posted on November 17, 2000 07:32:56 AM new
A Florida court judge has ruled that Sec. of State Katherine Harris, a key member of George W. Bush's presidential campaign in
Florida, is within her rights to reject late hand counted votes from Palm Beach, Miami-Dade, and Broward counties. George W. Bush is expected to be declared the winner of the Florida elections tomorrow and thus the next President of the United States. Gore backers, which constitute a majority
of the voters in the United States, are understandably upset that the selection of the next president has been left up to the decision of a member of the Bush campaign team.
posted on November 17, 2000 07:42:25 AM new
Hi Krs
IMO as soon as I saw the profile on this Harris woman I said she should step down because she is admittedly bias. I am surprised that no one has asked her to step aside because of conflict of interest or something similar to that. She stands to gain big time by Bush' winning this election. It is not a matter of whom I support - at this point I am more neutral than I ever felt in any presidential campaign.
It is a matter of ethics to me.
posted on November 17, 2000 07:45:01 AM new
who is now going to be appointed an ambassador.
Bush will have his years in the white house but the reputation will always remain the same and more so now. He refused to meet with Gore, his brother is the Governor of the question in state, one of his ambassadors to be is the final decision maker that decided the vote count and he is a drug addict and has been convicted of driving drunk. In addition, he has no speaking talent and lacks any charisma at all. He does not know foreign policy, cannot pronounce most countries (as been witnessed during numerous interviews) and has a horrible PR group.
Can he climb out of that hole? Not likely nor will American women as he now appoints two supreme court candidates that will be on the bench for my lifetime and will set back womens rights back into the 40's.
posted on November 17, 2000 07:50:50 AM newHi Nobs (AST = 33; ALT = 24)
Katherine Harris, who has said she wants a job in a Bush administration, has actively campaigned for Bush in New Hampshire, is the Co-Chair of the Bush Florida Election Committee, is a major Florida fund-raiser for Bush, and has acted to date to stop or to slow down hand counting in Democratic counties while allowing hand counting in six Republican counties to take place, acting as Florida's Secretary of State, has determined that she will not accept any late votes from Palm Beach,Broward, and Miami-Dade counties. Earlier, a Florida judge has said she had the right to say that all votes after 5 p.m. yesterday were late, but he cautioned her that any decision not to accept votes could not be arbitrary. While this decision will surely be questioned in court and could be overturned, Harris, in effect, has given the
Florida election for president to George W. Bush by preventing the people's complete Florida vote from being counted. [b]If this decision stands, there is little doubt that
Bush has stolen the election[/b], that his four year presidency will be under a cloud, and that he will be the subject of continuous cries of illegitimacy from a significant number of Americans. If this decision stands, Mr. Bush will be given a hollow crown and will be the subject of constant belittlement from a significant number of Americans. As has been so often the case with Mr. Bush, he simply has no understanding of what he is doing, both to himself, to our system of just elections, and to our concept of presidential governance by the will of the people. In effect, Mr. Bush is neither the winner of the popular vote nor of a fair and just electoral college, and he will become president only by an unjust decision by a key member of his campaign team.
posted on November 17, 2000 08:07:10 AM new
krs - I think this gives weight to your argument that women shouldn't hold political office. (just kidding of course... please nobody nail me)
Really, though, Bush being pres could be a good thing in many ways. Not only would a lot of us stand to benefit financially, but if he performs as expected it will pave the way for a good Democratic candidate in four years.
I believe that you are such a staunch and unquestioning republican that you would vote for Al Gore if he were the republican candidate.
In the meantime, if you act fast, you may be able to snag Kathleen with a proposal of marriage. You could then wake up each morning, your dreams and ideals fulfilled.
If Gore wins it does't really matter to me, I don't see a world of difference between him or Bush. If we can survive Nixon and Carter we can survive Bush or Gore.
Don't take this so serious, because it isn't going to matter in the long run. I'm enjoying the contest, no matter who wins.
You're taking this far to personal. I'm politely asking you to ease up on the personal aspect of your remarks.
