posted on November 11, 2000 09:50:55 AM new
HAha! My computer went wacky there. Looks like I punched the button too many times!
Why is the Bush camp seeking an injunction in Federal Court to halt the manual recount? Can any Bush supporters tell me? I've been listening to the news but can't make any sense of it, especially in light of all the noise Republicans have been making AGAINST taking the election to court, but now THEY are the first ones to put it there. Why? What are they afraid of finding in a recount?
KatyD
[ edited by KatyD on Nov 11, 2000 09:57 AM ]
posted on November 11, 2000 10:06:43 AM new
Typical Democrat (lib) response. Gore starts his crap before the election ends, his people have engaged in continuous litigate acts and threaten to do many more, the Democrat party has instigated situations that could end in violence, but no Democrat (lib) asks, "Why?"
Bush people now decide enough is enough and are asking the court to block any REPEATED counting. NOW, the Democrats ask "Why?" Typical.
Baker hit it on the head, the Democrats want the votes counted and recounted until the final tally is in favor of Gore.
posted on November 11, 2000 10:12:51 AM new KatyD Yes I heard that on the news today---
Personally I live in S.Fla where all the hoopla is going on....I do beleive that there should be a revote in WPalm Beach County
Here is my opinion if I were Gore I would let Bush have the election....Cause Bush is going to always remembered now for stealing this election Trying to get a court order to stop the count reeks----I wouldn't want the office unless I could claim it with honor and dignity and know it was the will of the people-----. The country is so divided----He will be a lameduck President too, and Gore will come out of this looking much more of a hero and gentlemen----He is young enough so that he can reclaim the office in four years and then do it with dignity-----Z
posted on November 11, 2000 10:21:18 AM new
Zelda, I agree with much of what you say, but there is too much at stake here (ie Supreme Court nominations) to just give in because "it's the gentlemanly thing to do", especially, since it may well be that it is not the will of the people that George Bush become our President.
Sarge, thanks for your comments, but you still have not explained the Bush thinking in this regarding why they feel it necessary to go to federal court to stop a recount by hand of ballots cast in a very close election, especially in light of the fact that such recount is clearly allowable under Florida law, and there are numerous precedents IN FLORIDA for such a recount. Beyond all the spinning and saber rattling, I'm beginning to get a very sick feeling in my stomach about Mr Bush's eagerness to take control and crown himself our next president without all the facts and ACCURATE vote in. Again, I ask, what is he afraid of? What is he afraid will be uncovered? If he is so sure that he has won, the ballot counts will bear him out, so recounting the ballots should not have him worried if he is TRULY convinced that he won the majority of votes in Florida. Perhaps, he is NOT convinced, which is the only explanation I can come up with as to why he wants to stop this recount.
posted on November 11, 2000 10:23:54 AM new
The injunction was filed in Federal court because the State Court Judges in the jurisdictional area are democratic appointees, the Federal Judge in this area is a republican appointee.
posted on November 11, 2000 10:26:41 AM new
But they just announced on the news that the Federal Judge "on call" this weekend that received the request for injunction is a liberal Democrat appointed by President Clinton. OOOPS!
posted on November 11, 2000 10:32:27 AM new
lol, that makes me think that Baker didn't realize that prior to filing. The Federal bench in S. FL is primarily Republican, guess someone missed out on the luck of the draw this time.
Besides, this is not a federal question, it is a state question, and I think the court will refuse to hear the matter.
posted on November 11, 2000 10:35:10 AM new
I don't know that the decisions of the Massachusetts state judiciary will be considered much of a precedent by the Florida courts. Florida already has some precedents that would likely be more influential: http://orlandosentinel.com/automagic/news/2000-11-11/ASECvlaw11111100.html
Also note that the Massachusetts example cited in Heyleigh's post dealt only with incompletely punched ballots not double punched ballots.
posted on November 11, 2000 10:44:58 AM new
Actually, State courts can and do look to decisions of sister states in deciding similar legal issues. The Mass. case had to do with the election of a US Congressman, centered around uncounted votes due to incomplete punched ballots and residual "chards", and the matter was determined soley by State court, not federal.
Thanks for the link DoctorBeetle, I found it interesting and informative.
posted on November 11, 2000 11:18:45 AM new
Because Gore will win and NOT ONE Republican on this board will admit that.
