BS: So Who is Our New President?

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 07 Dec 00 - 11:20 AM

I agree, McGrath, and I wish Bush had accepted Gore's offer of a statewide manual recount. In my opinion GWB knew that this is the fairest way to resolve the contest, and his refusal to do so is a clear illustration that his first concern was winning the election -- fairness was a secondary consideration, if he considered it at all. It would take a lot to convince me that Bush had nobler motives than that. I guess I just want to place the blame where it belongs -- on Bush, with a substantial assist by Katherine Harris. [In my opinion, of course.]

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 03:08 PM

When the ballots are desiged right, it's much quicker to have recounts than court cases...Manual recounts.

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 02:51 PM

Fair enough, McGrath. But the law did allow for recounts (pre-certification), and in fact some recounts happened, and others still could. Judge Sauls's ruling had to do with challenges (post-certification), and the things a party has to establish to persuade the court that it is entitled to proceed with a challenge. It's a higher bar. Reasonable people can disagree on how high it should be, and I do get your point that it seems kind of silly to prejudge the merits of Gore's case without counting the ballots. But it could be disastrous if there were no threshold questions, and a party had a right to keep the election "open" without establishing that there's some compelling reason to revisit it. As with other games, you have to bring something to the table, or you don't get to play.

There's a famous quote by one of our past Chief Justices (it may have been Oliver Wendell Holmes). I can't recall it word for word, but basically it says that "the law has little to do with justice, and much to do with expediency". It's a good point, even if we wish it were otherwise. When legislatures pass laws, they have to be concerned not only with justice, but also with workability -- how do we give everyone his day in court and still have a society that manages to function without grinding to a halt over every passing dispute? These type of threshold questions are essential to the expediency part of the equation, since they basically put the burden on the plaintiff to establish that it has a legitimate claim -- not necessarily one that will prevail in the end, but one that is substantive enough to mobilize the apparatus of the judicial system. That's what was at issue in Judge Sauls's courtroom.

As a rule, most judges shy away from issuing rulings that say "this law sucks, but my hands are tied". They do so on occasion, but it wouldn't be a good idea to be too free with pronouncements of that sort, because they tend to undermine the role, and insult the intelligence, of the legislature (and by extension, of the people that voted them in).

The law deals with minutiae and technicalities. We can all scoff at that, but it's how the system works, and I think it's a good thing somebody is required to pay attention to the details.

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 02:02 PM

Misplaced? Unkind maybe, but not misplaced. He'll live. I still think my translation of what he ruled is accurate, and it's insane. Which of course doesn't mean it's not the law.

"If the law supposes that," said Mr Bumble..."The law is a ass..."

But I'd have thought that even when a judge has to rule that what is clearly bonkers is legal, he could still indicate that he'd been forced into the decision, rather than just roll over and embrace it enthusiastically.

I mean to say - we are to understand that the law in Florida says that when you don't know what the result of a recount is going to be, you should not carry out the recount that would tell you what the result actually is.

Anyone anywhere making a law that says something like that must be off their trolley.

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 11:18 AM

Frank, I think we can make some decisions about what is fair irrespective of our "side of the partisan fence". I voted for Gore, and generally think his actions and positions since November 7th have been correct. I might even say he has been more statesmanlike and -- yes -- "Presidential". I just thought that the attack on Judge Sauls ("does he do this judging stuff for a living or it is just a hobby?") was misplaced. I wish Judge Sauls had ruled differently, but I give him credit for giving a straightforward (and clear) account of the reasons for his decision.

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 10:10 AM

No one has mentioned explicitly the idea of living in the state of Fraudida. That may be next.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 09:55 AM

Unfortunately the ruling given by Sauls was not unambiguous and clear. It was the verdict given before examining the evidence which is why it's going to the Florida Supreme Court.

If the ballots are tossed out in Seminole and Martin Counties, that would be a fair trade for the ones ignored in Miami Dade.

What's fair and unamiguous is determined on which side of the partisan fence you are on.

