posted on December 9, 2000 05:23:46 PMnetworker - Did I read somewhere (in one of your posts elsewhere) what you do for a living, or some reference to it? Would you mind sharing that?
I absolutely think you're on to something, with this, and would like to discuss it with you a bit (actually, I'd like to discuss it off-line, but we'll start with this):
[quote]
The Bush Team makes you feel that their is something buried in these undercounts that they don't want the American people to see. And that is what scares me. I am reading some election stats from Miami-Dade, are you aware that the 9000 under votes represents almost 10% of the votes cast. A statistician can except a 1% to 2% margin but a margin of 10% signals something is very wrong.
[/quote]
I've watched this unfold rather carefully over these past weeks and at one point began to sense an increasing desperation (or increasingly sensed, not sure which) that absolutely goes beyond merely the fact that George Bush & friends want to win.
First I thought, esp. after reading up on some of Bush Sr's financial favors and dealings (and Shrub's too), that there was something in that -- that the old regime wanted to continue some of their fun international money-making business deals. And there may be a lot to that.
As I watched the near hysterical (at times) efforts to squelch the vote recounts, AND became aware of some of the truly unsavory things going on there, it became clear that yes, there were many things they didn't want the public to see or know.
Like you, I don't know that what I've seen and read about the vote suppression (in the broad sense of the term) is all there is to it.
I just keep thinking back to the remark Bush made shortly after the 7th that it'd be chilly at Thanksgiving if his brother doesn't/hadn't delivered Florida. It wasn't so much the remark as the tone -- and also the underlying assumption that a whole state were something with Jeb's power to actually delivery (with the help of a willing accomplice in K. Harris??). Or, for that matter, the comment to Gore, "But my brother told me I won Florida."
I'm stunned by that 10% figure from Miami-Dade. Are you getting that online somewhere?
Another piece of the puzzle for me was watching parts of the Martin and Seminole County cases. Goard's testimony. And even more so, perhaps, Todd Schnick's testimony. I loved the last question from Dem lawyer: "Did it ever occur to you that what you were doing was a felony?" And then, after a few seconds of rapt silence, "I have no further questions."
Because his protest was based upon false premises. He lost the the election and the recount and had to come up with some rationale to continue to cry for redress. It can be prettied with rhetoric, but Gore's still trying (and may yet succeed) to steal the election.
posted on December 9, 2000 05:26:18 PM
krs~ I don't need a party job,THANKS VERY MUCH, because I spent 8 years and won a contested election early on in my career to run a town/ small city. I was NOT elected on the basis of my political affiliation but on my ability to get things done.
I count friends and supporters on BOTH sides of the aisle.
I have been there and done that in particularly turbulent times. Even though you don't, the people who know me, friend and (political) foe have great respect for me.
I have been retired from poltics for 5 years. I still receive entreties to return. Sorry but I already gave my left leg, how much more does the public want?
So please don't presume to tell me what politics and law is all about...........thanks in advance,
dejavu
[ edited by dejavu on Dec 9, 2000 05:27 PM ]
posted on December 9, 2000 05:41:58 PM
Toke, thank you for your reply. Can you elaborate on this part?
"Because his protest was based upon false premises"
If we both mean the protest is the part that came before the certification (i.e. the part where the original hand recounts were done), what "false premises" did you see as being present?
posted on December 9, 2000 05:46:49 PMclevergirl - That is why the US Supreme will have a difficult time kicking this decision back. They didn't rewrite law they interpreted it. Its not their fault that Florida Statute on recounts pretty much reads. Do what the Freak you please just count them.
I fear the US Supremes are poised not to kick it back, but to overturn it entirely. And not on the basis of FL law, but on the basis of perhaps the Due Process clause of the Constitution, and maybe that Title 3 thing which I've frankly never had the patience to absorb.
Now on the dimple issue, I don't think intent can be captured from an indenture in the card. Unless of course the whole card has been punched that way.
I do, and my view is based on several things. First, Texas, Massachusetts and heretofore Florida and no doubt other states count them. (Well, the Supreme Court PERSONALLY counted them, and after that their Secty of State outlawed that particular vote gathering method.)
