posted on November 18, 2000 06:37:53 PM new
[i]The oft-repeated Democratic claim that they want a 'full, fair, and accurate' count of the Florida vote is clearly a lie. Here's why:
Under Florida law, within 72 hours, either candidate or party had the option to make requests, of individual county canvassing boards, for a full recount of the votes cast in an individual county. Democrats only asked those counties which had heavily Democratic votes to do a recount.
Democrats do want a "full, fair, and accurate count," but only of Democratic votes. Gore's later press conference offer to Bush to do a full hand count of each Florida county was an emotionally persuasive, but totally empty, gesture. Gore and his handlers would have to have known that, under Florida law, there's no provision for 2 candidates or parties to agree on a state wide recount after the 72 hour window for requests had passed.[/i]
Well, I find your example unpersuasive, I'm afraid. First, it's hardly a sin against fairness that the Democrats didn't initially call for recounts in Republican counties. They didn't choose counties JUST BECAUSE of the Democratic demographics, but because there had been problems in those counties' votes. But Gore did come out, as you point out, and offer the whole state. Your take is that he knew BUsh wouldn't agree, so he was safe in doing so, and FL law prevented it.
Then why did so many learned people suggest the very same thing BEFORE Gore made the offer? Jimmy Carter, Chris Matthews, Salon magazine, NYT editorial. And I also believe Doris Kearns GOodwin suggested it too.
If both parties had agreed, I can't believe that the Secty of State couldn't have been imposed on to exercise her *discretion* to allow it under these extraordinary circumstances. Or, barring that, that the courts wouldn't have entertained and no doubt acceded.
It's clear that we see things differently. I'm convinced the offer was sincere and genuine. You, unable to give the benefit of the doubt in such a matter, impugn Gore's motives and so are unable to take Gore's offer at face value or see it for anything other than a lie. IOW, your "facts" (other than existing FL law which I hold that smarter people than I think could be *bent* in such a case) are based on your biases (no offense intended here). And I could see where you'd think mine are too.
posted on November 18, 2000 07:51:42 PM new
Nope, CleverGirl, I don't have a better example to go by. (You could throw in other Democratic spin like the overvote problem that seems to be a "problem" only in Palm Beach County's butterfly balloting, but the core Democratic team moved away from that issue, leaving it in the background with non-core Democrats on the fringe like Jesse Jackson and Allan Dershowitz, both of whom are keeping those options alive in the hope that they can, if it comes to that, save the day for the DNC. Jackson especially, I think, would love to be the savior of the DNC.)
I'll try to refute your refutation though.
I've heard, and I tend to believe, that there were in fact other counties, or at least one county, with higher rates of voter error and/or a higher total of voter errors in this presidential election, than the four which the Democrats chose. But the other county, or counties, with larger voter error in this election were counties where the majority of the votes were for Bush.
In not choosing those high error "Republican" counties to recount, the Democrats might have made a mistake (aside from the public relation one) because, from studies of voter behavior, it's accepted that those attempting to vote Democratic have a higher rate of voter error than those attempting to cast Republican votes. Therefore, any previously uncounted vote discovered in a hand count will more likely be a an attempt at a Democratic vote rather than an attempt to vote Republican. That's why Bush's team realized early on that their best shot was not to try to even the playing field by asking for recounts of their own Republican counties, but to attack hand counting on all fronts (human error, mischief, etc. etc.)
I'm not saying at all that it was a sin that the Democrats chose the counties that they thought they could get the highest rate of return from. That's the smart way to do it. It's what they pay these guys for. The pattern of voter behavior is a highly studied science. I can't say for a fact, but I'd imagine that when the Gore camp realized how close the election was, they immediately got to crunching numbers on reported returns from every Florida county, broken down by precinct too, if they could, looking for a combination of a heavily Democratic concentration of votes and high number of undervotes, while at the same time hitting the books and finding out their options under Florida law.
