posted on May 6, 2001 11:50:11 PM
Mad at the election results? Shocked beyond words by the outright betrayal of the President in defending corporation and their money over human lives and the environment? Irked every time a Republican Politician points to a "Moral Compass" while simultaneously doing unprecedented immorality? Angered when the Democrats pretend on fighting these jerks while allowing just enough of their party members to slip over to the other side and vote with them against you?
You're not alone!
It is typical for people to scream and yell at politicians. The politicians have turned into nasty people whom you wouldn't want living in your small town, or going to your church. And the worst of it all is, that although you voted the best that you could, the creeps STILL managed to get in and take over the government!
But let's look at this fairly. We all knew George Bush and Dick Cheny were large Oil companies who couldn't give a damn about the rest of us. Yet, the voters, fully aware of this, put them into office anyway. And where are these supporters nowadays? Hiding! Not from the politicians, but from the "I Told You So's" of people who did not vote for monsters. And that should point the way!
Yes. Let's not bash the politicians - we all were fully aware of what sort of a situation it was when we voted. And if we blame just the politicians, these same stupid people will vote for them again in the next election! The only way to break this vicious cycle is to blame the voters instead! That's the only thing that makes sense!
So if we stop blaming the politicians when they do what we all knew what they would do given a chance to be in power, let's blame it all on the voters - the Republicans when their politicians do wrong! (Democrats don't count because there aren't enough of them in government to make any difference - sorry Republicans!) By shoving Republican's faces into their own pooh everyday for the next four years, some of it is bound to sink in. When Bush Double-Deals, you should respond to Republican voters with "Shame on you!" and "What a jerk you are for having voted for this person!" and so forth. I don't mean just here on AW in just the RT -- what a lot of good that'll do! Most Republican voters can't read! No, you'll need to say it to their faces.
I hate to advise you to tell off your family members who vote Republican every time their politicians do something nasty, because you'll be doing it a lot! And I'd not do it at work during work hours -- bound to get you into hot water. But Church is a good place -- have your pastor give a sermon against stupid decisions and how we should all be responsible for such decisions in our own lives. While standing in a shopping market line, look at the gossip magazines and point out how terrible Bush is to destroy the environment and how bad Republican voters are for knowingly putting him in office to do this. Do it on the bus, at the post office while waiting in line, any chance that you can get!
In the end, with the Republican politicians doing so much damage in the name of Conservatism, no one will want to admit to being a Republican, let alone actually say the "R" Word! You see -- you CAN make a difference!
posted on May 7, 2001 01:06:38 AM
(April 30, 2001) - President George W. Bush will have served 100 Days in office on Monday, April 30, and planned to have all 535 members of Congress to the White House for lunch to mark the occasion.
According to a national poll conducted by ABC News, the nation has mixed opinions about Bush's performance thus far. About 1,350 Americans were asked to rate the president's performance, and they responded as follows:
posted on May 7, 2001 06:55:07 AM
Bush by the numbers
50,996,039 Number of votes for Gore. [www.fec.gov]
50,456,141 Number of votes for Bush. [www.fec.gov]
539,898 Gore's popular-vote margin. [www.fec.gov]
25 Percent of people who disapproved of Bush in his initial job approval poll. [The Gallup Organization, 2/6/01]
0 Number of Presidents whose initial disapproval levels were higher than Bush's in the 50 years since Gallup began measuring disapproval statistics during the Eisenhower Administration. [The Gallup Organization, 2/6/01]
53 Percent of Americans rating the economy as "excellent" during an April, 2001 survey by ABC News/ Money Magazine. [Reuters, 4/18/01]
80 Percent of Americans rating the economy as "excellent" during a January 2000 survey by ABC News/Money Magazine. [Reuters, 4/18/01]
39.8 million Number of people who watched Bush's first address to Congress. [Washington Post, 3/1/01]
67 million Number of people who watched Clinton's first address to Congress. [Washington Post, 3/1/01]
24 Number of days spent by Bush away from the White House, through his first 72 days in office. [Associated Press, 4/1/01]
12 Number of days spent by former President Clinton away from the White House, through his first 72 days in office. [Associated Press, 4/1/01]
17 Number of days spent by former President Bush away from the White House, through his first 72 days in office. [Associated Press, 4/1/01]
4 Number of press conferences held by President Bush in the first hundred days. [Public Papers of the President]
