posted on November 30, 2000 12:47:29 PM
Oh yeah, after reading all the threads here it's crystal clear that hate rhetoric is strictly a Republican ailment. When the Democrats do it they're obviously just exercising free speech.
A Democratic was about to speak at a political convention. As he began, a heckler repeatedly shouts, "I'm a Republican!" The Democrat ignores the heckler for a while, but finally, he gets to be too much to take. "Pray tell, sir, what are your reasons for being a Republican?" Said the Democrat. "Well, my daddy was a Republican, and so was his daddy." Said the heckler. Feeling very pleased that this jerk had given him an opening, the Democrat asked, " Well then sir, suppose your father and your father's father had been jackasses. What then would you be?"
posted on November 30, 2000 02:11:33 PM
One day Gore was out jogging and noticed a little boy selling puppies on the side of the road. Gore asked the boy, "What type of puppies are these"?
"These are Democratic puppies", said the boy.
A few days later Gore is jogging again with the press following him and he notices the boy on the side of the road again. Gore jogs up to the little boy and in front of the press asks the boy again, "What kind of puppies are these"?
"These are Republican puppies", said the boy in a clear voice.
"What! A couple of days ago you told me these were Democratic puppies, are these different puppies", asked Gore?
"No sir, these are the same puppies but they are older and now they've got their eyes open."
posted on November 30, 2000 06:11:35 PM
Well obviously since everything is up in the air with court proceedings going on everywhere, and awaiting the Supreme Court... Bush, isn't relinquishing the office of Gov. of TX, I suppose the same reason that Lieberman is holding that Senate seat.
They have BOTH set up transitions. Bush, as you know had to use his own funds, and set one up somewhere in VA, but he does have to stay in TX, as he still is the Gov. there.
Lieberman doesn't have to 'be anywhere' at the moment, well he is, he's in D.C. where the U.S Senate is, and where the Vice President would be.
So maybe that is why he's 'stashed at his ranch', but does go regulary to Austin, if you watch the news enough, you'd see that he has to.
posted on November 30, 2000 08:39:02 PM
Why do they keep Dubya stashed away on the ranch? Could it be possibly anything remotely related to the blatant theft of Democratic votes in a state headed by Dubya da fool, and his younger twin, Jeb?
Nah, that's too easy.
Dubya is hidden away as Katy D suggests: the emperor can no longer hide his clothes. Daddy, and all of his mighty fine advisers, have to bail him out by becoming living breathing, mouth pieces.
posted on November 30, 2000 08:48:00 PM
That puppet Bush is probably staying in taking a reading is fun phonics home course, since he screwed up so bad reading from the tele-prompt last time out.
posted on December 1, 2000 07:20:39 AM
Oh dear god, save us all! And there are people that actually voted for him? Actually, yesterday during his press conference at "the ranch", I found his choice of words very interesting when he kept referring to "the people electing as President and Vice-President, Dick Cheny and me", and "Dick Cheney and I are ready to be the President and the Vice-President". He kept mixing up the order...or maybe he wasn't.
posted on December 1, 2000 07:27:29 AM
Here's how he carried Iowa:
"When we carry Iowa in November, it'll mean the end of four years of Clinton-Gore.... We cannot let terrorists and rogue nations hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile....."I will work to end terriers and and barriffs everywhere across the world so that Iowa farmers can sell their product in countries heretofore where the doors have been closed."
posted on December 1, 2000 07:44:11 AMKatyD -- something else I saw in that little photo op session at the ranch. I'm truly disgusted that I saw it the first time and each and every re-play excluded it.
One reporter asked Dubya something about the fact that some folks (pundits) are saying he's a "lightweight," letting others do all the work. His response was amazing. Shocking, actually. He TRIED to put on an amused face, tried to laugh (but it was phony as all get out, very hollow), and just said something like, "Very funny . . . very amusing, _____(reporter's name)______."
And then he and his handlers and elders turned and walked away.
I'll tell you, if Bush gets in, we're in for some *danged* interesting times -- and I'm afraid it would be too like the sense of that old Chinese curse: May you live in interesting times.
posted on December 1, 2000 08:25:44 AM
Yes,Clevergirl I saw that. My husband and I started laughing so hard we nearly fell out of our chair. It was a very juvenile response, but totally predictable. He has a hard time "thinking on his feet" or maybe just "thinking".
posted on December 1, 2000 10:10:34 AM
uaru I found the joke much more amusing when I heard it the other way around a few weeks ago. It lost its meaning in your version. LOL
"If man were to be crossed with a cat, it would greatly improve the man, but deteriorate the cat." Mark Twain
posted on December 1, 2000 10:24:43 AM
I hope that as many as could have heard the tapes of the supreme court arguments, and realize that, most likely, each of the attorneys making argument have made in that brief time as much as whichever president will make over the whole term of his time in office.
posted on December 1, 2000 12:12:07 PM
CleverGirl, I missed the photo op at the ranch last night. I watched as much of CNN as I could stomach this morning and didn't see the infamous clip.
posted on December 1, 2000 01:31:48 PM
I heard the Supreme Court tapes, it was fascinating. I think Laurence Tribe, Gore's lawyer in the oral arguments, was a victim of his own stature as one of the most, if not the most, preeminent Constitutional scholars. It seemed like he never could switch from his original belief that this was purely a matter of state law, and, therefore, not a matter for the Supreme Court, to argue on the grounds that the Supreme Court had set out.
Boies would have been a much better choice, he has a great talent for discerning which way the wind is blowing and changing his position to argue on the terms the court seems to find important.