We are not trying to cause trouble, we just want to find out the truth and do what the law grants us to. If the situation were reversed, you would want the same justice. To say anything else would be a lie.
posted on November 11, 2000 12:25:30 PM new
I just heard on CNN that they banned the punch style ballot card in Massachusetts after the case with the Congressman described above. Anyone from Massachusetts here??
posted on November 11, 2000 12:53:00 PM new
My opinion on the manual recount (as a Bush supporter):
Bush should NOT attempt to stop it. If Gore takes Florida after the manual recount and all of the absentee ballots are counted, so be it. I hope to see Bush win, no doubt about it. But if there are ballots that were clearly punched for Gore (and only Gore, not those that are double punched), they should absolutely be counted. Those that were punched twice were done so out of stupidity and should NOT be counted.
But... This should be the LAST recount! If the manual recount and the last absentee ballots show Bush ahead by even ONE vote, it's time for Gore to concede and allow the country to begin to heal. Lawsuits and stonewalling on Gore's part after that will do more damage to the Democrats' chances in 2004 that the Republicans can only dream about.
The country is so divided----He will be a lameduck President too.
The same thing could be said about Gore. Both candidates received roughly the same number of votes, so to say that Gore would be effective because of a mandate while Bush would not is completely invalid (IMO of course).
posted on November 11, 2000 03:07:52 PM new
Hypothetical:
I sell a large, vintage soft drink cooler on ebay. The bidder says he'll pick it up, but it takes him two years get to my place to get it out of the garage. I'm so annoyed I tell him he has to pay storage fees. Surprisingly, he agrees, and offers as compensation a painting of some flowers his grandmother bought some years back. Well, I like the frame, so I say OK even though the picture reeks of cigarette smoke, and we close the deal. He leaves me a nasty neutral.
After Febreezing the painting, I list it on ebay, where somebody snipes it for $50,000. The high bidder tells me to keep the painting; all he wants is the frame. Quite a relief, as just before the auction closed one of the cats decided to pee on the canvas.
Unfortunately, the high bidder is from Romania (obviously he's ignored my "NO bidders outside US" notice). Fortunately, he says he's going to be in the neighborhood (!) so he'll pick up the frame in person, which although it makes me nervous, is just as well because it won't fit in any of the free Priority boxes. Since I read EBO I am one smart cookie and refuse to accept Paypal on this sale, so he agrees to pay in cash.
He shows up two months later with a cashier's check - made payable to himself - for $50,001. So off we go to the bank to cash it.
Oddly, the bank is entirely out of everything but $1 bills. They offer me a choice. They'll give my friend the $1 in change, and then I can either receive 500 machine-counted bundles containing 100, $1 bills each OR I can have three tellers hand-count the 50,000 bills.
My profit is almost nil on this deal because I've had to store the frame and then run around town with this jerk to get my dough, and he doesn't look like the type who'll accept a handling charge that wasn't included in the EOA, so I want to make sure I get all $50,000, not $49,999.
Do I choose the automatic counters, or do I accept the bank's offer to have the tellers hand-count the $50K?
posted on November 11, 2000 03:19:48 PM new
I think you should go with the teller's hand count. You can increase the potential for human error and maybe end up with $50,001.
Seriously, how fair is it for Gore to cherry-pick the results by requesting a hand count in the democratic counties. If he wants a hand count, he should want a hand count in the entire state. Or is he just confident that only the Democrats made errors on their ballots?
posted on November 11, 2000 03:20:27 PM new
HCQ-If you do decide to have the bills hand counted be sure to have a lawyer overseeing it, and in turn the buyer will probably want one too
posted on November 11, 2000 03:34:16 PM new
abingdoncomputers-I agree, let the Democratics do this hand count. Yes the possiblilty of human error is more likely on this, but there is not much more they can do or demand if they get this hand count done.
BTW the popular vote has risen for Bush, making it, in the end, most likely a dead heat there.
Whats interesting is what Gore's 'acceptance' speech is going to be like if/when he does win this. Thanking the 3 counties in FL? I think after this, the Democratic party has lost a lot of support in all that has gone on, and it hurts more than 2004, its going to be quite awhile to have faith in a party that has done this. To keep in mind that it was Vice President Gore that, after the automatic recount, insisted on all the other counts, AFTER he, and on public record, made the statement that he would abide by the constitution, after the mandated first recount.
The part on the radio, todays comments from the Democrats about Bush: He's arrogant for beginning to plan the move to Washington; plans for cabinet positions etc.
Both candidates from both major parties always plan this, and they usually start before any election, because its something that does take time, there is nothing wrong with any preliminary plans that Bush is doing.
My only hope and wish is that Bush will not contest any more ballots and ask for recounts in any of the other states, that he will retain dignity, not just for himself, but for the entire Rebupblican party.
posted on November 11, 2000 03:49:50 PM new
I agree...what is he afraid of. The recounting of ballots by hand was passed in the State of Texas. Bush was the one that passed that law. If he felt that this was a good law in the State of Texas...why is it not O.K. in this very important vote?
edited for typo
[ edited by Chevytr on Nov 11, 2000 03:53 PM ]
posted on November 11, 2000 06:36:55 PM new
I'm afraid Bush will win and that will be hard to live with.