Sorry, but you bring it upon yourself. You say that you are enjoying the contest and that it doesn't matter to you yet you make posts and start threads obviously designed to raise the emotional level of the discussions here. Specifically your latest, in which you make the best of an early opportunity to needle any dedicated democrat here with "I'll go out on a limb to predict that Kathleen Harris will not be on many democrats Christmas lists". Innocuous, you say? But you know very well that such a post is not innocuous in all cases, with all people here.
Protective of your supposed impartiality, you think? Hardly. It's as transparent and smarmy a piece of goadmanship as I've seen, and that sort of activity is never impersonal.
So while you continue to sleaze around making adjustments so as to increase your enjoyment of the show, I'll continue to put it right back in your face, as it were.
posted on November 17, 2000 09:17:15 AM new
Yep, there goes that durn rule of law rearing it's ugly head again.
And if Katherine Harris recluded herself, who should have made the decision...an unbiased Democrat?? She is an elected official put in place by the Citizens of Florida to make decisions according to the laws established by the Florida legislature. I guess it's only a problem depending on what side of the law you fall on.
To many of us, she is a hero. She's stood her ground against the unwarranted character attacks which continue to arise. I guess the Democrats are only for the women who tow their party line.
posted on November 17, 2000 09:24:59 AM new
You could say that she's a stereotypical republican hero actually.
When she won her first political campaign, for the state Senate seat in 1994. After one term, she was elected secretary of state in 1998, defeating the Republican incumbent in the primary election. The incumbent, Sandra Mortham, had intended to be Jeb Bush's running mate in the governor's race that year, but dropped off his ticket after questions arose about her handling of the office. The same year, federal authorities disclosed that Harris had accepted $20,600 in illegal campaign contributions for her 1994 legislative campaign. The money came in dozens of checks purportedly from individual donations but actually provided by a single donor, a Sarasota-based insurance company, according to court documents. When the company gave Harris a bundle of checks, prosecutors said, her campaign staff requested the company to provide different addresses for each purported donor to obscure the true source of the money.
posted on November 17, 2000 09:27:41 AM new
Kathleen Harris a hero - please - more like a brown noser and it will work as she gets the Amabassador position she was gunning for before this all began.
If she was doing her job as you say there would not have been a problem in the first place. She would have managed the ship a little tighter and not allowed sub-standard ballots to be used, irresponsible polling assistants and the vote boxes would not have mysteriously disappeared had she been doing her job and managed the group appropriately.
Instead we have a mess that she is responsible for and now directly goes Replublican which scored her points for her new position.
Please she is no more a hero than ..... well, I better not go there.
She did exactly what good ole boy Jeb asked her to do so that his dear brother could get this position.
Politics in the South has always been about good ole boys and knowing what to do for whom to get what you want. Here it was played out for the world to see.
posted on November 17, 2000 09:28:34 AM new
krs...what did she do with the funds? Were they returned?
We all know that the Democrats would NEVER take dirty money!
boysmommy3...then I guess she's the only woman to get ahead in the political world by brown-nosing? The double standard is just amazing! I thought Democrats were supportive of women who wanted to get ahead. Guess that only counts if you sleep with them.
************************
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
[ edited by njrazd on Nov 17, 2000 09:33 AM ]
posted on November 17, 2000 09:32:13 AM new
Hi again Krs
I am astonished that no one sees the gross ethical violations and complete conflict of interest that K. Harris has here. She stands to gain (big time) from her boy getting in the White House and she will not step aside and no one has asked her to step aside. I guess ol' Jeb is just as happy as a pig in swill right now. As soon as the voting problems occurred, they should have at least put something in place to make sure colusion and ethics violations could not occur. We are talking about a state where Bush' brother is Gov. and the Board of Elections is run by Bush' number one staunch supporter and campaigner who stands to gain a lot if her man wins. IF this is democracy, I guess our founding father's wasted a lot of time trying to make this country one of justice and liberty for all. I think it is time to get rid of the elctoral college and bring the voting process into the 21st century. This chad business is reason enough and add to that all the different methods and ways of counting and tallying votes, it is a mess.
