american people. or as you would say the vocal minority

"Senator Kerry crossed a grave line when he dared to suggest the replacement of America's commander-in-chief at a time when America is at war," writes Marc Racicot, chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC). Seems presidential hopeful John Kerry's call for "regime change" here at home has touched a nerve.
So, what -- it's treason now to advocate against a Bush- Cheney ticket? Perhaps we should just postpone the election until after the war? (And what if the war, as former CIA director James Woolsey predicts approvingly, goes on for decades?)
http://www.thenation.com/outrage/index.mhtml?bid=6