Second, testimony from the manufacturer was that the channels in which the chads fall need to be cleaned out now and then -- in Miami-Dade, testimony was that they hadn't been cleaned in 8 years. If they're not cleaned out, the chads pile up and prevent a clean punch or, in fact at times, any punch. The manufacturer (Repub's own witness, actually) also said the only way to get a full count was to count the undervotes manually, that the machines are that error prone. There was other testimony about other mechanical factors about how the device is designed that can thwart a clean punch, as well.
It defies common sense that the number representing the undervotes in punchcard counties, so much higher than in non-punchcard counties -- would actually represent people who chose to vote less important races and skip the Presidential race -- and made that decsion at the very last second, after a dimple had already been made. How else would a dimple get there, if the voter hadn't in the overwhelming majority of cases decided to put it there?
posted on December 9, 2000 05:59:31 PM
Hey could somebody please clarify this for networker. Did the Florida Supreme Action to order the recounts also decertify Bush as the winner pending the outcome of the recounts.
If so the Florida Legislature has the Green Light to elect its own slate to save Florida's place in the Electoral College. What happens if the Democrats in the Legislature elect its own slate of electors and who decides who is lawful slate. Since the actual Electoral Vote under the Constitution is mailed the electors from the 50 States don't actually meet anywhere.
Since the Electors have to be chosen and their vote submitted on December 18, 2000 to the Combined House and Senate for reading by the President of The Senate. Coincedently that is Al Gore right now and will still be Al Gore on January 6, 2000.
The Constitution hasn't a single provision to cover a State having a problem with its slate of electors. Nor does it provide a remedy for a State that has problems. As such where do we go from there. Floridians don't like this but seems to me the Combined Session of Congress has no choice but to reject both Florida slates. If that happens then a majority shrinks from 270 to 257. And since Bush needed all 25 to reach 270 its obvious that with Florida undecided he can't reach 257.
This plays even more when the Courts have already in prior cases that it is voice of the Florida voter that decides the electors. I see the legislature with its hands tied if it tries to force a slate in abscence of the will of the voter being decided. Any body have any relevant parts of Florida's Constitution to address this. Looking at your voter rules it probably reads with ambiguity also. Sounds like this is going to get more interesting before it gets resolved.
posted on December 9, 2000 06:02:24 PM
Oh, networker, one more thing.
I was very struck by how much effort the FL Republican party went through to encourage absentee ballots -- NOT just to encourage overseas military ballots, but to encourage people to use that method instead of going to the polls. They spent $500,000 on these pretty mailers with a letter from Jeb Bush suggesting that they vote Republican, and pre-printed with their pertinent, required info (except, of course, for the Voter ID # in Martin and Seminole Counties).
I can understand a GOTV effort, no problem -- but why encourage ABSENTEE ballots? Can you think of any reason? Is there anything you can think of, OTHER than that absentee ballots are more convenient and therefore might encourage a few more votes for that factor alone? Anything else strike you?
posted on December 9, 2000 06:22:02 PM
According to today’s Orlando Sentinel the total vote in Miami-Dade was 653,963 and the under-vote was 9,000 ballots. Unless someone is using some type of newfangled math that works out to 1.38%, not 10%.
Also, for those that bother to read both sides of an issue this article, also from today’s Orlando Sentinel, has a short excerpt of Justice Scalia’s comment on the grant of the writ of certiorari as well as an excerpt of Justice Stevens’ dissent.
posted on December 9, 2000 06:54:39 PM
toke - I'm sure you know who the bible thumpers are, why else do they call it the bible belt?
I am sick to death of them trying to run my life with out dated beliefs and religion in politics. And as long as I'm ranting - I wish politicians at the end of their speechs would stop saying, "God bless America." Talk about religion and politics what gives them the right to say that?
posted on December 9, 2000 07:08:42 PM
clevergirl - I am by profession an Actuary and CPA. However my many diversified financial interests has thrown me into running The Reed Anderson Holding Group. The law has always been a hobby of mine since way back when I was given a copy English Common Law and a copy of Black's Law Dictionary by my Great Grand Father. I was given the books on my 7th birthday and the card read. Know the law but never insult me by practicing it.