What I am saying is that it can't be stretched out to fit a "Full, fair, and accurate" position. It's more like a "Smart, savvy, and effective" position (or so they hope.)
No matter that a lot of learned people suggested the same thing before Gore picked it up (and sort of pretended it was his own idea?), there's only so much you can do to bend the law before you get to the point where you've broken it.
Pretend again that Gore and Bush's positions are reversed in who's ahead at the moment. Pretend that Gore's position is "I've won already, I've won already!!" Now here comes Katherine Harris, GW's Florida campaign manager, and Florida Secretary of State, to say - "Well, hold on just a minute here, Al. Regardless of what Florida law says, I think it would be fairer to recount the whole state by hand and then we'll see who's won."
Would that still be just a little bend of the law, or a breaking?
What you see as me impugning Gore's motives, I see as me not impugning his intelligence, or the intelligence of his cadre. These aren't amateurs, and you can be sure that everything that the main guys say, and what trickles down to the party hacks to repeat like a mantra, has been pretty carefully crafted.
I think what you call my bias is more like a healthy skepticism. You're right, I don't give the benefit of the doubt to this stuff, at least not automatically. I try to examine it critically first. I think everyone, especially now, would do well not to take PR statements on their face.
posted on November 18, 2000 08:17:16 PM new
Would it be beyond the realm to suggest to you, Donny, that the limited areas in which requests for recounts were made were limited in the interest of minimizing the disruption of national politics as well as protecting by not broaching the very real possibility, in my opinion, that the practices of the republican campaign in total and the Bush family in specific were toeing the line if not actually across the line which separates legitimate campaign tactics from criminally sanctioned activities?
posted on November 18, 2000 09:25:20 PM new
Krs asked:
"Would it be beyond the realm to suggest to you, Donny, that the limited areas in which requests for recounts were made were limited in the interest of minimizing the disruption of national politics..."
It might not be, Krs, except for one thing:
The first Florida recount that took place because of the .05% or less difference between the winner and the loser, that first statewide machine recount, the one I think of as the 'automatic' Florida recount, could have been waived by the loser. The loser doesn't have to request it, and the winner can't refuse it. If the loser remains silent, it begins. But the loser does have the option to waive his right to it before it begins and accept the returns as is. And Gore didn't waive it.
Instead, Gore let it kick in. Meanwhile, Gore's team got to work to find out what plan C would be.
If Gore's overarching concern was preserving the tranquility of national politics, he would have waived his right to an automitic statewide recount, and it would all have been over.
I'm not sure I understand the second part of your question. Are you suggesting that the Bush team wouldn't have asked for manual recounts of Republican counties because they were afraid that closer scrutiny of these areas might reveal ballot rigging shenanigans that Jeb Bush and/or the RNC had already done?
If that's what you're getting at, I'd tend to think that wouldn't have been their main line of thinking. Not to say that Republicans, as well as Democrats, for that matter, don't have a long past, and probably healthy present and future, of vote fixing.
But if Jeb Bush really did try to fix this Florida election, he did a piss poor job of it. Here I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, and credit him with more skill than this result would suggest.
posted on November 18, 2000 10:34:43 PM new
In the first place, I doubt that any candidate of either party would have, or even could have waived a mandated recount (since it is required in law) with a margin as it then stood of less than 300 votes, particularly not with the questions already being raised during the polling hours concerning the ballotting in Palm Beach. Remember that complaints were logged about that issue as early as 10:00 am est. Gore HAD conceded the election until the closeness and those questions were brought to light.
Yes, I do think that any action by Gore which might quell investigation into the conduct of the polling in the state of Florida would be in the best long term interest of the nation.