I have no problem with being partisan on the issues but as much as I think that Gore won Florida, I don't agree with him on his views of capitol punishment and gun ownership. Ergo, contra or ad hominem arguments don't serve well. Issues do.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 06:17 AM

"After all, New Mexico didn't have a problem doing a hand recount on Bush's request."

Am I right in assuming that there wasn't a massive attempt by Gore and company to obstruct the count in New Mexico in the courts or in the counting room itself?

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Lucius
Date: 06 Dec 00 - 12:15 AM

Good idea DougR, if our elections lasted four years then we might have time to get to know where the candidates stand, rather than relying on the BS put out by their campaign donors.

McGrath has a point. We could have hand counted the ballots several times over. After all, New Mexico didn't have a problem doing a hand ecount on Bush's request.

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 08:30 PM

McGrath-

The logic of your man Sauls would seem to suggest doing away with having a vote in the first place.
Just heard this approach explained as classic Lewis Carroll justice: Verdict first, evidence later. Sounds about right.

Anyway, one useful thing, I imagine, is that this is going to mean that it won't be so easy to push electoral reform in the USA off into the margin.
I wish I was as sanguine about this as you seem to be; the average attention span of the American Voter being about two weeks, I would bet you a large sum that this whole sorry travesty produces little or no reform whatever. Nothing has been done about campaign finance reform as yet.

And hey! Sauls ain't MY man, laddie!;-)

Best, Greg

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Whistle Stop
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 02:32 PM

In fairness to Judge Sauls, judges have to restrict their opinions to the legal matters brought before them, rather than decide what they think is "right" independent of the legal issues that are in dispute. Judges pay a great deal of attention to the structure of our democracy, and which decision-making power rests with which branch of government. If a judge were to go beyond his constitutional prerogatives and start trying to make decisions that are supposed to be made by the legislature, he could expect to be overturned on appeal. Judges are supposed to make decisions that they believe are able to withstand an appeal. I think this is what Judge Sauls was trying to do. He recognized that the legislature's job is to enact laws that will ensure the fairness of the process, so HIS job was to decide whether (a) these laws are constitutional, and (b) these laws were followed. Not whether he would have written different laws, or applied his discretion differently if he were in charge.

As I understand it, Florida law requires that the plaintiff in a case like this must establish that there is a likelihood that the revised totals after a recount will change the outcome of the election (I'm paraphrasing, obviously). These threshold questions are important, otherwise every dispute could be tied up in court indefinitely, based only on one party's willingness to continue the contest. The judge ruled that the plaintiff (Gore) had not met his threshold burden, and therefore the ruling would have to go against him. The good thing about Judge Saul's ruling is that it was clear and unambiguous, which will allow the Florida Supreme Court to consider the appeal in an expeditious manner.

In this and other cases, there are legitimate questions about whether judges can and should go beyond the narrow confines of the question they're confronted with, and examine the larger implications. This can cut both ways; we want judges to have the whole picture and issue rulings that make sense in light of all the facts, but we also want to be sure that we don't give judges so much discretion that they effectively usurp powers constitutionally granted to the other branches of government (which are elected, and therefore directly accountable to the voters). In order for our system of government to work right, the powers of the three branches have to be kept in some sort of balance. I think Judge Sauls had this very much in mind. Now we get to see whether the Florida Supreme Court thinks HE handled his discretion correctly.

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 12:42 PM

I take it that means "without counting the votes, we can't know whether it would make any difference to the result already declared. So don't count the votes."

I thought the idea of counting the votes was to find out things like that.

The logic of your man Sauls would seem to suggest doing away with having a vote in the first place. Does he do this judging stuff for a living or is it just a hobby?

