Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 6, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

PRESIDENT GORE....As a matter of policy, I think that pining over the results of the 2000 election is pretty counterproductive. But hey sometimes you just can't help yourself. Here's an interview with Lance deHaven-Smith, a professor at Florida State University who recently published The Battle for Florida:

One of the most interesting points you make in the book is that the focus on undervotes (ballots containing no vote for president) the hanging, dimpled and otherwise pregnant chads was misplaced. Instead, you explain that a study by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, which looked at all the ballots that were initially rejected on election night 2000, revealed a surprise: most of these uncounted votes were in fact discarded because they were over-votes, instances of two votes for president on one ballot. What do you think the NORC study tells us about the election?

LdHS: There were 175,000 votes overall that were so-called spoiled ballots. About two-thirds of the spoiled ballots were over-votes....And nobody looked at this, not even the Florida Supreme Court in the last decision it made requiring a statewide recount. Nobody had thought about it except Judge Terry Lewis, who was overseeing the statewide recount when it was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The write-in over-votes have really not gotten much attention. Those votes are not ambiguous. When you see Gore picked and then Gore written in, theres not a question in your mind who this person was voting for. When you go through those, theyre unambiguous: Bush got some of those votes, but they were overwhelmingly for Gore. For example, in an analysis of the 2.7 million votes that had been cast in Floridas eight largest counties, The Washington Post found that Gores name was punched on 46,000 of the over-vote ballots, while Bushs name was marked on only 17,000.

For your research, you merged this set of data with detailed profiles of Floridas electoral precincts. What did you find?

LdHS: One of the things I found that hadnt been reported anywhere is, if you look at where those votes occurred, they were in predominantly black precincts. And (when you look at) the history of black voting in Florida, these are people that have been disenfranchised, intimidated. In the history of the early 20th century, black votes would be thrown out on technicalities, like they would use an X instead of a check mark.

So you can understand why African Americans would be so careful, checking off Gores name on the list of candidates and also writing Gores name in the space for write-in votes. But because of the way the vote-counting machines work, this had the opposite effect: the machines threw out their ballots.

Via Andrew Tobias.

Kevin Drum 1:00 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (275)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Cue rdw:
your hair is on fire
that cow has left the barn

Take your choice.

Posted by: WhoSays on January 6, 2006 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

Cue "Ah but they were still illegal votes. Ignorance of the voting law is no excuse." *cough*military unpostmarked ballets*cough*

Posted by: Tony on January 6, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

ballots can sound like ballets when you're coughing....

Posted by: Tony on January 6, 2006 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Anyone remember when Antonin Scalia called the election for Al Gore? No? Probably because he did not use those words. Instead, he wrote that to continue counting ballots in Florida would harm the plaintiff in Bush v. Gore.

Now, how does the act of counting ballots hurt the putative winner of an election? By demonstrating that he did not win.

QED.

Thanks, Antonin. Take another republic out of petty cash.

Posted by: Roddy McCorley on January 6, 2006 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK

It is the responsibility of the government to provide the opportunity to vote. It is the responsibility of the individual to provide the intelligence to vote.

Help is available, replacement ballots are available.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 6, 2006 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

this is old news.

we knew in 2001 that if the overvotes had been counted Gore would have won.

however, Gore never sued to have the overvotes counted and based on the Washington Post/NY Times consortium, it appears that they wouldn't have been counted...with the result that if the Supremes had not intervened, Bush still would have won. its obvious that more people tried to vote for Gore that day. it's also irrelevant. Gore sued for the undervotes.

Posted by: Nathan on January 6, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

It is the responsibility of the government to provide the opportunity to vote. It is the responsibility of the individual to provide the intelligence to vote.

Help is available, replacement ballots are available.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 6, 2006 at 1:11 PM |

And it only took 3 minutes!

Posted by: Tony on January 6, 2006 at 1:14 PM | PERMALINK

I actually think this is the more interesting part of the interview:

RinR: One of the reasons, you argue, that the most popular candidate ended up losing the election is because so many Americans favored partisan rhetoric over an unbiased search for truth during the recounts in 2000. How do you explain this?