I don't think that anyone can say that some very strange things did not take place. It was GW's cousin, after all, who bears the brunt of responsibility for the Fox networks announcement that Bush had taken the state before all of the polls were closed in that state. Surely the fact of the time zone difference in the Florida panhandle was not beyond his knowledge, and an act such as that announcement could very well have influenced the voting in that portion of the state, without mentioning the remainder of the nation which state's polls closed even later than those in the panhandle. This avoidance of recounts, for whatever stated reason, is difficult to view in any way other than that the avoider wants to close the coop before the chickens are discovered running amock. It smacks of coverup, and I think that the Gore administration, if there is one, would be hindered across the board by the following ramifications of any hint of a fix.
Yes, Jeb Bush is inept. That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. He recused himself so as to get out of the soup pot before he became an ingredient. His sacrificial lamb is named Harris.
The state of Florida has a long history of election manipulations, and some of the key players in past escapades were recruited to play in this one. I don't think they anticipated such a close vote. Had it been a larger majority for Bush they'd have pulled the thing off with no one the wiser, but because they seem to have attempted to maintain sublety their engineering was insuffient.
posted on November 19, 2000 12:39:33 AM new
It does all get pretty tangled, doesn't it?
I'll start in the middle, just to keep it good and confusing:
"It was GW's cousin, after all, who bears the brunt of responsibility for the Fox networks announcement that Bush had taken the state before all of the polls were closed in that state."
That's wrong. Florida was originally called for Gore, at about 7:50 pm. Eastern time. It was at that time that the rest of the Florida polls, on the Gulf side of the state, which is largely Republican, were still open. That action gave rise to later Republican crying that the premature network calling in Gore's favor caused some 10,000 central time zone Floridians who would have voted for Bush to basically say to themselves - "Oh, I won't bother to cast my vote now, Bush has lost Florida." At about 10 minutes 'till poll closing, many of these 10,000 voters must have already been in line to vote, and decided, enmasse, to turn around and leave. It's amazing they didn't all trample each other in their rush to get out of line and go home.
Bush's cousin prematurely called Florida for GW sometime around 2 o'clock am later that night (morning). The other networks followed suit within minutes. Calling Florida for Bush meant calling the whole country, and for a brief moment there was the picture of GW, presidential seal behind him, with the caption - George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States. That premature calling didn't lead anyone to decide not to vote. What it did was sear into watchers' consciousnesses the idea that GW was, indeed, president. Lots of America fell for it. Dubya fell for it too, and I think he continues to believe it. It looks like once an idea suceeds in penetrating, it's hard to dislodge it. Gore and his guys fell for it too, for a little while at least.
Gore did have the option to waive the first "automatic" recount. It kicked in under this Florida Statute - Title IX, 102.141 (4)
In part it says -
"A recount need not be ordered with respect to the returns for any office, however, if the candidate or candidates defeated or eliminated from contention for such office by one-half of a percent or less of the votes cast for such office request in writing that a recount not be made."
As I remember, it was some little while before the first final results were in. The automatic recount wouldn't have started until all the precincts in all the counties had reported their results, 100% of the state. It would be only then that anyone would know whether Gore had lost by 0.5% or less. That would had to have been sometime the next day, at the earliest. As I remember, at the end of the first 100% returns, Bush's lead was somewhere around 2,000. That was small enough for the 'automatic' recount statute to be invoked.
If a schlump like me can find it, Gore's guys certainly found it, and probably pretty dern quickly. I'd be really surprised if they hadn't found it before 100% of the returns were in. They would have had plenty of time to decide whether or not to use the waiver the statute provided them.
The results of that "automatic" recount lessened Bush's lead from a couple of thousand to a couple of hundred.
After that is when plan C went into swing; Democrats requesting recounts of selected counties.
"Yes, I do think that any action by Gore which might quell investigation into the conduct of the polling in the state of Florida would be in the best long term interest of the nation."
