Commenters in this post have spoken and one in particulalr threw out a name I think fits, so from now on, I have decided that when an individual (usually a Democrat) brings up the topic of Election 2000, the thread has officially been “Gorejacked.” Gorejacking works very much like Godwin’s Law– in that whoever brings up the election 2000 is generally regarded to have lost the argument, and the thread is now declared null and void. Much like borking, Godwin’s law, and the Higgins Manoeurve, we hope you find room in your heart for this new term.
Main Entry: Gorejack (verb)
Pronunciation: (g0r ‘jak)
Definition: To inject or invoke the results of the contested Bush/Gore 2000 election into any discussion of politics, political parties, or any other historical or social issue. Usually this will be used to demonstrate the genuine corruptness of either Democrats or Republicans. Whoever Gorejacks a conversation is assumed to have lost the argument, and the conversation is no longer useful.
This is not an administration that intends to allow something as feeble as the democratic process get in the way of their intent to rule on a perpetual basis. It wouldn’t surprise me to see Bush simply refuse to leave office, either if defeated in 2004, or when his term (according to that little thing, the Constitution) expires in 2008. After all, consider the Bushites reaction to potential electoral defeat in 2000; their response was to simply stop the counting of votes.
The Gorejacking in the previous passage has been bolded for easy detection. Note the hysterical and conspiratorial tone of the post- this is a good first sign that a thread is about to be Gorejacked.