13 Number of press conferences held by President Clinton in the first hundred days. [Public Papers of the President]
7 Number of press conferences held by former President Bush in the first hundred days. [Public Papers of the President]
385,000 State unemployment claims reported in the week ending April 14, 2001. [Reuters, 4/19/01]
5 Years since unemployment claims reached that high. [Reuters, 4/19/01]
$35,000 Amount Bush would save in taxes this year if his tax cut were enacted, according to the tax calculator used on the Republican National Committee website. [Washington Post, 4/14/01]
$2.4 million Amount Cheney would save in taxes this year if Bush's tax cut were enacted, according to the tax calculator used on the Republican National Committee website. [Washington Post, 4/14/01]
$6-12 million Amount Bush's heirs could save if the estate tax were repealed, based on the "range of assets" submitted in financial disclosure forms. [Wall Street Journal, 2/7/01]
$10-45 million Amount Cheney's heirs could save if the estate tax were repealed, based on the "range of assets" submitted in financial disclosure forms. [Wall Street Journal, 2/7/01]
25 Percent of world's carbon dioxide generated by the United States. [New York Times, 3/29/01]
4 Percent of the world's population living in the United States. [New York Times, 3/29/01]
1 Number of campaign promises to reduce carbon dioxide emissions broken by Bush. [New York Times, 3/29/01]
320 Average number of oil spills per year in Prudhoe Bay, AK. [Wall Street Journal, 4/13/01; Environmental News Network, 4/13/01]
750 Average number of gallons per oil spill in Prudhoe Bay, AK. [Wall Street Journal, 4/13/01; Environmental News Network, 4/13/01]
60 Miles from Prudhoe Bay, AK to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. [Wall Street Journal, 4/13/01; Environmental News Network, 4/13/01]
42 million Gallons per day that the proposed drilling of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is projected to yield. [www.whitehouse.gov]
49 million Gallons by which daily U.S. oil consumption would drop if SUVs' average fuel efficiency increased by 3 mpg. [Sierra Club, www.sierraclub.org]
$190 million Amount Bush's budget cut funding for research on renewable energy sources. [Washington Post, 4/10/01]
$39 million Amount the Bush budget cut funding to increase fuel efficiency in automobiles. [Associated Press, 4/10/01]
34 Number of days of predicted rolling blackouts California will experience this summer due to its energy crisis. [Industry Standard, 4/30/01]
13 million Number of people that would have been protected from cancer and other health concerns under Clinton's rule of reducing arsenic levels in drinking water to 10 ppb. [Boston Globe, 3/21/01]
460,000 Number of injuries that would have been prevented under the ergonomic regulations repealed by Bush. [OSHA Fact Sheet, "Preventing Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders," 2/9/01]
$1.9 million Amount of money backers of the ergonomics regulations repeal gave to the Bush campaign. [www.opensecrets.com; www.tray.com; Wall Street Journal, 3/6/01]
7 Number of Bush pioneers, who each raised at least $100,000 for his campaign, that were publicly opposed to the ergonomic regulations. [Texans for Public Justice, www.tpj.org; Associated General Contractors of America, www.agc.org; Associated General Contractors of Texas, www.agcoftexas.org; National Retail Federation, www.nrf.com; American Iron and Steel Institute, www.steel.org; National Council on Ergonomics, www.ncergo.org]
0 Number of times Bush has said "gay" since inauguration, as of 3/27/01 [Log Cabin Republicans, Presidential Campaign Press Materials, 3/27/01]
1 Number of time the Bush administration tried to close the Office of National AIDS Policy [USA Today, 2/7/01]
320,282 Number of people living with AIDS in the United States as of 1999. [Centers for Disease Control]
40,000 Number of new AIDS cases per year in the United States. [www.nih.gov]
$0 Amount of increased funding for the Ryan White AIDS program in Bush's budget proposal. [Associated Press, 4/3/01, 4/9/01; Health Resources and Services Administration Press Release, 1/24/01]
1 Number of presidential pets exiled from the White House. [Newsweek, 4/11/01; The People, 2/4/01]
1 Oil tankers named after members of the Bush administration. [New York Times, 4/14/01]
3 Members of Bush's Cabinet that are also members of the conservative legal group the Federalist Society. [Knight Ridder, 4/1/01]
4 Lawyers in White House Counsel's Office with ties to Ken Starr or the Whitewater investigation. [Washington Post, 1/30/01]
$28 billion The amount that the 4,500 largest estates would receive from Bush's tax plan. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/26/01]
$28 billion The amount that 142 million people with the lowest incomes would receive from Bush's tax plan. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/26/01]
24.1 million The number of children living in families that would receive no tax cut under Bush's tax plan. [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/7/01]