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Troll
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 10:47 AM

Sorry. The first line should read:
"In this case, there is no credible statistical evidence and no other etc.
I know I said I would not post again on this thread but I feel that this quote is of some relevance.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Troll
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 10:41 AM

" In this case there is no other confident substantial evidence to establish by a preponderance a reasonable probability that the results of the state-wide election in the state of Florida would be different from the result which has been certified by the State Elections Canvassing Commission. The court further finds and concludes the evidence does not establish any illegality, dishonesty, gross negligence, improper influence, coercion or fraud in the balloting and counting processes . . . In conclusion, the court finds the plaintiffs (Mr. Gore's team) have failed to carry the requisite burden of proof." Judge Sauls.

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 08:23 AM

If there's a fiddle in the absentee viotes which means that it is possible that fraudulent votes were slipped through, or people were allowed to vote after the election had finished, clearly they shouldn't be counted. That'd be the same as having ballot boxes stuffed with phony votes, which I gather has been a tradition in some places.

Presumably it was to stop that kind of fraud that there are rules agreed in advance of the election about things like postmarks.

If they were genuine votes cast in time, and it's purely a technicality, then they shold be counted, just in the same way as all the other votes which may have been inmproperly excluded should be counted. But being flexible to allow one sort of vote while excluding the other would be exercising a double standard.

"Not double standrads" - that means either including all the votes, and being flexible to ensure that happens; or it means being firm and sticking to all the rules.

And though DougR is against double standards, it looks very much as if there are a lot of people around who are not, including the guy who is probably going to be in the White House (and quite possibly the one who probably won't be in the White House - but there's rather less evidence of it in his case).

The bottom line is, it would have been perfectly simple and straightforward to have had by now a complete and verifiable manual count of all the votes in Florida (or for that matter in every state in the Union).

If all the counts happen at the same time, it doesn't matter how many there are, it doesn't take any longer than it does to conduct one count. So why was it seen as any more of a problem to count manually in all the counties sthan it was in one or two only?

And that would have sorted things out in a way that would have been much fairer and more open. (All right, it wouldn't have sorted out issues of intimidation and obstruction stopping people from voting, but that's a pretty big thing to sort out. And badly designed ballot papers, and badkly maintained voting machines...)

So the person responsible for all the confusion and delay have been the person responsible for obstructing the complete count which was requested by Gore and company.

Anyway, one useful thing, I imagine, is that this is going to mean that it won't be so easy to push electoral reform in the USA off into the margin.

And one unfortunate result will probably be that the unfortunate thing will be that the very imperfect voting system we have here in England is less likely to get shaken up, because it's evident now that it could be so much worse that it can be made to look quite good. (But at least we won't be getting voting machines, I suspect - and that is the kind of change we can definitely do without.)

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Suffet
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 06:58 AM

[Untitled]
Lyrics: Stephen L. Suffet © 2000
Tune: ROSIN THE BEAU (ACRES OF CLAMS)

I lived all my life in Chicago,
In the county the world knows as Cook,
I voted each time for Mayor Daley,
The boss that the world knew as crook.
And when it came time to re-ti-i-re,
A West Palm Beach condo I bought,
Each Sunday I sang in the choir,
And I voted for Gore, so I thought!

In Chicago we counted dead voters,
The cadavers all flocked to the polls,
Down here they don't count the live ones,
Unless they make clearly punched holes.
It's payback for Richard M. Ni-i-xon,
A cosmic kick in the tush,
Young Jack licked Dick back in '60,
But this time will Albert lick Bush?

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: DougR
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 12:50 AM

Hmm, Lucius. I assume you don't agree, then, with the opinions of the courts (to date) in Florida?

Do you realize, Lucius, that if the popular vote in this country deteminded who will be president, that we would probably have a replay of what has happened in Florida, in every state in the union during every future election? We could have an election that lasts for four years, probably.

You folks still have a chance. Don't give up yet. Al certainly won't. I assume your best chance for getting your guy into the White House is the court case charging that the Republicans skewed the election by adding registration numbers to the applications for absentee ballots in one of the counties in Florida. They didn't tamper with the ballots themselves, of course, just the applications for a ballot (and everyone knows that could seriously impair the judgement of the voter, right?). If the Judge rules against Bush, in that case, your guy has the election.