Here I do agree with you, and would expand on that a bit further and say that any action by Gore which might quell investigation into the conduct of polling would be in the best long term interest of the smooth running of politics, for the Democrats as well as the Republicans. There really aren't "Republican" dirty tricks, or "Democratic" dirty tricks, but just the same old tricks, performed by both Republicans and Democrats. Every time that one of them makes a big public show out catching the other one doing what they themselves haven't been caught doing at that moment, they all run the risk that by repeated exposure of these deeds, people might begin to catch on that all of these guys, on both sides, are basically pulling the same stunts. The saving grace for both parties is public stupidity. No matter how much exposure, there will always be a large part of the populace who truly believe that - "The difference between them and us is that they lie and we don't." I actually heard some guy on TV say that the other night.
I don't really know how rampant election manipulation is in Florida compared to other states, but I do know that it's got a long history in probably every state, except maybe Minnesota. Here in Georgia we have some of the most civic-minded citizens in the U.S. Not only do they vote early and often, even their own deaths don't prevent them from carrying out their patriotic duty to vote; One especially diligent dead guy voted 3 times in a recent election. Gotta love that kind of dedication to the democratic process.
As to Jeb's ineptitude, could be you're right, I never paid any attention to him. It's kind of sad, really, and makes me miss the days of Richard Daley and Huey Long. At least they knew how to do it right.
posted on November 19, 2000 06:42:53 AM new
No, Gore rescinded his concession at about 0200 am, 11-8. His followers were standing around in the snow awaiting his farewell when, after quite a delay, the announcement came that it wasn't over yet. I'm pretty sure that the vote was closer then than 2000, but am sure that the concentration of the media and evidently of the Gore team was on the disparate and uncharacteristic vote which Buchanon had received in Palm Beach.
Your version does leave room for the calling of the State Highway Patrol to interdict black voters in the panhandle counties, who were attempting to get in line to vote, to prevent a reversal from the initial announcement of Bush's win. The phone lines from Jeb's office must have nearly melted as he issued orders mobilizing his entire machine toward that end. They later cooked the story that those interdictions were only part of an ongoing statewide program of vehicle stops to correct tailite failures and that it just happened that those polling place locations were scheduled for that night. I don't know that Richard or Huey could have done better in this day of immediate media coverage. Those pesky CNN cameras are everywhere!
With Gore directing that the 'conspiracy rhetoric' be toned down http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36818-2000Nov16.html we probably won't know the truth of what is so obvious for some time to come, unless a Bush camp leader has a particularly spiritual experience today and decides to come clean for the good of his or her everlasting soul.
posted on November 19, 2000 07:15:22 AM new
[b]I've heard, and I tend to believe, that there were in fact other counties, or at least one county, with higher rates of voter error and/or a higher total of voter errors in this presidential election, than the four which the Democrats chose. But the other county, or counties, with larger voter error in this election were counties where the majority of the votes were for Bush.
In not choosing those high error "Republican" counties to recount,...[/b]
...the Democrats were exercising their prerogative under the law. Is that FAIR? In my book it is.
Your underlying premise for your argument that Democrats saying all they want is a "fair, full and accurate" count is a lie is basically about what constitutes fairness:
I'm not saying at all that it was a sin that the Democrats chose the counties that they thought they could get the highest rate of return from. That's the smart way to do it. (snip) What I am saying is that it can't be stretched out to fit a "Full, fair, and accurate" position. It's more like a "Smart, savvy, and effective" position (or so they hope.)
IMO, being smart, savvy and effective isn't mutually exclusive to being full, fair and accurate. Look, as I said, it's about what (one thinks) constitutes fairness. I just don't think it was *unfair* for Democrats to NOT call for recounts in heavily Republican counties where there were a lot of errors -- the Republicans had the same opportunity and eschewed it, choosing instead an untenable position. But if YOU do, then I can see why you believe the Gore campaign isn't being fair. I just can't imagine any sporting event or other competition, for example, where an opponent or opposing team goes out of their way to make sure their opponent(s) exercise all their rights if they don't choose to -- save them from themselves? Right.
About Gore's offer to recount all votes statewide:
No matter that a lot of learned people suggested the same thing before Gore picked it up (and sort of pretended it was his own idea?), there's only so much you can do to bend the law before you get to the point where you've broken it.