2,400 Number of American families that would get half of the benefits of the estate tax repeal; this number represents estates valued over $5 million. [USA Today, 2/20/01]
$14 billion The amount of revenue that would potentially be lost by charities if the estate tax is repealed. Estates that pay the estate tax give to charity twice as much as those who are not affected by the tax. [USA Today, 2/20/01]
406,000 Number of jobs lost since Bush took office. [www.cnn.fn.com, 4/5/01]
$474 million Amount Bush cut from the Department of Labor's job training program. [AP, 4/9/01]
$11 million Average net worth of each of the members of Bush's cabinet. [Sunday Telegraph, 2/4/01]
$9,790 Salary earned by Bush during his daily workouts during his first 100 days. [Bush Schedule: 9am-6pm, with 1 hour for exercise; Time, 3/19/01; Presidential salary = $400,000, AP Online, 1/10/01]
5 Number of times Bush visited Boys and Girls Clubs during the campaign. [Associated Press, 7/7/99; Los Angeles Times, 7/8/99; CNN, Inside Politics, 7/8/99; Washington Post, 11/18/99; Chicago Daily Herald, 12/1/99; Manchester Union Leader, 12/21/99; Beaufort Gazette, 2/15/00; Dayton Daily News, 7/29/00]
1 Number of times Bush has visited Boys and Girls Clubs since his inauguration. [United Press International, 4/3/01]
$0 Amount allocated in Bush's budget for the Boys and Girls Club program. [Bush planned to cut all of the program's $60 million budget.] [Jonathan Atler, Newsweek, 4/23/01]
$440 billion The amount Bush's proposed tax cut was reduced in the Senate with a vote of 65 to 35 despite the 50 Republican Senators. [Washington Post, 4/7/01]
5 The number of Bush Pioneers, who raised at least $100,000 each for the Bush campaign, appointed to an administration post. [www.tpj.org; www.whitehouse.gov]
Less than 10% Percentage of African-Americans who voted for Bush in the 2000 Presidential election. [United Press International, 11/30/00]
1964 The last election in which a GOP presidential candidate received a smaller percentage of African American votes than Bush. [Associated Press, 2/26/01]
3.5 million Number of votes Bush would lose by in 2004 if the Democratic candidate won the same percentage of minority votes Gore did in 2000. [Washington Post, 4/22/01]
$100 million Amount of Alcoa stock owned by Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. [Treasury Department press release, 3/25/01]
28 Number of days, as of 4/23/01, O'Neill has earned money on Alcoa stock since he announced he would divest it without saying he has sold it. [Treasury Department press release, 3/25/01; Los Angeles Times, 3/26/01]
$0 Amount allocated in Bush's budget for FEMA's "Project Impact" disaster preparedness program. [New York Times, 4/9/01]
1 Number of earthquakes on the same day in which Bush's cut of "Project Impact" funds were announced. [Associated Press, 2/28/01]
2 Number of voucher programs in Bush's education plan, includes transfer of Title I funds and expansion of "education savings accounts" to pay for expenses from kindergarten through college. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/no-child-left-behind.html]
0 Number of times Bush's education plan uses the word "voucher." [http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/no-child-left-behind.html]
38 Number of times Bush said the phrases "tax cut" or "tax relief" in a radio address. [GPO, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Bush Radio Addresses, 2/5 - 4/16/01]
12 Number of times Bush said the word "education" in a radio address. [GPO, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Bush Radio Addresses, 2/5 - 4/16/01]
3 Number of times Bush said the phrase "health care" in a radio address. [GPO, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Bush Radio Addresses, 2/5 - 4/16/01]
2 Number of times Bush said the phrase "prescription drugs" in a radio address. [GPO, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Bush Radio Addresses, 2/5 - 4/16/01]
2 Number of times Bush said the phrase "minimum wage" in a radio address. [GPO, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Bush Radio Addresses, 2/5 - 4/16/01]
0 Number of times Bush said the phrase "working families" in a radio address. [GPO, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Bush Radio Addresses, 2/5 - 4/16/01]
0 Number of times Bush said the phrase "child care" in a radio address. [GPO, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Bush Radio Addresses, 2/5 - 4/16/01]
0 Number of times Bush said the phrase "Patients Bill of Rights" in a radio address. [GPO, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Bush Radio Addresses, 2/5 - 4/16/01]
0 Number of times Bush said the phrase "electoral reform" in a radio address. [GPO, Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Bush Radio Addresses, 2/5 - 4/16/01]
posted on May 7, 2001 07:13:44 AM
Timothy McVeigh blamed the people for the government's actions. Some may be collaborators but not everyone in that building supported the government or were even voters. Some were just there to do everyday business but he seemed to feel that doing any business in a Federal building was supporting his enemy. That's rather extreme.
