You lie! Sorry, I'm summoning my inner Joe Wilson.

Look, I rattled off a number of accurate facts on this thread, from memory, and inspired a small bit of praise from one of your liberal cohorts doing so. One poster took exception, citing nothing and being wrong. Another poster gave him an amen, saying I was wrong. Citing nothing too. Then you come along and say -- we're on to your game!

You're embarrassing yourself by joining in. Go back and review this thread, if you like, and identify a single inaccuracy on my part. With citations.

You'll need some evidence to support that kind of contention.

Mendacity? Is this Cat on a Hot Tin Roof?

The sentiments I express, especially regarding Gov. Palin, are 100% sincere.

This business of the newspaper recounts was debated on Salon several months ago. As I recall, the cites to the findings supported Bush's hypothetical victory. That was also my recollection at the time -- conservative wags clucked over the fact that MSM outlets buried all the "Gore loses" stories. You'll need your own cites to convince me otherwise.

The other point kicked around on this thread was statewide recounts. To review, Democrats were upset, after the Supreme Court ruling, that Gore did not request the statewide recounts immediately (rather than starting with a few counties). By starting small, and getting bogged down in litigation with Ms. Harris, they wasted too much time.

* * *

Let me say a nice word here about Bill Clinton. I saw him on the Greta show on Fox last year discussing his foundation's Katrina rebuilding efforts in New Orleans. You can't argue with good works. Or with helping New Orleans.

You took exception with my summary.

Nonetheless, I must congratulate myself on a pretty good memory. Without reading the entire Bush v. Gore opinion, I see from the wikipedia summary that there was indeed a 7-2 split in favor of an equal protection violation (re: different chad counting methodologies among the counties) and a 5-4 vote that the legislature's deadline left insufficient time to develop a uniform standard.

Wikipedia gets one thing wrong. They state that the three most conservative judges (Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist) found an inconsistency between the Florida legislature and the courts. Actually, if memory serves, they found that the state court's rulings in Gore's favor were so out of the norm that they violated a federal election law against changing the rules after the election is held. That was pretty aggressive.

You are right that there was a blizzard of opinions and sub-dissents. But the 7-2 and 5-4 points above were the core conclusions of the court, and the ones passed down in our generic historical recollection.

Spoiler alert for everyone else: I am responding to an inquiry about Sarah Palin, and will be mentioning same. Please, no raspberries.

Look, I have some real beefs with the Washington scene.

First, the national debt is a very big problem. Was reading about the French Revolution last night, which was caused by a crushing sovereign debt. Always wondered how they finally adjusted it. According to the Oxford History, they eventually paid bond holders 33 cents on the dollar -- after five years of turmoil and terror.

I've mentioned before that the Argentines defaulted on their debt when it reached 55% of GDP -- we're currently at 90%, and rising exponentially. The result was a freeze on middle class bank accounts (the rich held their wealth off shore). We're heading in that direction here.

So, I want someone with some vim and spirit to deal with it. That rules out every Republican but Palin. Obama's health plan (e.g., $500 billion in Medicare fraud and abuse) is a budget buster. I'm also pro-life, and want anti-Roe appointments to the Supreme Court.

My enthusiasm can perhaps best be explained thusly. When I was a kid, we would drive to Florida every other year and spend time at the Disney resort, staying in their campground. We were more fortunate than most from my farmer/worker neighborhood (who did not travel at all), but less fortunate than the crowd at the upscale hotels. It was a formative experience -- not unlike the middle class man in Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov who boasts that he neither envies the aristocrats nor despises the peasantry. To me, the middle was the best place to be in the world.

The George Bushes and Dan Quayles of the world (with whom I came of age) were upscale hotel Republicans. Reagan was common once, but not in my lifetime. Clinton was of and for the lower class. Palin is a middle class, Fort Wilderness Republican. That's one reason I like her so much.

As for smarts and judgment, look at her record on auto bailouts (she called for wage concessions as an incident to loans), health care reform (calling for an honest accounting on deficit impacts), domestic oil drilling and job creation (pointing out that overseas reliance can be less environmentally friendly), and Afghanistan (supporting Gen. McChrystal). I agree with it all.

You must admit one thing: all the other horserace hopefuls follow her lead. She might not be savvy enough for your taste, but she certainly outshines the competition.