There are far better ways and if this election teaches nothing else, we need to have a decent voting and tallying system in place. It is sad to see our country so split.
posted on November 17, 2000 09:32:58 AM new
Boysmommy3,
"Politics in the South has always been about good ole boys and knowing what to do for whom to get what you want".
I wouldn't go so far as to attach any exclusivity in that to the south.
njrazd,
Yes, she returned THOSE funds in order to avoid a federal prosecution. A deal was struck.
To say that she was forced to return them would not be an overstatement.
posted on November 17, 2000 09:35:10 AM new
Could the title of this thread just as easily be called "Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis elects Bush President for you"? Since he was the last with the ball, it only seems fair to tackel him now.
"I guess our founding father's wasted a lot of time trying to make this country one of justice and liberty for all"
It's a temporary condition, but in any case, by one account that I saw, it wasn't time that the founding fathers would have wasted. It would have been booze. By that account they drank a huge amount while coming to agreement on the makeup of the constitution. Sort of sacrificed their personal constitutions for the greater good of the nation's.
posted on November 17, 2000 09:40:55 AM new
And Katherine Harris' decision is supported by the former Democratic chairman of the Florida House Ethics and Elections Committee, Norm Ostrau. He said lawmakers meant only to allow manual recounts when machine counts failed, not when voters failed to completely punch the ballot or voted for two candidates.
And now a Democratic Judge has also backed her up. She seems to be getting more support from Democrats than she is Republicans now.
**********************
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
posted on November 17, 2000 09:47:38 AM new
Would it be too far fetched to realize that once elected or appointed a judge has no further part affiliation while seated? Is it beyond the pale to consider a judge as someone who would interpret laws impartially and leave the other aspects of any infighting to the participants?
posted on November 17, 2000 09:50:31 AM new"Is it beyond the pale to consider a judge as someone who would interpret laws impartially and leave the other aspects of any infighting to the participants?"
But its not possible that Harris is making a fair decision in her eyes?
posted on November 17, 2000 09:56:44 AM new
Are you imparting to her the judicial responsibility in the matter?
Of course her decisions are fair and just. Ask any republican.
She was granted considerable leeway in order to do the right thing which is everything in her power to see that all voting is administered without error,ambiguity, or partiality to the completion of the election. She has chosen not to do as was suggested to her by the court. Instead she has demonstrated her willingness to set aside her responsibilities and use her position to further the wishes of her boss(es).
posted on November 17, 2000 10:02:13 AM new"Of course her decisions are fair and just. Ask any republican."
Didn't they just ask a democratic judge if her decision was fair and just and he agreed? It seems that someone besides a republican has agreed with her.
He's fair.
She's unfair.
He's democratic.
She's republican.
Sorry for thinking out loud like that, but I'm trying to understand the thinking here.
posted on November 17, 2000 10:45:53 AM newIf she was doing her job as you say there would not have been a problem in the first place. She would have managed the ship a little tighter and not allowed sub-standard ballots to be used, irresponsible polling assistants and the vote boxes would not have mysteriously disappeared had she been doing her job and managed the group appropriately.
It has been determined by county and state officials that the ballots in PB were legal and all rules in their design were followed and approved by both parties.
Was it determined whether irresponsible polling assistants were Republican or was there bi-partisan confusion?
The "missing vote boxes" were never missing. They were spoiled ballots that were turned in at the time of the election and the voters were given clean ballots to use.
Katherine Harris is responsible for applying the state laws to elections. However, the counties have local discretion as long as they follow the overall state guidelines. That's why different counties use different types of ballots. And there is no way she can be responsible for missing voting machines and pregnant chads. The local election offices do have some responsibility.