Was it the Republican voters that can't read? I thought this whole recount thing was because all of these supposed Gore supporters in Florida couldn't figure out how to vote.
So Bush and Cheney make money off oil... How much money does Gore have invested in oil?
posted on May 7, 2001 11:23:13 AM
0 Number of recounts Gore actually won in Florida.
Um this has nothing to do with Al Gore anymore. Your idiot is in office now and the facts posted here are facts. If Bush won Florida like you say then Jeb should win in a landslide in 2002. By the way where are people buying those Re-Elect Gore2004 bumper stickers? I see them on alot of cars, and would like a few.
posted on May 7, 2001 11:39:15 AM
chum-I'm sorry you don't have a President,
I didn't know it was a 'yours' or 'ours' thing, thought we all had the same President.
You could probably find the bumperstickers you're talking about doing a search for
Al Gore 2004 or something like that.
posted on May 7, 2001 12:51:57 PMjlpiece:"So Bush and Cheney make money off oil... How much money does Gore have invested in oil?"
EXACTLY!! Just what I've been saying all along in these threads! And, were you also aware that Ralph Nader had a substancial Oil portfolio as well?
But Bush and the arrogant, double-dealing Republican politicians? The Party That Has No Shame? The party that supports the interests of large corporations who, at this time, account for much of misery in America? Republicans voted to put THOSE CREEPS into the presidency? SHAME ON THEM!!
NearTheSea I predict that in a year from now, you won't dare to reveal who you voted for in public -- you might get worse than words thrown at you! All you can do is to wear a T-Shirt that states "Mea Culpa" and explain to anyone who passes by and asks what it means as to your crime and humbly accept their scorn!
posted on May 7, 2001 01:10:00 PM
Prediction noted.
I don't think I can hide my political party, and for things more than words being thrown at me, I don't know. Although we do live in a free country, we don't live in a totally chaotic one (though I thought I saw a thread on the US is a third world country) as you suggest.
But in case something like that did happen, possibly the ACLU would help me? HA!
posted on May 7, 2001 01:21:54 PM
I diden't know it was a 'yours' or 'ours' thing, thought we all had the same President.
Well this is where the problem occurs. See a President must be elected by the people of the USA not 5 judges, BUT the accident currenty in the white house is NOT a legit president as you wish he was. Your vote dident count, and my vote dident count. If our founding fathers were able to come back today they would have him tossed out like yesterdays trash, or maybe worse. In my wildest dreams I never thought the republicans wanted the white house so bad that they would do what they did. 10 years ago I would have called anyone a liar if they told me such a unbelievable story.
You hit the nail right on the head. The Supreme Court has usurped some of the power vested to the Congress. They interpret the Constitution based on case law as opposed to constitutional law, with a political constituency guiding their rulings. Bad for for the Constitution, bad for the people.
I am confident, the framer's of the Constitution would wonder what happen! Might even consider it cause for revolt!
posted on May 7, 2001 04:49:05 PM"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. . . . It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."
Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826), U.S. president. Letter, 30 Jan. 1787, to statesman James Madison, speaking of Shays’s Rebellion.
posted on May 7, 2001 05:40:55 PM" ... and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Lincoln's Address at Gettysburg, 1863
On December 13th, 2000, that nation perished from this earth, not by an act of God, nor by the voice of the People, but by a rouge Supreme Court who had no jurisdiction to settle any matters and two of whom had severe conflicts of interst and did not pull themselves out from the case in any event. December 13th is now a National Day of Mourning.
posted on May 7, 2001 06:16:46 PM
"Some have asked whether I have any regrets and I do have one regret: that I didn't get the chance to stay and fight for the American people over the next four years, especially for those who need burdens lifted and barriers removed, especially for those who feel their voices have not been heard. I heard you and I will not forget"--Al Gore
posted on May 7, 2001 08:13:47 PM"I will submit to your recollection whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of the rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance to be on the side of tyranny."
