Why Do They Keep Saying 'Re-Elect?'

I don't know why they keep talking about the re-election campaign of George W. Bush, since he was never elected in the first place.

I know, I know, get over it already, you're probably thinking. And I have gotten over it, for the most part. I don't call it a stolen election anymore, but rather accept that it was an unusual situation in which the party most willing to use lies and deceit won the day. I occasionally will write the words President Bush, rather than 'President' Bush or President* Bush or President (sic) Bush or White House Resident Bush.

No, I've mostly gotten over the stolen election (oops), even though his White House Residency has been much worse than I ever envisioned. All I care about now is semantics, about accuracy, about a pure and simple love for the English language. I hate to see the word "re-elect" used improperly.

Now if you're talking about the nine Supreme Court justices, you may validly use the term "re-elect." Strictly speaking, the vote of those nine people was the only election that George W. Bush actually won in 2000. Next time Vice President Cheney goes duck hunting with Justice Scalia, he can feel free to urge the re-election of Bush, should circumstances once again lead to that situation this year.

But Bush lost the election in popular votes--there is no disagreement that more votes were cast for Gore. And after reading many analyses both for and against Bush of the Florida voting irregularities, it seems convincing to me that had the ballots been properly counted, Gore would have won the electoral vote count as well.

So lets honor the proper use of the English language and stop using the term 're-elect.' You can work to elect George W. Bush for the first time. You can work to bestow legitimacy on his future time in office after four years of illegitimate rule. But it is not possible to work for his 're-election.'