Did William Rehnquist swear in the wrong man on Inauguration Day? That's what many protesting the start of George W. Bush's second term believe. Pre-election taunts of "accidental president" and "re-defeat Bush" allowed Bush-haters to benefit from the illusion that they represented the majority. November 2, one might think, would have shattered that illusion. It didn’t. In my piece on National Review Online, I discuss the Left's dismissal of the painful truth in favor of a comforting myth.

Let the left chant whatever they want. They are sore losers. If they continue their present course, the liberals will insure their minority status for years to come. They are like a bad record that skips, playing the same tune over and over again.

Yes, since the election is over, noone should be reviewing the process and consequences of the election. I mean, that is down right unAmerican. The left just needs to understand that Bush and NeoCons know exactly what they are doing and, especially their intergity, should not be questioned. Thank God (and Jesus Christ), Bush-Cheney won the election. We're all so much better off now. Praise the Lord.

Paul you completely misread the post. The point is not whether the better man was or wasn't elected. The past two years we all got a heavy dose of why or why not we should vote for a particular candidate. And the people spoke loud and somewhat overwhelming, Bush won. It really wasn't that close, Bush won Ohio by over 120,000 votes and the country by over 3 million votes. The fact that the majority of the networks refused to call Ohio for President Bush that night doesn't mean that it was in doubt, however it does say something about the majority of the networks. I officiate youth sports, and certain kids or teams refuse to except losss, they will complain towards the end of the game when things look grim that all the calls were against them or they lost because "the process" wasn't fair. Some teams will go as far to refuse to shake hands and scream at the other team for cheating, (ring a bell Paul) they will go as far to cover their ears or walk away when someone tries to explain why they lost. It was an important game for the losing team so for some reason they will take great joy in casting a shadow over the winning teams victory and by delegitimizing the victorious team by unsubstantiated hollow rhetoric. Many parents will justify this by saying "well my son is just really competitive and he hates to lose". No his son is just a spoiled brat and a sore looser and needs to better be able to accept defeat, it is an important part of lifes lessons. Unfortunately, a large percentage of the Democratic party doesn't get it and is like the 9yr old youth team that I was speaking about. Paul I respect the fact that you don't like Bush or wish he wasn't elected. But, he was fair and square. Paul, you need to look in the mirror and decide whether you can move on and maybe the candidate you support next time will have most of your ideals and more importantly the support of the majority of Americans. Or you can trudge further into discussing how Bush is an illegitimate president or a war criminal, and further marginalize yourself like those lunatic protesters in D.C., the Air America crowd or the young kids I spoke about. Those kids are too young to understand they have a bit of an exscuse you don't. Wake up Democrats!

I'm a lawyer. I'm a progressive. But don't take my word for it that Bush may very well have been the benefactor of a huge amount of electoral fraud in his favor. Here's a professional computer hacker's take on the election and he is staunchly Republican.

Read a real Republican's view on the matter (he's an American first and a Republican second):

www.chuckherrin.com/ConservativeEmpathy.htm

After you read this read his article on how to Hack the Vote.

They have "professionalized" computer hacking? How are the hours and benefits? Is hacking unionized yet?

I find it amusing that the libs pushed so hard for modernizing voting after 2000, arguing that the poorer places suffered from having old-fashioned voting. Now liberals are all full of amazement that computer votes are easier to fabricate than punch-card votes.

Libs get easily convinced of their enemies' perfidy, but when it ain't close, you can't cheat. I am worried about future elections after reading David Mill's link, but three million votes ain't close. This one was clear.

Liberals did not want bbv (black box voting).

Also when almost every vote is counted by computer now, all are subject to tampering at central hubs. The bbv just leaves no paper trail. I voted on one. I might have voted for Bush.

The liberals have been trying to stop bbv.

And yes 3 million votes is an easy hack. Sorry.

And yes they do have professional hackers to test for computer security. I imagine they are paid quite well.

David: I don't know about "black-box voting," but libs complained bitterly in 2000 that the poor (read black) districts had to vote in paper-based ways, while richer districts got computers and stuff, and this was racist. Thus, they said we needed to "update" everything to computer. They also whined about the electoral college endlessly; but that has ended now that the libs wish Kerry had won Ohio.

Now by "black-box voting" you might mean anonymous voting. We can't have a real paper trail until we can put names on votes. This would have its bad side, but it is the only real way around major voter fraud. I don't think you are advocating abolishing anonymous voting.

Finally, 3 million votes, spread across the country and aggregated from different districts, is a lot. Bush won broadly. Now if we got rid of the electoral college and made it a national direct election -- *then* it would be really easy to add 3 million to the total, because there would be one central place to tamper.

Listening to Rush Limbaugh on Friday, I heard one of the rallies protesting the inauguration, in which the Left put up an 11 year old boy, who exclaimed that George W. Bush was a "terrible, terrible man". I thought the far Left was crazy, but I didn't know how desperate they could be, to actually resort to brainwashing a child and making him curse out our President, while a wild mob cheers on. What is wrong with these people?