Numbers that I quoted from I received from the Miami Chapter of The NAACP. I have not been able to validate them with the official voter turnout records. However using my skills as an Actuary. I simply performed some simple demographical calculation using the census data as a means of adjustment. Miami has approximately 454764 people in it as of the 1990 census this number is adjusted 7.666% which is the rate the population has historically grown. Which gives us 489626 people, of those 23% is under 18 thus not eligible to vote so we reduce the population by this number to arrive at 377012. This number is further reduced by 3.666% to account for people over 65 which are over 65 to the point of not voting. This gives us 363213 people who are eligible to be registered to vote. Well the national average of registered voters is 79.7% so we use this figure to arrive at registered voters which is 289481. Since voter turnout and registered voters are too different animals altogether we use the historic turnout of the last three elections to arrive at approxiately 145,660 people voting. 10% of that number is 14,566 so 5% is 7283 and we have over 9000 uncounted undervotes as they have been officialy dubbed by both Bush and Gore Lawyers.
That large a number of votes going uncounted in one area is shocking to me. I personally could careless if they are counted in this election. I want to know why the machine kicked them and what can be done to make sure it never happens again. I have tried to avoid the racial disenfranchisement issue of the votes because due to processes here in Florida it has not been clearly ascertained where in the Miami-Dade County area the undervote comes from.
Then when you look at, as posted by someone here on auction watch that from 2 to 3 million votes went uncounted due to the machines nationwide. It makes you put those 9000 in a stunning reality that a city whose population isn't a million people accounts for 0.33% of the National Undervote. And I used the 3 million number. If you use the conservative 2 million number this small nowhere on the map town accounts for 0.50% of the national undervote. Something is wrong in Miami-Dade County. And we haven't even gotten to Broward or Palm Beach Counties.
Florida Republicans and other Republicans here on Auctionwatch can say what they please. But those numbers are scary, in fact let's say the 9000 in Miami-Dade come from Black Areas of the County. You have what I feel is a serious 15th Amendment issue because the right to vote of itself carries the right to have it counted. When you couple that Constitutional right with Florida's Constitutions Clear intent of voter to count a ballot. If you don't manually count them Florida is in violation of its own constitution since a machine cannot meet the standard of Florida Law since it cannot determine intent. And if the votes themselves come a minority area you run afoul of the 15th Amendment.
I am looking forward to the oral arguments in Bush's appeal and I think it is time that Gore quit being nice on the issue of where these particular ballots just so happen to come from and slug Bush on the 15th Amendment issue and the ambuigity of Florida Law since the machine cannot determine voter intent only a human can do that. The Florida Supreme laid it out and that's why the Supreme Split on Bush's appeal because everyone sees that Florida has laws that limit a manual recount but has language for counting that sets a standard that a machine doing the counting cannot possibly meet. Determine and count a ballot where the voters intent is clearly established.
I might seem controversial but after Hart Cottage Quilts last post to me time to take off the gloves and just say the Florida Republican Party is attemtping through conveinently rewritten law in 1999 violate the 15th Amendment rights of certain Florida voters. And since their law was IMHO recently changed to be the stack of ambuigity it is now. It makes a person stepping away from the issue to try and look at it without the sinister aspect say hey. "is it better to protect and defend the 15th Amendment. Or is it better to allow a State to have voting laws that could be used to legally violate the 15th Amendment."
posted on December 9, 2000 07:31:36 PM
Dr. beetle - You pulled the number fro the orlando sentinel for the whole county. Care to give us the numbers for just the city of Miami since the so called undervotes appear to come from precincts within the city itself.
Now for the unasked question. Why doesn't Gore just use this information. Because the American people just went through six years of The Republican Party stooping to the lowest depths to destroy a President. Do the American people need to start the next administration off the same way. The answer is no, so his team is addressing votes with no names and faces because applying faces to the votes makes The Republican Party look IMHO terrible. Especially when you consider the fact that they will stop at nothing to make sure these votes are not counted.
posted on December 9, 2000 07:33:02 PM
Chococake -
"I wish politicians at the end of their speechs would stop saying, "God bless America." Talk about religion and politics what gives them the right to say that?"
What gives them the right to say that is a little Constitutional principle called freedom of speech. And what gives them the right to feel that way is another little thing called freedom of religion.
posted on December 9, 2000 08:27:16 PMHCQ - Sorry I'm late responding to this, I was at a Christmas party.
I said: I will *not* accept Bush if he *wins* this way.