I have no doubt the courts would have had to rule on such a thing (not just Mrs. Harris), but I also feel they would have ruled affirmatively if BOTH parties agreed to it in advance. If not, then it was a good idea that didn't work. Back to the drawing board. And who cares whose idea it was, or whether Gore gave proper credit if it wasn't his? He and Liebermann spent the day together, alone, and it's my understanding it was Gore's idea (w/L's help??) Or maybe he did see Chris Matthews that morning or the NYT editorial whenever it ran? Does it matter? My POINT was that others of varying partisan positions (or virtually none) suggested the same thing, considering it the fairest thing to do for all concerned, including the American people (not to mention the rest of the world) who will want and need to feel whoever's elected was LEGITIMATELY elected.
Dear God. Can you imagine a President Bush who has to face the rest of the world having wanted to deny having ballots recounted in his own election? Takes my breath away.
Your explanation of why Republicans are adamantly opposed to recounts (because Democrats are apparently dumber/less capable) certainly explains a LOT about their, um, strategy.
posted on November 19, 2000 09:31:59 AM new
CleverGirl, I don't think it's fair to interpret what I wrote, that because Democrats have a higher rate of voter error than Republicans, that I meant they are "dumber" than Republicans. It's probably more a reflection that the Democratic voter base has historically included those on the lower end of the literacy scale (i.e., immigrants - except for Florida's Batista Cubans, who go Republican). Let me add also, before you accuse me of saying that Democrats can't read, that the more education a person has, the more liberal their political views are. The more educated end of the spectrum is more largely Democratic.
Also, while hand recounts, as a matter of course, won't favor Republicans, Bush had another very good reason not to want a partial or total hand recount. Bush was already winning (or had already won, as you like.) The winning candidate would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by reshuffling the numbers, while the losing candidate would have nothing to lose and everything to gain.
I don't mean to say at all that Gore's availing himself of his legal right to request selected recounts wasn't fair. It was entirely fair. What I am saying is that it doesn't fit into a righteous crusade to make sure every vote is counted "Fairly, fully, and accurately," to clothe Gore and the Democrats as defenders of every voter's right to not be disenfranchised. Gore and the Democrats were right, they hadn't done anything improper, they weren't trying to "steal" the election. It's just too bad they tried to puff it up into some kind of holy cause that it's clearly not.
And let me caution, before we happily envision a court decision that could smooth the way for a solution not provided for under law, that what a court decides today doesn't only affect the case it hears today. It has the potential to shape future, unknown situations. Fixing up a problem today with an court decision driven by immediate expediency could open the door for a future party to say "Well, you did that then, you can do this now."
Krs -
No, I don't remember exactly when it was that the networks called Florida for Bush and Gore called Bush to conceed. Somewhere around 2 am. Anyway, it was way after polls in Florida, and everywhere else, for that matter, had closed.
As to the reported hassling of black voters, it's entirely possible that that happened. It's hard to know if that was only a politically directed hassling, or just your basic - "Here's an opportunity to hassle a black guy, I'm going to take it," action that some law enforcement agents all over, and especially in the South, see as a job perk, or a combination of the two.
If it was a politically directed motion, it might have been Jeb's desperate attempt to keep Florida fixed. He had promised Florida to GW before election day. When the networks called it for Gore, Jeb was in a tough spot and, reportedly, emotions ran high in the Bush famililial group. GW, his wife, Mommy and Daddy all went back to governor's mansion, leaving Jeb alone, out in the cold. Maybe he moved fast to get back in their good graces and reclaim his seat at Thanksgiving dinner. Who knows?
posted on November 19, 2000 10:04:15 AM new
"As to the reported hassling of black voters, it's entirely possible that that happened. It's hard to know if that was only a politically directed hassling, or just your basic - "Here's an opportunity to hassle a black guy, I'm going to take it," action that some law enforcement agents all over, and especially in the South, see as a job perk, or a combination of the two".