posted on May 7, 2001 09:40:53 PM
Why is it that those who garner the resources of a society feel as though it gives them some right to dictate the lives of other people? It is not a God-given right to steal the resources of all others to enrich yourself and call it Democracy or Free Enterprise. Yet, you will find just those people making laws for themselves and the good of their property in complete contrast to the welfare of all other people within that society and will think nothing of it.
posted on May 7, 2001 11:06:34 PM"Your idiot is in office now and the facts posted here are facts"-chum
I didn't like Bush then, and I still don't like him, I just happen to be one of the few that realizes how bad it could have been.
"If Bush won Florida like you say then Jeb should win in a landslide in 2002."-chum
???
"The party that supports the interests of large corporations who, at this time, account for much of misery in America?"-borillar
Both parties support the interests of large corporations. How else can they afford to spend MILLIONS of dollars to run for office, only to get a job that pays a couple hundred thousand a year? If you believe otherwise, you're deluding yourself. The only difference, is WHICH large corporations are backing which candidates.
"See a President must be elected by the people of the USA not 5 judges, BUT the accident currenty in the white house is NOT a legit president as you wish he was. Your vote dident count, and my vote dident count."-chum
The president WAS elcted by the people, according to our electoral system. It's kind of like the World Series; It doesn't matter how many runs a team scores in the series - after all they could have 1 or 2 really good games - what matters is who won 4 of the 7 games. And so it is with Bush. The system was set up that way to avoid New York and California picking our President every election. They get to have final say so on their Governors - NOT The President. Those states already have enormous sway over the elections as it is. Obviously, the framers of the Constitution could not have possibly envisioned EVERY possible circumstance, but they did a pretty good job. I don't think any of us are wise enough to guess otherwise. Florida's election was a joke all the way around, but Power shifted bloodlessly, and safeguards are going into effect to prevent the same types of occurences in the future. Perhaps THAT is what our Founding Fathers would have truly wanted.
"The Supreme Court has usurped some of the power vested to the Congress. They interpret the Constitution based on case law as opposed to constitutional law, with a political constituency guiding their rulings."
The Supreme Court did no usurping of any kind. They did what courts do - they INTERPRET the law. It's unfortunate that they didn't interpret it the way you would have liked, but have a feeling those 9 are a bit more qualified than you or I.
As far as them having a "political constituency guiding their rulings", I'm sure you realize that the Justices of the Supreme Court are elected FOR LIFE. They are harder to remove from the bench, than a sitting President. As such, they are free to interpret the law however they see fit - with no regard for how anybody may or may not like it. I have a feeling the Framers of The Constitution did that for a reason as well.
"Supreme Court who had no jurisdiction to settle any matters and two of whom had severe conflicts of interst and did not pull themselves out from the case in any event." -borillar
Make that 3 that didn't pull themselves due to a conflict of interest. Ginsburgs' niece has worked as a major fundraiser for Gore (and Clinton) for 5 years now.
Let's also not forget that blaming The Supreme Court for the results are a moot argument, after all, BUSH DID WIN FLORIDA. After all the recounts, he DID win. All the Supreme Court did was make the right decision, without waiting for all the various recounts to finish, so our nation could move on with a President. It was obvious that both sides wouldn't give up any time soon, so they objectively looked at all the evidence and correctly gathered that no matter how many times the votes were recounted, BUSH WON FLORIDA. As a result, BUSH IS THE PRESIDENT. It is NOT a legitimate nor intelligent argument to say that The Supreme Court picked the President, becuase they didn't - the people of this country under THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM did. If you don't like the discrepanciy between the popular vote and the electoral vote, then you have a legitimate case, but at least argue the right points if you wish to be taken seriously.
And finally to all those furiously typing the calls for revolt and rebellion, get from behind your computer screen and do it.
posted on May 8, 2001 12:44:40 AM
California was part of the original thirteen states?
Unfortunately for your arguments, jlpiece, national elections are not ballgames (much as Dumbya would prefer them to be), and the recounts were not finished as that is what the Supreme Court took upon itself to do--stop the recounts. Not interpret law, not apply a reasoned ruling in a case of differing or conflicting law, only to stop the course of law as it was determined by the State of Florida. By so doing the supreme court did extend beyond it's constitutional powers since the 'decision' it rendered applied only to the conduct of elections within a single state. There was no constitutional issue at hand and the court did not address one other than to apply an odd interpretation that dumbya may be being deprived of his rights to due process by the continuance of due process in the state of Florida.
