He Stole The 2000 Election From Al Gore
This is one of the most persistent lies in U.S. History. Anyone who has looked at this knows Bush won. He won in the OFFICIAL count which is the most important. If there was impropriety there, why haven't people been brought up and charged with election fraud. The answer is simple. There wasn't fraud perpetrated by any Republican.
The butterfly ballot was not Bush's idea, it was not even a Republican idea, it was created by Democrats running the local elections! The hanging chads were caused by poor maintenance on the equipment, improper instruction of voters and lack of care by poll workers, all supervised by Democrats in the Florida counties. It would be easy to conclude that the Democrats either tried to "throw" the election or they were just plain inept. Actually it is simple, they didn't astutely spend money to hold an election.
If he had stolen the election that may be an impeachable offense but the crime didn't happen. It was either the will of the people he be president or it was stupidity and corruption of Democrats in Florida politics.
He Was in the Oil Business - It Is Polluting and a Danger to Our Security
Hmmm. First, is this an impeachable offense? Where in the constitution is this stated or even implied? Let's look at how we got to where we are with oil. The first oil well was drilled in Titusville, Pennsylvania and for some time all oil drilled in the world in fact came from that area. Oil was found in other places and drilling was done there. Nobody can argue that oil drilling is an environmentally dirty process. As an aside, Zinc mining which is where the Gore family made it's money is a near environmental disaster even when done right. The Gores only shut it down when it became too costly to run but it still pays royalties every year.
Nobody can argue that burning any fuel including fossil fuel is an environmentally dirty process. But there are realities. Conservation is needed but conservation can only go so far. California is an example. It has the lowest per capita electrical usage in the U. S. primarily due to conservation practices. But California has pretty well tapped all of the "easy" and "cheap" conservation processes and will have to move on to the ones that have less return and cost more. Conservation is right, it is proper, it should be done but it is a part of a valid energy policy, not the whole policy. We need to begin to start phasing out oil but till there are alternatives we have to have oil.
There are things that will help that have not been tapped. First, mass transit is a part of the solution but it is not the solution. This targets moving humans but there is another transportation issue that consumes massive quantities of fuel. A truck burns eight times as much diesel fuel per ton/mile of freight as a truck. Even if the truck is needed on both ends of the haul the fuel railroad/truck usage is still less than one quarter of the truck only usage. Even more, if the railroads were moved to more electrification this could be reduced further but only if the electricity is produced by solar, wind, coal or nuclear.
Simply stated, the California model is increasing the use of oil and natural gas for electricity production, a counter-productive act while reducing coal and nuclear as it's environmental wacko's protest any more drilling. This just increases our foreign dependence. Interestingly enough, California's environmental problem is driven heavily by nitrous oxide. Burning natural gas is one of the high producers of this component, oil is next. Coal is a minor producer. Coal emissions can be scrubbed of particulates, NO2 cannot be scrubbed out.
Bush has in the last six years taken steps to reduce the dependency on oil while also taking steps to maintain a supply that is necessary for the country. We are dependent on foreign oil, not because there is not oil in the U.S. to be drilled but because it isn't economical to do here. This is primarily because of the non-level playing field of the environmental laws. The cost of transporting oil from the Middle East to the U. S. certainly adds to the price at the pump.
And there is nothing in the constitution that sets a background litmus test for being president.
He Is Against Preserving The Environment
Yep, he has snubbed Kyoto. But that protocol is a disaster for the U.S. - it is a program that is at our expense while others continue to pollute. We need to have a level playing field and that field isn't possible within Kyoto. This was written to be punitive to the U.S. by people who wanted to punish it. If we reduced our pollution to zero in five years, the increases in China alone would more than offset that improvement. India and several other countries in that region are also on the same track. The thought that the emerging countries should have carte blanch is just plain wrong. It assumes that they have the right to pollute.