But what happens then, to the hue and cry for all ballots to be counted? Nine thousand or so votes would be voided due to the stupidity of the election officials and the Republicans that added registration numbers to the applications. The voters will have done nothing wrong, but their votes will still be voided.

So, do the Democrats want every vote counted, as they have been screaming about for the past two or three weeks, or do they just want to win an election, regardless of what it takes to win it?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Lucius
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 12:23 AM

Ask me in four years, and only if the votes are counted properly. Until then there has been no valad election, and no president.

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Dec 00 - 12:05 AM

Bosh

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Margo
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 11:57 PM

Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: GUEST,FOG (FRIEND OF GNOME)
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 08:39 PM

YIPEE DAVE IT IS US!!!

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 07:54 PM

Well it ought to be "Whoever becomes president will do so because their political party will be cagier, stronger, more unified and partisan" - and this means that they get more people voting for them.

Once the voting is done, it should be is purely and simply an administrative matter of making sure that noone stops people casting their votes and a technical matter of counting the votes accurately. But somehow the partisanship and the manoeuvring and so forth that was appropriate duiring teh campaign was allowed to dominate and distort the voting stage.

And that's not a council of perfection, "in an ideal world", it's how most democratic countries do it, without needing to make a lotr of fuss about it, and without anybody - God Forbid! - trying to interfere with the process of counting or recounting the votes either by legal chicanery or extralegal methods.

And if anyone starts talking (and I've already heard the TV pundits doing it) about how all this has demonstratedt a robust democractic process in action, where the battle is carried on in a combative but fundamentally healthy way, and that kind of guff, it's total crap. Not healthy, sick, and in some danger.

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 05:22 PM

I think it's important to consider that the issue of who is president has left the arena of law and now is exclusively in the theater of politics. Any legal position is tempered by political leanings and this is why the Supreme Court of the US chose not to take this case.

Whoever becomes president will do so because their political party will be cagier, stronger, more unified and partisan. This goes for Nader as well as Bush and Gore.

Now to answer the real hot-patato question, which of the candidates is better for America? (Clue: expect partisan answers).

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: GUEST,Roger the skiffler
Date: 04 Dec 00 - 11:05 AM

I've tried to avoid getting sucked into the little local difficulty the colonists are having in Florida but I think Matt_R hs the solution: in his universe everyone rules!! (but if Matt is the only taxpayer left...)
Well, try it and see how it works out!
RtS :oD)

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Dec 00 - 12:00 PM

London Irish. Well, you may (with some difficulty) actually elect the President, but we have to put up with the stuff he does, so it's relevant enough who gets the job, and also what kind of process is involved. And we do get deluges with coverage in the media. And it's a good idea to keep an eye on it, becuase there's a tendency for the rest of the world to take America as a role model in all kinds of things. (Not in election techniques now though, I suspect.)

The general rule is that the bigger the country the more parochial the people living there tends to be. Well, it's natural enough, it feels self-sufficient, a world on its own. As England gets smaller, it gets more aware of the existence of the rest of the world as something more than a source of groceries. But America must feel an awful long way from most places, and even though hyphenated Americans have folk memories of other places, I get the impression these aren't always that close or accurate.

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 03 Dec 00 - 09:08 AM

McGrath: Aren't you English? Or Scottish? How is it you have so much interest in American politics? (I say this with admiration. Would that I were so well informed about any nation other than the US.)

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: mousethief
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 01:01 PM

What do you mean Troll, "My examples were not anecdotal" -=- isn't that what anecdote means, an story told as an example?

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Dec 00 - 10:57 AM

Well, I agree with that Mark Twain quote. And I take it that troll agrees with me when I said "But if people have one set of rules for their own side, and a different set for the other side in the same situation, that is plain dishonest, whichever side they are on. And it treats the outcome of an election as more important than maintaining the processes of democracy. And that is a very slippery slope, and a lot of other countries in their time have slid down it, and it ends up somewhere very unpleasant indeed."