There had alreasy been an instruction to the state of Florida which that state was carrying out. Nothing but political pressure and the preferences of the supreme court jurists of the majority brought the court back to the case to take back the chance to complete the election process it had already afforded the state.
It stank then, it stinks now, and the smell will taint this country for the remainder of it's possibly short history.
posted on May 8, 2001 01:04:16 AM"California was part of the original thirteen states."-krs
No, krs it wasn't, however the rule would have applied to any of the most populated states even if they happened to be Vermont or Rhode Island.
"the recounts were not finished as that is what the Supreme Court took upon itself to do--stop the recounts."-krs
Wrong, the first two recounts WERE finished; as were half of the selective recounts demanded by Gore. The Supreme Court realized that if left to his will, Gore would demand recounts until 2004 if allowed. It had to be put to an end, and fortunately the votes DID prove out to be in the majority for Bush in Florida. Supreme Court or not, Bush would still be President, and nobody can logically argue that. Then again, who needs logic when you have an agenda?
"...only to stop the course of law as it was determined by the State of Florida."-krs
Wrong again, as Catherine Harris decided the same, as was her duty to make the decision. But then again, she had an agenda to, I'm sure; unlike the Democrats.
"By so doing the supreme court did extend beyond it's constitutional powers since the 'decision' it rendered applied only to the conduct of elections within a single state. There was no constitutional issue at hand and the court did not address one other than to apply an odd interpretation that dumbya may be being deprived of his rights to due process by the continuance of due process in the state of Florida."-krs
Once again, not correct. There WAS a constitutional issue at hand, regarding the conduct of the elections by a state. Florida's Supreme Court had decided to overrule the Secretary of State although they had no Constitutional ability to do that. If you remember correctly, ONLY THEN did the US Supreme Court step in, because of the gross misinterpretation of the Florida constitution by the Florida Supreme Court. They were given a chance to interpret the state laws governing elections, and only when they violated federal laws governing the interpretation of a STATE Constitution, did the US Supreme Court have to step in - as it was designed. Checks and balances krs, remember that.
posted on May 8, 2001 01:40:48 AM
The Constitution of the United States nowhere says that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means. Or that the Supreme Court shall have the authority to disregard statutes enacted by the congress of the United States on the ground that in its view they do not comport with the Constitution
You should realize justices of the Supreme Court are appointed for life!
posted on May 8, 2001 01:45:53 AM
Not quite. The prattle of republican dogma may say so, but that don't make it so, jlpiece.
The law required a selection of counties to recount, not the democratic party. All of this about Gore having selected which counties, and how many counties on his own and to his advantage ignores the law in Florida as it stands even now.
Katherine Harris made an interpretation of law as it aplied to deadlines, and the Florida supreme court sent her back to consider whether those deadlines were reasonable and not arbitrary, which she was unable to do. And to say that the recounts were finished when the recounts were in fact stopped midway toward being finished or were not allowed sufficient time to be finished is absurd. Who can forget the republican cries of joy when Katherine Harris decided that even votes which had been recounted but not submitted to her office by the friday deadline would not be part of the count. How can you forget the republican dismay upon hearing that in fact the deadline set by the illustrious Ms. Harris could rightfully under the law have been at anytime over that weekend.
Maybe a reread of the source document itself would help you in understanding that the Constitution of the United States specifically places the conduct of elections, in all aspects, upon the states. There really is no room for republican twisting in the wind on that point.
edited to say that kc, I hadn't seen your post before posting.
[ edited by krs on May 8, 2001 01:47 AM ]
posted on May 8, 2001 06:09:12 AM
Now that the camel has it's nose in the tent the rest will follow for sure. The Federal interest in elections will over ride the states and make the elections much easier to control. They will find cause to say when and how they will be conducted since the interests of the candidate became a Federal cause outweighing states rights.