You said: [i] barbarake, please explain how you intend to put this into action. Will you refuse to abide by any act of Congress that Mr. Bush signs into law? Will you use some other title than "President" for him? (Careful - remember how desperate it sounds to refer to ebay as "egreed".)
Just curious. [/i]
I am just an 'ordinary' American. I don't come from a wealthy family and I have no official ties to either the Republican nor Democratic party. Nor do I have a famous name. But - to paraphrase Shakespeare - I feel that 'something smells in the state of Florida'.
I will never believe that Bush honestly won the Presidency if the manual recount is not completed. Will I follow laws that Bush signs into law - Yes, I'm a very boring person, I tend to follow the law. But - if I win the Nobel prize and get an invitation to the White House - I'd turn it down. (Although I don't think Bush would loose much sleep over it. <grin> But - if the Republicans manage to block this recount - I will have lost all respect for both the Republican Party and George W. Bush. But this is not the same as respecting the 'office of President'. I respect the office but (not necessarily) the man.
I've always been a 'sometimes Republican, sometimes Democrat'. I voted for Clinton and I also voted for Reagan. But - at this point - I can't see myself voting Republican any more.
So what does that matter? Not much - I'm just one little vote. But I know that I'm not the only one that feels this way. We've been discussing this ad nauseum but mainly from the viewpoints as Republicans and Democrats. But there's a lot of people like me - we're not consistently either. But I think a lot of us are now going to swing Democrat just because of the way the Republican party has acted. There have been too many 'irregularities' in Florida and they all seem to be on the Republican side. Where there's smoke, there's fire. And it *will* all come out eventually.
[ edited by barbarake on Dec 9, 2000 08:53 PM ]
[ edited by barbarake on Dec 9, 2000 08:55 PM ]
posted on December 9, 2000 08:49:42 PMI have tried to avoid the racial disenfranchisement issue of the votes because due to processes here in Florida it has not been clearly ascertained where in the Miami-Dade County area the undervote comes from.
You mean that information is not available on a precinct-by-precinct basis? Are you working with the Democratic Party at all on getting some demographic figures re precincts, not to mention voting information? That information has GOT to be available -- or is that yet another Republican dirty trick <g>?
And, just a personal opinion here, you sound mighty high-minded in your approach to not go into the racial disenfranchisement issue, but I'm not so sure you're not hobbling yourself unnecessarily there. You're an actuary -- assume that's true and see if you can prove yourself wrong.
Why doesn't Gore just use this information.
I've thought about that a lot. Not just the issues you raise, but so many others. I know he's not UNaware of all this (and more), because the press reports endlessly how *involved* he is (tho truth to tell he's been keeping pretty busy with the legal efforts and holding the troops together), and he himself said he speaks to Jesse Jackson daily. I'm sick of Democrats being wimps, but that's another discussion.
Anyway, I've finally arrived at the conclusion from all I've seen (and other I've just gotten a whiff of) that Republican dirty tricks have abounded in this election, including intimidation and threats from James Baker himself. NO ONE could talk me out of my opinion that the entire ugly picture is precisely why Gore has persisted through this. If Gore can't keep the bullies and thugs from taking the White House through totalitarian tactics, at least he will have given it every conceivable effort.
I mean how can he let tactics like slowing down/disrupting fully legal manual recounts by hauling the Canvassing Boards into court endlessly win? How can he let a gang of Republican thugs ending a recount effort win? How can he let Republicans get away with "making a better offer" to a city mayor who then withdraws his support from the recount effort win? And son on -- but the biggest question, of course: how can he let the insistance that legal votes not be counted win?
One could argue that Gore would do better to go public with what he knows, including *mere* suspicions. Parts of me would love that, but it's also true that when you wrestle with pigs, you only get dirty and the pigs love it. These particular pigs are in hog heaven in the dirt. Gore has chosen the high road, and I suppose we'll have to respect that -- at least for now.
On a related topic, I've been disappointed with the Justice Department's apparent slowness in getting some of this investigating done that so sorely needs it. However, there's a reason for that, too: apparently their policy is not to get too involved until an election is over.