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Troll
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 08:48 PM

I will post no more on this thread. I have given everyone a site where they can learn the other side of the story, but I hear the same tired misconceptions. If they don't wish to avail themselves of this opportunity to educate themselves, so be it.
As mark Twain said,"You can't argue with invincible ignorance."

troll

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 08:23 PM

Sorrty - typing error in that penultimate paragraph! It should read:

"I'm not being sarcastic here - it can be argued that what matters is to get the whole thing out of the way without a fuss, even if the person "elected" actually got fewer votes. (Well, of course, Bush did get quite a lot fewer votes than Gore overall - but I mean votes where it counts, for electoral college purposes, since it's the system you've still got.)

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 08:19 PM

"Why hasn't Bush asked for a recount in Republican counties? I don't know." Says troll.

Well the simplest reason is that he doesn't want to risk being defeated if the votes were really counted across the state, and prefers to hang on to the lead which he fluked. (600 or so votes in 6 million is a fluke by any standards, especially when there are tens of thousands which could be in question.)

After all, it wouldn't have taken any longer to count all the votes than to count one large county, even at Florida speed.

"If the shoe had been on the other foot, I'm pretty sure Gore would be doing everything humanly posible to hang onto his lead." You may well be right.

If in those circumstances, Gore had tried to stop the recounts, he would, in my view anyway, have shown himself up as a man totally unworthy of any elected office. "A pompous little crook" was the appropriate term I suggested for him in those circumstances, earlier in the thread..

Would I be right to assume that ,in those circumstances, troll would be calling for Bush to concede, and for him to refuse to countenance any manual recounts?

I'm not being sarcastic here - it can be argued that what matters is to get the whole thing out of the way without a fuss, even if the person "elected" actually got fewer votes. (Well, of course, Bush did get quite a lot fewer votes than Bush overall - but I mean votes where it counts, for electoral college purposes, since it's the system you've still got.)

But if people have one set of rules for their own side, and a different set for the other side in the same situation, that is plain dishonest, whichever side they are on. And it treats the outcome of an election as more important than maintaining the processes of democracy. And that is a very slippery slope, and a lot of other countries in their time have slid down it, and it ends up somewhere very unpleasant indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 07:25 PM

God help me, I just today wrote and posted what may be a world's record for the longest ever single posting of all-original material: 1,132 words, according to my word processor. And it was all carefully thought out, not BS. I don't know what possessed me. Probably nobody has the patience to read all of it, least of all the people it was addressed to. Still, having put so much effort into it, I would appreciate it if anyone would read it and give me their comments. Look here.

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Troll
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 05:41 PM

Taht should have been "Josef"
Proofread, you fool.
Proofread!

troll

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Troll
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 05:39 PM

BTW
"The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."
Josep Stalin

troll

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Troll
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 05:23 PM

Septic er, Skeptic(sorry there) I never mentioned a vast liberal media conspiracy. I simply stated my opinion based what I have seen and read.
Of course the press is sensationalistic. It is no longer driven by a wish to inform but by profit margins and market shares. My examples are not anecdotal but are there for anyone to read or-more likely- view.
The ballot problems in Seminole and Marin(?) Co.'s are even now being investigated by the courts and this fact is being carried in the conservative press.
Why hasn't Bush asked for a recount in Republican counties? I don't know.
If the shoe had been on the other foot, I'm pretty sure Gore would be doing everything humanly posible to hang onto his lead. As it is, the reports are that he has investigators out trying to find dirt on the Fla. electors to see if any of them can be "persuaded" to change their vote. Sweet guy.
The votes that Bush is trying to stop being counted are NOT legal, valid votes. I'm sorry but a dimpled chad does not qualify as a legal valid vote no matter how you spin it.
Those votes were counted twice by machine and the rejected votes were counted again and when Gore STILL couldn't find enough votes to win, they started counting dimpled chads.
Fla. law is pretty clear that the votes will be in and certified by five o'clock on the seventh day after the election. Ms.Harris tried to follow the law. Should she have recused herself because she's a Republican?
If so, by that logic, so should the supervisors and canvassers in South Fla. since they are Democrats.
I don't like Bush. I like Gore even less. Our choices this time were limited in the extreme.
Better luck next time.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Seth
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 04:36 PM