The Supreme Court of Florida should have found the guts to say if you want to dictate to Forida you better declare martial law and send in Federal troops.
posted on May 8, 2001 07:18:32 AM
With all the right-wing spin going on in the media one fact remains. We dont have a president, just a appointed idiot. We are now being removed by the UN on the human-rights board due to the republicans lack of care for the enviroment, and now on the news today we lost a seat on the UN drug board prompting the Bush administration to call the action ``an outrage''. People better wake up before its too late, or maybe $3.00+ a gallon for gas will do the trick? But then thats Clintons fault lol
posted on May 8, 2001 08:02:28 AM"The Supreme Court of Florida should have found the guts to say if you want to dictate to Florida you better declare martial law and send in Federal troops.-gravid
Everyone seems to be forgetting that the system WAS set up for increasingly superior courts to re-interpret the law if there is reason to believe that the inferior court may have erred. I thought that was common knowledge. Hence the phrase, "All the way to The Supreme Court." That implies that the district, circuit, state courts did not find in your favor and you feel that they were wrong. Increasingly superior judges are placed in increasingly Superior courts for a reason. Most matters can be settled at the lower courts. If they can not, or someone feels they have not, appeals can be filed to The Supreme Court, which like it or not DOES have the final say so on the interpretation of EVERYTHING including everything from civil ordinances in a township up to, and including interpretation of the US Constitution. The majority of their cases come from State supreme courts that the US Supreme Court feels made mistakes in their interpretation of either civil ordinances, or state laws, state constitutions or even the US Constitution. Checks and balances from within. Delegation. The Supreme Court only takes an interest if the appeal is filed - they will not step in unless a brief is filed with them, no matter how serious the case or injustice may be, and only after all other courts have been involved and exhausted. Then the Court will deem there to have either been a misinterpretation of some law or not. Such was the case with the election. The Supreme Court IS made up of fallible human beings, but they are certainly the best and most objective at what they do. State supreme courts are necesarrily more fallible, and certainly so when all but one have obvious interests in the Democrats cause. At least in The US Supreme Court you had a relatively even split court. Anyone that thinks that US Supreme Court justices are as easily influenced as state supreme court justices is also quite deluded.
Had The US Supreme Court NOT stepped in, and the recounts were allowed to continue indefinitely, WHO WOULD BE PRESIDENT? Knowing that Bush won regardless, makes these arguments moot. The only wageable discussion is; electoral or popular. Everything else still makes Bush President.
" The Constitution of the United States nowhere says that the Supreme Court shall be the last word on what the Constitution means. Or that the Supreme Court shall have the authority to disregard statutes enacted by the congress of the United States on the ground that in its view they do not comport with the Constitution."kcpick4u
Yes it does, and yes they do. That is the whole purpose to their existence.
"You should realize justices of the Supreme Court are appointed for life!kcpick4u
No kidding. Read up, we mentioned that earlier. That just makes them less accountable to politics. That's why it's set up that way.
"The law required a selection of counties to recount, not the democratic party. All of this about Gore having selected which counties, and how many counties on his own and to his advantage ignores the law in Florida as it stands even now"krs
Wrong yet again, my friend. The law only required the ability for a candidate to ask for a recount in a State with a close enough vote, and the recounts requests had to be filed with EACH particular county that the candidate feels needs to be recounted. Mr. Gore is the one who decided he only wanted to recount the most heavily democratic counties in the State, and with good reason, after all logic dictates that in a county that votes 80-90% for one party, that party will be the one to gain votes in a recount. How many votes are gained depends on how poorly the initial counts were conducted. The complaints arose from the fact that Mr. Bush was too dumb to ask for the same recounts in all of the many republican counties. Bush won MANY more counties than Gore, but he failed to file for the recounts in those counties in a timely manner. Doing so gave Mr. Gore the impression of trying to selectively recount only the counties in which he knew he would gain votes. Only after the deadline did Gore "offer" to have all of the counties recounted. He knew in doing so after the filing deadline, that Republican Katherine Harris would have to make a determination as to the deadline of any, and all such recounts. He also knew that her decision would likely favor Bush, and as such give the appearance of some impropriety. Gore definitely played his cards much better than Bush - there is no question there. Bush just happened to have the better hand. The only mistake Gore made was the infamous "memo" to try and have the military votes not counted. That alone turned public opinion against him more than anything. In the end though none of it mattered, because with or without the military votes, and with or without the many recounts, BUSH HAD MORE VOTES IN FLORIDA. That is no longer up for debate, and as such none of these people "picked" our President. Since definite flaws were found in the system, it gives us the opportunity to correct them, so the wrong decision may not be made next time. But it doesn't negate the fact that the right decision was made this time.