I hope you'll reread my other posts and respond to some of the other points I raised.
posted on December 9, 2000 09:16:54 PM
No donny, I believe that is a prayer. We don't allow prayer in school, at football games, etc. Remember not all people believe in the Christian God. Heck not all people believe in God! So, if prayer is disallowed by law everywhere else why are the leaders of our country addressing "all" the people permitted to use God Bless America? I really don't think it's appropriate, and it certainly doesn't show separation of church and state.
What gives them the right to say that is a little Constitutional principle called freedom of speech. And what gives them the right to feel that way is another little thing called freedom of religion.
Depending on where they say it. And whether they held office or not. You won't (or by law, shouldn't) here them say that in public schools, for example.
Is there a comparison to be made between Gore's apparent inactivity as Clevergirl describes it and Clinton's similar waiting stance while under attack the in the congress by Stark and the Republican members?
"So, if prayer is disallowed by law everywhere else why are the leaders of our country addressing "all" the people permitted to use God Bless America? "
First off, prayer is not "disallowed by law everywhere else." You should realize it's jsut as tyrannical to try to prevent someone else from praying as it is for someone else to try to force you to pray. And, it's just as wrong to try to prevent someone else from expressing their religious beliefs as it is to have someone try to prevent you from expressing your religious beliefs (or non-beliefs).
The doctrine of separation of church and state does not let us require our statesman to have no religious beliefs, nor does it mean we should have the right to stifle our leaders' expression of their religious beliefs. What it means is that they shouldn't use their political power to force us to to practice their religion. This is a far cry from a politician saying "God Bless America" at the end of a speech.
Upholding the rights of others to say things we don't agree with is the very basis of the idea of free speech.
posted on December 9, 2000 10:59:44 PM
I don't wanna get into this whole religious thing, but remember WHY America was founded. Remember WHY our currency has In GOD we trust. Remember WHY we place our hand on a BIBLE when taking an oath. Remember WHY we are one nation under GOD. Remember GOD bless America.
There is no seperation of state and religion, because RELIGION is WHY the settlers came here. Without religion, we would HAVE no state.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION.
I aint no religious freek, but I DO hold my Christian beleifs.
I always sit back when this subject comes up, because usually the soapbox has a long line, but instead of always preaching YOUR right to NOT have to be subject to religion, how about giving others the SAME rights to beleive in THEIR GOD any way they choose!
Whether your Catholic, Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddist, or Athiest/Agnostic, we EACH have the right to voice it, for that is what this Country is all about. FREEDOM OF CHOICE.
posted on December 10, 2000 01:04:13 AMCleverGirl, great post. I echo your sentiments regarding the conduct of the Gore team. They have stuck to the high ground throughout. It's especially apparent when contrasted to Republicans' behavior, particularly Jim Baker's venomous attacks on the judiciary.
The last month has given us an illuminating view into the character of the Republican captains behind the figurehead. Scares me to death.
posted on December 10, 2000 02:41:08 AM
Wow, pocono calm down! Now, did I say anything about what they believe in? I just don't want someone else's God brought up in a public forum. All of the public is not Christian, you said that yourself. How would you like it if someone replaced God for whoever they worshiped preceeding "bless America". Think about it. Or how about instead of saying it at the end of the speech they just do it before the speech Wouldn't that be a prayer?
Gore is a Born Again isn't he? Did it stop me from voting for him? No! I don't care who you or anyone else prays to, just don't put it in my face. What about my freedom?
As far as why and how we got here that's true. However, things change they get outdated. Just like what we're going though now. Don't you think decisions and laws will be changed because they're outdated and don't work in this society anymore?
posted on December 10, 2000 02:46:11 AM
No, the Democrats haven't stuck to the high ground throughout, it's just been a bit higher than the Rebpublican's, and that's not saying much.
And, it looks like the Democrats are trying to make up for lost time. Bill Daley trotted out after the Florida Supreme Court's ruling that all undervotes in every Florida County had to be counted, and declared that this was just what the Gore team wanted all the time. Hooey and hogwash. At the oral arguments in the last Fl. Supreme Court case, when Pariente asked David Boies if it wouldn't be fairer to count undervotes statewide, rather than just in Miami Dade, Boies said, to paraphrase, that Bush's lawyers hadn't asked for that, and, Boies said further, that there seemed to be a feeling that Bush should be protected from his own lawyers. The majority didn't buy it, and ordered a hand count statewide instead.