I agree with M. Ted. People that I talk to in China, where they don't get to vote, see this election as a fraud and I haven't spoken to anyone who sees Bush Jr. as a legitimate president. Of course, I'm on the level with teachers and educators-I don't know what the politicians are really thinking. China was very supportive of Milosevich until days after the rest of the world knew that he had been booted, at least in the press and T.V. here. Seth from CHina

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Skeptic
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 04:09 PM

troll, There is no "mainstream liberal media". The mainstream media is sensationalistic, headline grabbing and a lot of other things, but there really isn't a conspiracy. (Which is interesting, considering the low opinion you seem to have of liberals, I mean, the ones you describe don't seem capable of orchestrating a conspiracy so well concealed and managed that proof is lacking. Anecdotes don't count as proof, BTW.) If anything, the press (overall) are notorious fence sitting wimps.

Interesting that the "liberal media" hasn't brought up the Bush efforts in Seminole and Marin County more prominently as the allegations there involve outright fraud. And Ms. Harris chose to ignore those (and similar) allegations of collusion and fraud when she certified the ballot. They also haven't mentioned the interesting historical trivia of the massive recounts in 1960 demanded by the Republicans, playing this a Democratic challenge to the electorial system. The recounts in 1960 involved 13 states and in Illinois lasted well into December.

Whatever our divergent opinions on Bush and Gore are, claiming that the media is liberal (with the hint of a conspiracy of some sort) and that somehow means something is disingenuous and misleading. And unworthy. You can and have argued more persuasively (and enjoyably) based on substansive issues, not irelevancies. (Well maybe not on mudcat, but you have)

To Continue:

I believe another thread commented on the fact that there isn't a State, let alone Federal standard for managing an election. It bears repeating. The County Supervisors in Florida, as elected officials, enjoy a great deal of discretion. My County is a Charter County, which means that except where specially limited by the Constitution of Florida which gives us a lot of local discretion. And makes the local Supervisors perhaps more susceptible to pressure.

Should I be concerned that a Republican Secretary of State certified the election. That a Republican controlled legislature will act to validate it? No, according to the "liberal press", I should be concerned that a democratic State Supreme Court sided with Gore.

Are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton stirring up trouble? I think so but see no great conspiracy. Both of them generally play to the media to further there own agenda. Say what you will, neither are robots.

And if there is a bias in the media against Bush, is it because he is a Conservative Republican, or because he really is the self serving tool of the upper class people portray him as? Media (the liberal media) spin is what a great job he did in Texas, and all the problems aren't really his fault. Hardly the attitude of a liberal press conspiring against the downtrodden Republicans.

Why doesn't the Bush campaign want the hand count to continue? They were and are trying hard to stop it, with the ingenious claim that the people have spoken. But if all the votes haven't been counted, the people haven't spoken, at least not all the people.

The true contest isn't about Bush or Gore but about the integrity of an (admittedly) cumbersome system. If the ongoing schoolyard fight causes a significant number of voters to doubt or reject the system itself, that will do more harm than the issue of who is President for the next year.

And finally, the only date that truly matters under the US Constitution, is January 6 when Congress counts the ballots of the Electors. What if Bush takes Florida but the electors vote for Gore. (As they are perfectly free to do under the US Constitution)?. That is worthy of concern.

Regards

John

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 01:39 PM

I see that in Canada's election, where there were something like 13 million ballot-papers, they counted all the votes by hand, and did so in four hours or so. And I assume that included recounts. (I gather that the 62% turn out was a record low for Canada, and conmsidwered a bit disgraceful...)P>

Couldn't they just ship all the ballot-papers from Florida up across the Canadian border, and they could sort the whole thing out over the weekend, including a couple of recounts if need be. And they wouldn't have one single Republican or Democrat involved in counting the votes. Either doing the counting or trying to stop the counting.

