Check out http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/04/voter_file

This was quoted by Herbert in the NY Times.

Just to add some fuel to the fire. Note that the "connections" to the Republican party aren't all that ominous, but could certainly serve as proof of a massive Republican conspiracy to control the country. Certainly as valid as the "liberal media" proof on another thread.

Palast's article does serve to illustrate one problem that has plagued the election and recount: The latitude granted to or assumed by the local Supervisors of Elections.

And it is precisely because the Florida Legislature didn't enact rules as detailed as those in Texas that the Courts got involved. There appeared to be a valid legal issue not covered specifically by existing law and the Courts were asked to determine to what extent the law applied or didn't apply.

Uncle Jaque, (and off topic) I have meet one of the brothers Bush (Jeb)and have friends who have known the Bush family for some time. I base my judgement on those experiences and conversations. I didn't mean to imply that George W. was a monarchial elitist. Just an elitist who feels that money equates to some sort of divine sanction granted to those who have it. Much more in the Calvinist vein, I think. To parapharse Piet Hein, he as the "prense of authorized omniscience"

To counterbalance that, Mr Gore strikes me being focus challanged. Lots of ideas without committment to any of them.

I do feel that Mr. Bush has the potential to do more harm to areas I hold dear (personal rights) than Mr. Gore, as the latter seems to have trouble with actually making a decisions whereas Mr. Bush has all those rich Republican king makers to make his decisions for him.

Carol C, Sorry to disappoint, but my buff days are a thing of the past. Thinking about troll in a toga is something no sane person would entertain. The kindest response would probably alternate between hysterical laughter and terror. I think we have laws about that sort of thing. If not we should.

Now, the question is if a man had made a comment and implied that it was a women's physical attributes that were an important criteria, would that be acceptable?

troll, considering your opinions, ideas, multiple personalities and related flaws and somewhat curiou sinterpretaions of events, you remain the single greatest argument against one person, one vote.

Given your aesthetic sensibilities, I find it hard to imagine your recognizing any form of art, good, bad or otherwise. By "we" I'll guess you're talking about a majority of your personalities. You are the only person I know who, when asked for an opinion can honestly say: "Well, its nine to three in favor of it." And still be completely wrong.

Having read most of Wilde's works, along with several biographies, as well as a number of works by and on Groucho, (I always found Ms. Parker somewhat derivative and prefer Mencken) any efforts such as you suggest on the part of mudcatters would be wasted. But thank you for your attempts at ingratiation. They failed. You may now claim that was not your intent at all but others may judge the evidence.

I would recommend one of my favorites, Ambrose Bierce, but if falls into the category of casting pearls before swine. Only more so.

Regards and Happy Holidays (the Saturnalia comes to mind)

John