And I heard Margaret Carlson, on CNN, declare that Gore had kept to the high road by never trying to make use of the fact that he won the popular vote nationwide. Oh boy. She must have missed every interview and press conference where he worked the fact that he won the popular vote into practically every single sentence, and every one of his team did the same.
And then, after the Supreme Court issued the stay on the hand counts, Ron Klain and David Boies scheduled a press conference as soon as possible to spread the word that Gore had picked up 58 votes in the counts before they'd been stopped, knowing that Judge Lewis had ordered that no partial counts were to be reported, formally or informally. And then Klain and Boies claimed they thought that Lewis only meant that the canvassing boards shouldn't give out that info.. yeah, right, don't believe that for a second. The Gore camp knew, from the first, that it was extremely important that when the hand counts were in progress that they put out the word that Gore was picking up votes.
But the worst, and I hope this isn't an indication of what's to be, was Democratic Senator Leahy jumping up and saying, after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its stay, that, "This is very bad for the Supreme Court, because their credibility is so diminished, and their moral posture is so diminished, that it could take years to pull back from that." Well, no, not really. Only the side that the judgement goes against is going to feel that way, and it's going to be one side or the other. The other side is going to feel that the Court's credibility and moral posture is greatly enhanced. Whichever, better to suck it up than attack the Supreme Court. The judges are there for life. You can't get them voted out by impugning them and trying to turn public opinion against them. All they might gain by trying to destroy the Court's respect is to set the stage for a 2004 election with possible appointments. When this decision goes against the Democrats, who knows what they'll say about the Supreme Court then.
posted on December 10, 2000 02:52:13 AM
Chococake, you're saying that you support the right to free speech, just not in a public forum? How does that work?
posted on December 10, 2000 03:07:56 AM
Come on donny don't try and confuse me, it's late and I'm tired.
Besides you know what I mean. I believe in freedom of speech, religion, and everything else. I just don't think a religious icon of any particular faith should be mentioned in a public forum of which all people in that forum do not hold the same belief.
posted on December 10, 2000 08:42:32 AMAnd, it looks like the Democrats are trying to make up for lost time. Bill Daley trotted out after the Florida Supreme Court's ruling that all undervotes in every Florida County had to be counted, and declared that this was just what the Gore team wanted all the time. Hooey and hogwash. At the oral arguments in the last Fl. Supreme Court case, when Pariente asked David Boies if it wouldn't be fairer to count undervotes statewide, rather than just in Miami Dade, Boies said, to paraphrase, that Bush's lawyers hadn't asked for that, and, Boies said further, that there seemed to be a feeling that Bush should be protected from his own lawyers. The majority didn't buy it, and ordered a hand count statewide instead.
Oh, come on, Donny. The Gore team has ALWAYS been willing to have all the votes counted, statewide. That's been very clear. Did they ASK for all the counties to recount? No. Why should they -- it was up to Republicans to assert their own privilege there, not up to Democrats to do it for them. Besides, as you well know, knowing they'd be outvoted, Republicans painted themselves into a corner by insisting at every turn that manual recounts was a "fundamentally flawed" process -- so when offered it, by Gore twice and the FL Supreme Court later -- how could they accept that, let alone ask for it later?
And I heard Margaret Carlson, on CNN, declare that Gore had kept to the high road by never trying to make use of the fact that he won the popular vote nationwide. Oh boy. She must have missed every interview and press conference where he worked the fact that he won the popular vote into practically every single sentence, and every one of his team did the same.
She didn't make her point well, nor did you get it right. She was referring to the FACT that the BUsh Team strategy was that believing they'd win the popular vote and lose the electoral, they would work hard on public sentiment and try to whip up enough support that electors would vote him in rather than Gore. That's when she made her point which you took out of context. However, I'll also add that while Gore and close aides did mention the fact of the popular vote early on, it's been dropped in the meantime.
And then, after the Supreme Court issued the stay on the hand counts, Ron Klain and David Boies scheduled a press conference as soon as possible to spread the word that Gore had picked up 58 votes in the counts before they'd been stopped, knowing that Judge Lewis had ordered that no partial counts were to be reported, formally or informally. And then Klain and Boies claimed they thought that Lewis only meant that the canvassing boards shouldn't give out that info.. yeah, right, don't believe that for a second.