Katherine Harris' lawyer, Klock, was much better today, in attitude, at least, than he was before the Florida Supreme Court, where he interrupted the justices and was just generally nasty. He was much more deferential to today's justices, but still trotted out his same old argument that manual recounts are only warranted in cases of machine failure, and not for voter error (which he always pronounces as "urrhhh" ). No court in any of this has ever bought that argument, and the U.S. Supreme Court didn't pay him any mind today either.
[ edited by donny on Dec 1, 2000 01:33 PM ]
posted on December 1, 2000 02:07:18 PM
I got a kick out of Tribe's interview right after his time in court and before they played the tape. His adreline was pumping at 1000 mph and he could hardly breathe, much less speak.
I also think that Tribe did a good job of staying with his argument in the face of the diversions the justices tempted him with, in fact he got better as he went. They were exploring the strength of his case, not making one of their own.
posted on December 1, 2000 02:48:37 PM
I didn't get to see Tribe or Olson's post argument interviews, I had to leave at the moment the oral argument's tape was over, and was pushing it at that, having to rush out of the house to pick up my son at the bus station, only get that and find that the bus was 45 minutes late and he wasn't there. Sigh.
Tribe did stick tenaciously to his original position, as you say, in the face of diversions, and I think that was a mistake. He had already convinced Ginsberg, almost certainly, and Souter, probably, on the basis of the written briefs that were submitted days ago, and there wasn't much danger, I don't think, of losing them in oral arguments. What he had to do was then was to get some other justices who weren't already convinced of his original position to doubt the validity of Bush's position. But instead of poking holes in Bush's position, he used his time to try to strengthen his own.
When he heard what questions the justices were asking of Bush's lawyer, especially O'Connor, who seemed to be on the cusp, he should have used what he was hearing as a guide to where the justices thought the holes in Bush's appeal might be, and he could have jumped on it. Instead, he just kept on plodding along with the rightness of his own position, a position that couldn't have convinced enough justices in the first place, or else they wouldn't have agreed to hear the case, in spite of the position of all the legal analysts on tv who thought (after declaring that the Supreme Court would never hear that case), that the reason the Supreme Court had agreed to hear the case was merely to pour oil on the waters.
That idea, that no members, or few enough to make a difference, could see a Constitutional question here and were merely taking the case to reassure, or influence the view of, the American public of the moment, was stupid. This isn't the Warren court.
posted on December 1, 2000 03:17:47 PM
Did anyone else get the feeling that there was some "castigation" from the justices in the way they phrased some of their questions to Olson about the Florida Supreme Court ruling? I got the impression that at the very beginning of his session that there were some pointed questions about the rhetoric used by the Bush camp toward the Florida Supreme Court, after their ruling. Keywords used in these questions were "integrity" and "dishonesty". I just got the impression that what the justices were trying to get across to the Bush lawyers was that they didn't much appreciate all of the nasty rhetoric and "name calling" directed at the Florida Court by the Bush lawyers after their ruling. Not really germane to the issue at hand, but the point was made. Did anyone else pick up on this?
posted on December 1, 2000 03:19:10 PM
No, they were as informed of Olson's case as they were of his. Both of them were there to answer any questions brought to clarify their own positions not to poke holes in each other's cases. If either had done that directly it probably would have been cut off very quickly, and I think each of them knew that.
edited for: Katy, this one wasn't in response to you. I hadn't seen yours, and didn't go back to read. Flyby posting.
posted on December 1, 2000 04:22:11 PMSilkMoth - I imagine I originally saw the photo op on CNN, tho I'm not sure. Later versions on whichever channels had been "sanitized." I wish I could provide a link (or had the time to go in search of), but I can't. I can't imagine that the UNsanitized versions would be on any of the news network sites, but maybe they are.
all -- interesting comments re the session today. I must've been very tired, I kept getting lost, confused and confounded, esp. during Tribe's portion. Most of the whole thing made little sense to me.
I was disappointed in Tribe. I thought that he seemed well, old and slow, when what was needed was quick and spritely. I agree (w/Donny?) that Boies would've been a much better, sharper, more alert choice, but I don't believe he's a constitutional guy, is he? Wouldn't there have been a risk to put him before the Court with such a short prep time, not to mention the rest of what's going on that he's heavily involved in in Florida?
I DO like Boies. I like how sharp he is, and I like that he's always smiling and affable, polite and deferential. Makes the bitter pills and/or outrageous requests a little easier to swallow. I don't remember his main opponent's name (the slender, gray-haired, sharp-featured guy), but contrast his irritable outburst at the court the other day with Boies's smooth pleasantnesses. If I were a judge, I wouldn't want to be treated that way, and might find myself just a wee bit biased against him and his case after such an outburst.
I'm posting it because it's well done, but also because it discusses something that bothered me greatly in today's proceedings -- the realization during Tribe's time up at bat, that there could be some Federal statute that could conceivably trump the people's right to vote as outlined in the Florida Constitution.
I read the Florida Supreme Court decision and was enthralled with both what the Florida Constitution says about voting and voters rights, and the lower Court's acknowledgment and support of that. I found it depressing that our U.S. Supreme Court could find something, ANYthing that would nullify that IMO high-minded principle as embodied in the Florida Constitution and the lower court's decision.
scroll down the page to "Latest election video" and click. Then scroll down the list to " Powell arrives in Texas; Bush holds news conference" and click.
Conjugating verbs is not one of his strong points, is it?