"Katherine Harris made an interpretation of law as it aplied to deadlines, and the Florida supreme court sent her back to consider whether those deadlines were reasonable and not arbitrary, which she was unable to do. And to say that the recounts were finished when the recounts were in fact stopped midway toward being finished or were not allowed sufficient time to be finished is absurd. Who can forget the republican cries of joy when Katherine Harris decided that even votes which had been recounted but not submitted to her office by the friday deadline would not be part of the count. How can you forget the republican dismay upon hearing that in fact the deadline set by the illustrious Ms. Harris could rightfully under the law have been at anytime over that weekend."krs
Who could forget that those were NOT the initial recounts? The initial recounts had long since gone against Gore. What was stopped by Ms. Harris, my friend, were the second set of selective recounts. Don't forget that this was only a few counties involved at that time. Again, a moot argument, as Bush did have more votes no matter how many times or how many ways the ballots were counted.
In retrospect, who could forget the cries of Gore and Lieberman, and the rest of the democrat leadership that the American people would indeed see who had more votes when it was all said and done?
Indeed.
"Maybe a reread of the source document itself would help you in understanding that the Constitution of the United States specifically places the conduct of elections, in all aspects, upon the states. There really is no room for republican twisting in the wind on that point.krs
Once again, my friend, that was NOT what the US Supreme Court decided on. The election and all aspects of itwere handled by the State. The US Supreme Court only stepped in when the Florida Supreme Court erred in their interpretation of their own State laws. Let's also not forget that The US Supreme Court also sent the case back for reconsideration by the Florida Supreme Court. This was a victory for Gore, since The US Supreme Court had authority to decide on it then, but passed to give the Florida Supreme Court yet another look at it, and their state Constitution. Only when the 11 Democrat appointees, and the 1 Republican appointee misinterpreted (intentionally or not, we'll never know) the State Constitution again, did The US Supreme Court have to step in and make the call.
"With all the right-wing spin going on in the media..."chum
You can't be serious.
"We are now being removed by the UN on the human-rights board due to the republicans lack of care for the enviroment, and now on the news today we lost a seat on the UN drug board prompting the Bush administration to call the action ``an outrage"chum
No, those losses (if you see them as such) with UN, are NOT the result of anything that has happened to the environment in the last 3 months, but are more a result of the US refusing to pay its dues (that's money, chum) to the UN. As I have said before, anyone that finds this alarming, apparently hasn't seen what countries ARE on the roster. It's The loss of the UN, NOT The US.
posted on May 8, 2001 10:15:12 AM
No, those losses (if you see them as such) with UN, are NOT the result of anything that has happened to the environment in the last 3 months, but are more a result of the US refusing to pay its dues (that's money, chum) to the UN.
Um that is the latest republican "spin" that is going around, but the real reasons were:
1.Bush administrations rejection of an international agreement to reduce global warming.
2.Bush administrations plan to push ahead with a new missile defense system.
3.Bush administration refused to ratify the treaty creating an international criminal court.
You can say we dont need them all you want, but for the appointed moron in office it has to be embarrassing. Maybe when he is gone they will reconsider.
posted on May 8, 2001 10:38:15 AM
TSK. I guess that jlpiece missed out the coverage of the difference between a challenged result and a subsequent recount as deliniated in Florida electoral law and that's too bad.
Since that particular aspect has been hashed and rehashed in these forums more than once before, and since the facility to find and read public records of the events following the election seems to be one undeveloped by him, he will I guess have to suffer the misconceptions he presents here without a saving grace.
Wrong on fact, wrong on interpretation, wrong on presentation, wrong on law.
There is no help available for he who would not help himself.
posted on May 8, 2001 10:51:25 AMkrs
That all sounds good, but the problem is you are not able to point out my errors. You choose to lean on the thoughts of others in time long forgotten, and show neither the ability to remember, nor requote those ideas of others. That's why it helps to have ideas of your own. You never forget them, and you don't have to look for them. I guess we are both undeveloped in certain areas.
chum
Well sir, I don't know how to put this easily, so I'll just dive in.
You aren't even close to accurate in your assumptions. Bush has yet to take any stances formally on anything regarding UN issues in the areas of their stated concerns. Perhaps you should research the issue first, and then come back. These are nothing new, and the recent bad feelings towards the US by the UN are nothing new. The US has been in arrears for years.