David Boies answered that very nicely and completely this morning to Tim Russert. Lewis's ruling applied to the Canvassing Boards, not the parties. This is fully confirmed in his ruling on the "emergency hearing" yesterday.
But the worst, and I hope this isn't an indication of what's to be, was Democratic Senator Leahy jumping up and saying, after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its stay, that, "This is very bad for the Supreme Court, because their credibility is so diminished, and their moral posture is so diminished, that it could take years to pull back from that."
I happen to agree with Leahy, but I'll give you that it was a stronger statement than he probably should have made. The Supreme Court was simply, and by a narrow margin, wrong in halting the count.
But what I want to see is YOUR equivalent outrage over Jim Baker's ugly remarks about FL Supreme Court in the earlier decision. AND the "impugning" of the FL Court contained in the earlier Bush brief to the US Supreme Court which Justice Ginsburg objected to during oral arguments.
posted on December 10, 2000 09:06:54 AM
Ken, I'm really surprised. I thought that you would understand the point that I was trying to make.
That's why I stay out of the sujects about "goo" as you put it.
Misunderstandings.
I was not in ANY way touting my religion, but the fact that EVERYONE has the right, whether in private OR public, to live by their beleif, or lack thereof.
It actually does not even intend to push religion at all, but to remember why people came to this country in the first place, which was because they wanted freedom to practice religion (or not) as they saw fit.
Now your way may (or may not) be that you DON'T beleive there is God, and what I say applies just as much to you.
You have the right to deny God, just as others have the right to beleive, and with the same freedom.
Should you be made to shut up and not be allowed to deny it publically?
No, of course not, just like beleivers shouldn't be stiffled.
Racism is wrong, regardless of if it is for Race, Sex, OR Religion.
Just because I'm not Jewish, doesn't give me the right to stop the Jews from prolaiming to be such in public.
That's just crazy.
That's all I'm trying to say.
You make it out like I'm some kind of evangilical preacher or sumthin in my last post...you should know me better Ken.
I said..."Because his protest was based upon false premises. He lost the the election and the
recount and had to come up with some rationale to continue to cry for redress. It can be
prettied with rhetoric, but Gore's still trying (and may yet succeed) to steal the election."
You asked..."Toke, thank you for your reply. Can you elaborate on this part?
"Because his protest was based upon false premises"
If we both mean the protest is the part that came before the certification (i.e. the part
where the original hand recounts were done), what "false premises" did you see as
being present?"
I'm back. I was quite unclear, apparently. I am aware that Gore has the legal right to protest...and to contest the election until he runs out of courts that will hear him.
He has had to wage a continuous PR battle to gain and to retain the support of his party and the electorate for his actions. The false premises I referred to were the various PR spins - all stated as proofs to buttress his time consuming maneuvers. Since he is a self-affirmed and well known micro-manager I'm confident he is aware of and bears responsibility for all the actions below.
Dems got Gore's foot in the door by waging a massive telemarketing campaign in Palm Beach to affirm "confused" voters. Not a falsehood exactly...just major behind-the-scenes manipulation.
Dems said the "butterfly" ballot was illegal. It was not.
Dems said there were 1,900 more Gore votes to be found in Palm Beach. There were not. (In fact they found a little over 200.)
Dems coin a great PR slogan..."count the votes." Just don't count military absentee votes...oh, and please dump 25,000 more absentee votes because voter ID numbers were added to ballot applications.
In a press conference, Gore cheers on the lawsuits in Seminole and Martin Counties, while trumpeting his non-involvment. He even makes the false claim that Dem votes were thrown in the trash. Funny...that was never mentioned in either of those lawsuits he was so very uninvolved in.
He has stirred up the troops enough to have them believing he is the true winner in Florida, though he has lost all along the way. Bush is the certified winner...Gore couldn't contest the election, were he not.
The man is a humbug...and worse, he thinks the American people are fools. I find what he's done, and the way he's done it, reprehensible. The truth is not in him. I find him the greater of two evils - and deeply distrust (the supremely crafty) Albert Gore.
But - if the Republicans manage to block this recount - I will have lost all respect for both the Republican Party and George W. Bush. But this is not the same as respecting the 'office of President'. I respect the office but (not necessarily) the man.