I think even though Bush will win we need to go though the process. After all it is the law. Why have the law if you can't use it when we need it? Why is it there? After the hand count it's done. Bush should trust the people to count. Remember his words, "I trust the people." Reminiscent of another Bush who said "no more taxes." How can the people trust him when he files a lawsuit to stop it.
There won't be any real winner here. I think there will be a cloud over both parties from this and a lame duck president.
posted on November 11, 2000 06:40:19 PM new
Bush will most certainly win. Do you think that the overseas voters, many of whom are military, would ever vote for ANYTHING associated with Clinton-Gore? That's a laugh!
And do you think anyone, anywhere, has any reason to believe anyting that comes out of Al Gore's mouth?
posted on November 11, 2000 06:43:15 PM newWhy is the Bush camp seeking an injunction in Federal Court to halt the manual recount?
1. To attempt to deny Florida voters their Constitutional rights so Bush can have what he thinks is somehow rightfully his.
2. To do precisely what they are TRYING to accuse Democrats of doing: keeping the final tally where it is now, which favors Bush.
I'd LMAO if the absentee ballots came in and threw Gore over the top. Wouldn't that be hilarious?
Trying to get a court order to stop the count reeks----I wouldn't want the office unless I could claim it with honor and dignity and know it was the will of the people-----.
Ahh, Zelda, that's because you're not a privileged Bush boy.
But they just announced on the news that the Federal Judge "on call" this weekend that received the request for injunction is a liberal Democrat appointed by President Clinton. OOOPS!
ROTFL. What a hoot. Luck o' the draw, eh? Ooops, never mind. We'll never hear the end of it. Sigh. (You said Clinton appointed a LIBERAL? Are you absolutely sure? I didn't think he knew what a liberal was.)
I think after this, the Democratic party has lost a lot of support in all that has gone on, and it hurts more than 2004, its going to be quite awhile to have faith in a party that has done this.
It doesn't sound like you're much of a Democratic supporter to start with, Shelly.
To keep in mind that it was Vice President Gore that, after the automatic recount, insisted on all the other counts, AFTER he, and on public record, made the statement that he would abide by the constitution, after the mandated first recount.
It's not at all true that Gore has requested all the recounts. The current MACHINE count going on in Palm Beach County (or just recently finished, if it has), was requested by Bush's camp. (Another point of hypocrisy for the Bush camp, but who's counting?)
AND, Gore IS abiding by the Constitution. Everything that's currently going on (from both sides) is ENTIRELY Constitutional. He did NOT however, say he would abide by the "mandated first recount." And there's no reason he should because (a) the votes aren't all in and (b) there are serious voting irregularities which could affect the final outcome and for which it is entirely Constitutional to seek legal review and judgments (and possible remedies).
[i]The part on the radio, todays comments from the Democrats about Bush: He's arrogant for beginning to plan the move to Washington; plans for cabinet positions etc.
Both candidates from both major parties always plan this. . . (snip) [/i]
No no no -- the Gore campaign did NOT criticize Bush for PLANNING his cabinet and transition, but for starting to name cabinet appointees and STARTING the transition (or trying to) before actually becoming the victor. Even were there no *irregularities* in Florida (and possibly other states) to wade through and even without the FL REcounts, the final absentee vote still isn't in. Can we say "cart before the horse"?Planning is one thing, DOING an entirely different one.
The recounting of ballots by hand was passed in the State of Texas. Bush was the one that passed that law. If he felt that this was a good law in the State of Texas...why is it not O.K. in this very important vote
Oh, that's easy. Hypocrisy.
One thing I can't quite understand. Okay, we know he's not an intellectual giant or anything, but he's got an ex-President in his back pocket, two former cabinet members (said to be well respected and of the highest integrity -- ??) -- how is it they are showing such poor judgment? The LAST thing Bush would (or should) want is to look just a little too eager to seize the throne. But egads, that's exactly how they look with their premature moves to form a cabinet and start the transition, and this latest legal ploy trying to subvert the rights of Florida voters. I can't figure it out. I guess there really is such a thing as "blind ambition."
posted on November 11, 2000 06:46:27 PM new
Shellyherr, How did you come to the opinion
Gore will be the next president?
An opinion is a belief based on what seems to be true or probable, not what is certain.
The last recount in FL. Bush won, that is certain
[ edited by mark090 on Nov 11, 2000 12:24 PM ]
)