As for recounts - the only way to get an accurate recount of a machine vote like that has to be a manual recount. That was never carried out effectively, and Bush's team made every effort to stop such a recount being made, and I doubt if anybody either Republican or Democrat really sincerely believes that it is less accurate to check the votes by hand.

If Bush had been making noises about how to make sure that a manual recount was carried out more effectively and fairly, and rule out any kind of bias that would have been reasonable and fair, and a responsible thing to be doing. But he wasn't doing that.

And if he had been complaining about the failure of more counties in Florida to carry out a manual recount, including especially counties where it was expected that the voters were predominently Republican, that would have made sense too. But he didn't do that either.

What he and his supportwers did was to do everything they could do to obstruct and prevaricate, with the self-evident intention of taking advantage of the fact that he had come in marginally ahead on a count which was clearly very unreliable indeed. Maybe he might in fact have come in ahead on a fair count - but he wasn't going to take that risk. Winning was far more important to him than preserving the democratic processes.

As for the military votes - there are rules agreed in advance about such things. They are meant to stop fraud, fraud which would mean that the votes of military personnel could be stolen by the people carrying out the fraud. I assume that the people drawing up and agreeing the rules been doing so on the basis of possible ways of cheating which they had envisaged, and that these rules would have been agreed on a cross-party basis.

If the rules were genuinely broken, and the safeguards against fraud were removed, clearly they shouldn't be included. If it is not clear whether the rules have been broken, I assume that some kind of court has the duty to rule one way or the other. And I understand that that is what is happening.

As I said, maybe they should call in the Canadians to help sort things out.

Small L for Democrat. Slip-up there. It's from being used to saying "liberal with a small L". But with what's going on down in Florida, maybe the difference between big and small D is getting a bit eroded anyhow...

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Troll
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 12:54 PM

Ebbie and DougR, thanks for the correction. Even us conservative icons (a legend in his own mind) make mistakes now and then.
June 1947 and now this. Tsk. Tsk.
Marty, I agree with you. Lets put a dome over Washington, D.C., and let them continue to think they're the center of the universe while the rest of us get on with life.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: GUEST,Marty
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 02:40 AM

Who cares? The reason the election was so close in the first place is that there isn't a nickel's worth of difference between those two clowns. Next time around, we'll have one candidate and just vote on whether to call him a Democrat or a Republican.

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: DougR
Date: 01 Dec 00 - 01:21 AM

Sorry, Ebbie, I think you are mistaken. Yes, the Republican went on vacation, but I think she was replaced by another Republican.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 11:27 PM

Troll- can't let this one go by: The counters were NOT all Democrats- what'sa matta you? Each team had members of each side, as the law requires. It's true that when the Republican overseer (of a 3-person overseeing team) went on her vacation, they filled that spot with another Democrat. But that's a very different thing.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Troll
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 11:20 PM

I'll make it easy for you.
www.boortz.com
He's a Libertarian. Follow the links. Read the articles.
Learn.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Troll
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 11:17 PM

All the LEGAL, VALID votes have been counted several times. What is now going on is a desperate attempt by Gore to find more votes. Since he can't find them in the valid votes, he's looking in the invalid ones. His lawyer lied in the case he cited where a judge in Illinois allowed "dimpled" chads to be counted.
In fact, the judge DENIED the counting of dimpled chads. A complaint has been filed with the Amer. Bar Assn. in this matter.
McGrath keeps saying that Bush has tried to "obstruct the recount" but he never cites examples except for the demonstration in Miami-Dade. The truth is that the counters-all Democrats- were attempting to MOVE the counting site from the large open area where it was to a group of locked offices on the next floor where there could have been no observers. The onlookers justifiably raised hell and they stopped. There was no "near riot" as the Gore camp claimed and this is confirmed by the counters themselves.
If anyone is trying to "steal" the election at this point, it's Gore. He has gotten military ballots disqualified that should not have been disqualified. He has lied -via his attourney-to the state Supreme Court. His cronies in Washington and the media are now trying a smear campaign of the lowest sort on Fla. Sec. of State Katherine Harris (where are the feminists on this one).
I could continue but I won't. I'll simply say that you need to read something other than the mainstream liberal media and learn the other side of the story.
Of course, if you want to maintain your ignorance...thats up to you.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 11:16 PM