Huh? This is accepted practice where you live?
Whether it is or not, can you avoid the remarkable coincidence of this "job perk" being taken advantage of on election night and at the polling place(s)?. It would seem to me that if it was only an act of 'job perk' the officers involved would have enough sense to do their thing away from tthe network coverage of a national presidential election unless they were specifically ordered to indulge themselves at those places and at that time. I don't know what command structure is in place in the state of Florida, but in California both the state police and the highway patrol are under the direct control of the governor of this state.
As to Jeb's attempts to maintain the good graces of his family by committing whatever act, illegal or merely questionable; I suppose we are all to accept that as it is his familial obligation which of course supercedes any responsibility that he may have under the law as the governor of Florida?
These things do a certain damage to your "Democrats do want a "full, fair, and accurate count," but only of Democratic votes" claim, since it would eem to me that if the Florida polling played as it increasingly seems to have played the best that the Democratic party could hope to obtain is a count of democratic votes at all. It does appear that the republican machine was at work to prevent those votes from being made.
posted on November 19, 2000 10:35:00 AM new
"Huh? This is accepted practice where you live?"
I wouldn't say that it's "accepted," but it does happen where I live, in Georgia, yes. And it happened and still happens today in NYC, where I grew up and lived for 20 years. Does it not happen where you live?
"Whether it is or not, can you avoid the remarkable coincidence of this "job perk" being taken advantage of on election night and at the polling place."
I think it would be a remarkable coincidence if it hadn't been taken advantage of on election night.
"As to Jeb's attempts to maintain the good graces of his family by committing whatever act, illegal or merely questionable; I suppose we are all to accept that as it is his familial obligation which of course supercedes any responsibility that he may have under the law as the governor of Florida?"
I think what we should all accept is that this is the way politics is. It hasn't changed since JFK was elected president with a whole lot of help from Joe Kennedy Sr., and, of course, Bill Daley's father, and I doubt it will have changed by the time the 2040 elections roll around.
Politics is a lot like that scene in Casablanca where Claude Raines, while accepting his winnings from one of Rick's employees in the casino, orders Rick's Cafe closed saying - "I'm shocked... shocked to find that gambling is going on here."
I would not be shocked... shocked! to learn that vote rigging had gone on in Florida for Bush. What I'd be shocked to learn was that it also hadn't been going on for Democrats as well.
posted on November 19, 2000 11:14:04 AM newCleverGirl
It is quite simple, the excerpts contain information that tends to disqualify what you had previously tried to justify. Of course, you obviously do not recognize the information that rebuts, much like a person who fails to know or denies that he or she have bad breath.
BTW, is the term "gobblydegook" synonymous with "out in left field?"
posted on November 19, 2000 11:20:42 AM new
So then, Donny, I take it that now you can set aside your previous bias against democratic practices and acceptance of republican similar practices to say " Hey, it's all politics, everybody is playing politics"?
posted on November 19, 2000 01:36:39 PM new
"So then, Donny, I take it that now you can set aside your previous bias against democratic practices and acceptance of republican similar practices to say " Hey, it's all politics, everybody is playing politics"?
If so, we can agree."
Well, we can agree in the end, but I don't think I had a previous bias against democratic practices, as such.
Let me see if I can be clearer. I think both the Democrats and the Republicans are telling lies about this whole thing. The Republicans have to use lies, because their position is unsupportable without them. On the other hand, the Democratic don't have to be telling the lies they're telling, because their position is already correct. That's the bias I have towards the current Democratic lies, that they're putting tainted icing on their cake that it doesn't need.
But, its the nature of the thing that more people will respond to an emotionally persuasive argument. So, rather than rely on support on the basis of the facts, the Democrats, as politicians, need to have a fuzzy concept that has emotional appeal, that more people can more easily relate to and take up the banner for.
are discovered running amock. It smacks of coverup, and I think that the Gore administration, if there is one, would be hindered across the board by the following ramifications of any hint of a fix.