I've dropped out of this discussion to focus on the music for a few days, but here's a few observations:

1. Though it's not on subject, I must take issue with those who use the "Bush didn't win the popular vote" line as some mandate as though half a percentage point means that he's some sort of pretender-in-chief. Guess what? He got a higher percentage than Clinton did in either of his elections! Clinton was elected with 43% and 47%, and when you consider who the conservative nature of the third party candidate was in those elections, it's obvious that a majority of American voters were against Clinton in both elections. But that's all beside the point. The popular vote is meaningless. I've explained why a thousand times before in here, but I'll gladly do it again if someone needs it repeated yet again.

2. Liberals are very quick to use the "Clinton's scandals were about sex, which didn't effect me, so I didn't care about them" argument to justify their collective hissy-fit over the Enron collapse, but they aren't as quick to mention the 900 Republicans' FBI files that somehow ended up in the Clintons' hands, or the fact that Monicagate was more about quid pro quo sexual harassment than anything else (The other interns not providing hummers weren't given $80K/year jobs at Revlon). (I suppose that didn't effect them either, since they aren't Republicans or interns...) Liberals also aren't too quick to mention any facts about how Bush did anything to help out Enron. That doesn't stop them from trying, though--Take for example this observation from Neal Boortz's site, www.boortz.com:
THE LEFT-WING RAG "THE NATION" ACCIDENTLY SHOWS ITS TRUE COLORS

A bedwetter named Matt Bivens wrote a story last Friday for The Nation's website. He was desperate to achieve the leftist dream of directly tying George W. Bush to the Enron scandal (oh how the Dems keep trying). Initially, he wrote the following:
"When George W. Bush co-owned the Houston Astros and construction began on a new stadium, Kenneth Lay agreed to spend $100 million over thirty years for rights to name the park after Enron."
Houston, we have a problem. Bush was co-owner of the Texas Rangers, not the Astros. Oops. When the Wall Street Journal pointed that fact out on their Opinion Journal site, The Nation changed their story. This was the revision.
"When George W. Bush co-owned the Texas Rangers and construction began on a new stadium, Kenneth Lay agreed to spend $100 million over thirty years for rights to name the park after Enron."
Houston, we still have a problem. The Texas Rangers have nothing to do with Houston or with Enron Field. That's where the Houston Astros play, not the Rangers. The Texas Rangers' stadium has no corporate sponsor. It's just called "The Ballpark at Arlington." Oh, and another thing...Bush sold his share of the team a year before Enron made the deal with the Astros. The Bivens unsuccessful hack-job is now nowhere to be found on the site. As John Adams said, facts are stubborn things.