***********************
That's Flunky Gerbiltush to you!
posted on November 17, 2000 10:55:36 AM new
Well I have to ask. What would be the harm in Katharine Harris delaying the vote certification until the recounts are finished? Why is she is in such a goldurned rush? Certifying the Florida election without including the recounts now under way according, and without allowing the Florida Supreme Court to rule on her "discretion" can only backfire. So she certifies the election. What happens if when the recount is complete, Gore comes out ahead? What happens if she certifies the election, declares Bush the winner, and the Florida Supreme Court rules on Monday that she abused the "discretion" vested in her office by disallowing the hand recount? What could a few days hurt? What's the goldurned rush? Does she think that for one moment, "certifying" that election BEFORE there is an accepted and accurate recount is going to end this thing? Absolutely not, but what MAY happen is that even FURTHER damage may be done to her by her ill considered actions, in the event that the Florida Supreme Court rules that she ABUSED her discretion in disallowing the recount. Perhaps the Court may not rule in this way, perhaps the Court will UPHOLD her decision, we don't know. BUT by steamrolling ahead without due consideration to what damage such rulings may due to her office and future political aspirations seems foolhardy. Course as it appears, she's not much worried about staying in her elected office much longer.
posted on November 17, 2000 11:07:10 AM new
Njrazd,
Women moving ahead can happen ethically and morally without a conflict of interest or sleeping with the boss as you suggest.
Unlike others person she has a direct tie to the Bush campaign as well as a direct interest in the election going his way. Therefore; I do feel it is a direct ethical conflict of interest and she should have stepped aside.
Women move ahead every day without doing what she has done. She, like Bush, will now be known for the controversy and not their records.
posted on November 17, 2000 11:20:29 AM new
KatyD...it's not a matter of Harris being in a rush. It's a matter of the rule of law. You would have to ask the Florida Legislation why they enacted a law to use the 7-day cut off. I understand that law was in place before she was even elected. Harris is only applying the rule of law as established by the Legislation. Is there a way to find out why that law was set up the way it was?
boysmommy3...the fact that she is getting support from Democrats regarding her decision is proof that she has been following the law. Just because you can associate a conflict does not mean it actually exists. I have also read that Jeb actually endorsed Harris' opponent in 1998. I'm trying to find something in print about that.
posted on November 17, 2000 11:28:51 AM new"What would be the harm in Katharine Harris delaying the vote certification until the recounts are finished? Why is she is in such a goldurned rush?"
They've already had recounts what's the harm in accepting that? The manual recount that some want is a political process and that doesn't set well, the canvassing board examine any ballots in question and they make a judgement call, these canvassing boards are controlled by democrats. The machine recounts have been done, they weren't able to 'fudge the numbers'. The machines didn't have an interest in the outcome, they were as fair as you can get.
posted on November 17, 2000 12:18:22 PM new
Actually, machines aren't as "fair" as you can get. That's why hand counts are legislated and allowed in nearly every state when it comes to a close election, as this is. And for what it's worth, I've seen a couple of interviews on the news by engineers who have studied the statistics, and found a higher accuracy of tallys by hand counts than machines.
By the way, my original question above really had to do with the futility of Harris "declaring" any winner in the Florida election. This thing will go on long past tomorrow's deadline, and will absolutely be finally determined in the Courts. So that was my point about why Harris seems to be in such a hurry. It's not going to make a whit of difference in the long run, until the Courts have ruled, and the recounts have been tallied. And woe to her, if the Courts rule against her and the tally she "certifies" doesn't match up with the ending tally. So really, a couple of days don't matter. And before anybody starts moaning about the Courts now having the end say in all this, please don't forget that it is the Republicans who first took this to the Courts, and who are keeping it there now. For all their bellyaching at the beginning about keeping it out of the Courts and away from the lawyers, it's highly ironic that they were the first to file court action, and are continuing court action. Al Gore's proprosal was to take it out of the courts, recount the whole damn state, and be done with it. But apparently the Republicans are convinced that they're not going to like what the recount shows, so they're determined to fight this in the courts. So when the Republicans say the Democrats want to "count and recount until they get a figure they like", it can also be said that the Republicans want to make legal motions and more legal motions until they get a judgement THEY like. But then Republicans will go to court over anything, won't they? No issue is to small, especially if it has to do with someone's sex life and whether they had adulterous sex while in elected office. Now THAT was a matter of extreme importance.
(just kidding of course... please nobody nail me)