I agree with McGrath except the small L part. "L" doesn't occur in "democrat." This confuses my simple mind.

Alex

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 08:11 PM

McGrath, I agree whole heartedly.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 08:00 PM

"squalid little crook".

Counting the vote should be above politics. Any kind of democrat - small L please note - wants to see a fair and complete count.

A razor-thin division of vote means that a recount is necessary. Any true democrat (small L) will want to see a recount, regardless of whether he or she is ahead or not. Getting the vote right is more important than who wins.

If the person who is ahead in a razor-thin vote tries to obstruct the recount, he or she interfering with the democratic process and trying to steal the election.

And that is what Bush has been openly and persistantlym and shamelessly doing, that is why I think he is a squalid litle crook. And if Gore had done the same I'd call him a pompous little crook.

The point is, there has not been a complete recount in Florida, nor even in the few counties that tried to hold a recount. And Bush and co have done everything they could to obstruct every effort to hold such a recount.

Anyone who tolerates behaviour by and on behalf of the candidate they happen to prefer that they would not tolerate in an opposing candidate is a hypocrite and no friend of democracy. Can't there at least be consensus on that?

This isn't really about politics, at all, it's about dishonesty and corruption.

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 07:55 PM

Yeah, and Schlesinger's father once told my mother, "Arthur's and idiot and he'll never be anything but and idiot."

True story.

Ah, but Sarah, his father's name was also Arthur and he was talking about himself.

Probably just about as true a story. :)

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: M. Ted (inactive)
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 06:42 PM

Just got back from visiting London and Paris, and the view most commonly held in both places that that Bush's 'Florida Victory" being as shaky as it was, is obviously the result of hanky-panky by brother Jeb--The Bush position is regarded as nothing more or less than an effort to steal the election and kick up enough dust to get away with it. The "American System" which we flaunt and tout to the point of insufferability, is now something of a joke--

I heard the comment that "The only reason that Bush could have for trying to keep the recount from taking place is that he knows the election was rigged and he'll be found out." so many times that I got sick of agreeing with it--

The fact that the margin of victory in the election was less by huge number, than the number of ballots thrown out, makes the whole election, no matter what the outcome, look completely invalid, no matter who the victor turns out to be, and no one in Europe, from the people that I talked to, to the press, to the TV journalists, can understand why another election is not held in Florida--

Of course, in our narcisistic way, we insist that Europeans and others simple do not understand how our system works, and that anyway, their views don't matter--but the fact is that we are the pre-eminent military and economic power in the world, and, as none other than Former President George Bush once said, you may run for office on domestic policy, as president, your main occupation is foreign policy.

If Bush finally becomes president through any other means than a full, systematic, accounting of all the ballots cast, and a full judicial review of all the legal issues, the world view of it will be that the election result was manipulated, and he stole the election. This will undermine any credibility that we have when insisting on free and democratic elections anywhere else in the world, and Bush will be viewed as a corrupt usurper in the ranks of Pinochet, Marcos, Milosevic, Suharto and so on.

If conservatives really believe in their candidate and in their country, they need to seriously consider the appearance that his action have, and should encourage him to do encourage a close examination of all the details of the election so that the final, general perception, will be tht the Florida election was untainted--

Subject: RE: BS: So Who is Our New President?
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Nov 00 - 06:10 PM

I'm with Kim C: the more Gore doth protest, the less respect I have for him (which never was great).

Alex
O..O
=o=