LdHS: As far as I can tell, its the way societies work. One of the things weve learned with public opinion research, the most fundamental finding of public opinion research of the past 50 years is that the masses follow the elites.
Most people dont have time to learn about all these things, and they look to a particular person that they trust. It may not be the president, it may be Jesse Jackson, you know, it could be Rush Limbaugh, it could be somebody whos not in government, but they look at that person and defer to that person. Its a normal thing. I dont see that changing. It really is a matter of elites being willing to be committed to democracy and the rule of law and the rule of reason.

RinR: And this can be a problem because?

LdHS: Unfortunately, the history of democracy is that leadership philosophy is eroded as the competition between elites becomes more intense. Thats what happened with Athenian democracy; thats what happened in the Roman Republic. So you look at our system today; you see our elites doing it, and you know were in big trouble. Its in my lifetime that this has happened, that elites have begun to put winning ahead everything else, ahead of truth and country.

Posted by: Jon on January 6, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

In telligence is quite obviously not a prerequisite to voting, cn. Look how many voted for Bush both times.

Posted by: Ace Franze on January 6, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Not to mention the fact that the Floridians who participated in the scheme to deprive the Blacks of their voting rights even before the election of 2000 have been richly rewarded by the GOP (Harris) and the President (recent recess appintments).

Posted by: lib on January 6, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

Ace
What you should have said is "look how many correctly executed their ballots for Bush both times".

Tony
The truth kind of does that, you know.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 6, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

With all the problems facing the U.S., we need a candidate who:

1. Opposed this war in Iraq, but supported the Gulf War.

2. Has spoken out about global warming for decades.

3. Advocates a total overhaul of the healthcare system.

4. Has a proven record of turning record deficits into record surpluses.

5. Has a proven record of reducing poverty.

6. Has a good understanding of science, technology, and government.

7. For good measure, is a Veteran.

Oh, if only there was such a mythical person!

Posted by: Gore/Obama '08 on January 6, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

More proof that God wanted W to be president!

Next time, though, it'd be nice if he just, y'know, arranged for the guy to actually win the election.

Posted by: DrBB on January 6, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

Jon,

What other faction of the "elite" are we in competition with? The government is ours. We bought and paid for it. As they say, possession is 9/10th of the law!

Posted by: kaptain kapital on January 6, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

As a matter of policy, what is counterproductive is not pining about the 2000 election. The will of the voters was thwarted, and the loser of the election was made president. If you don't pine about grand theft on that scale, it's going to happen again.

Posted by: Greg Sheehy on January 6, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Nut, I'm sorry, was I coughing too loud for you to hear the military ballots part?
Can't have your cake and eat it son.

Posted by: Tony on January 6, 2006 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Just unbelievable. Although, you know, it really does back up Strom Thurmond--if we'd have just gone with Wallace all those years ago, we wouldn't have had all these problems. The problem really rests with African Americans and their pesky habit of resisting disenfranchisement of their fundamental rights as Americans.

If African American voters would just accept that there's nothing they can do to stop their votes being thrown out on a technicality, then they wouldn't take steps to try and prevent their votes from being thrown out on a technicality that resulted in their votes being thrown out on a technicality.

I mean, really, if someone checks off Gore, circles Gore, and writes in GORE in six inch letters, they should reasonably expect that their vote would not count for Gore. That's just common sense.

Posted by: theorajones on January 6, 2006 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

The "get over it" crowd (who never got over Nixon's impeachment and who still visit their wrath upon the left because of it) don't want the 2000 election rehashed. I don't blame them. It seems as though the truth would really, um, gore them.

But there's a serious side to this, and that's the importance of every single registered voter in America, regardless of color, being secure in the knowledge that his/her vote counts. The chicanery extends way beyond non-white voters in poorer areas. Errors should never be allowed to exceed the barest minimum. An election in which doubt exceeds certainty by more than a tiny percentage should be held all over again, whether it's for dog-catcher or president.

Please let's not sag back into the rightwing slime of "get over it." Democracy is all about vigilance and tenacity and action, not weakness and surrender. We've been allowing and even rewarding criminal behavior for five years now. If there's something to get beyond, it's dithering and complacency.

Posted by: PW on January 6, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

Niagara Falls. Slowly I turned...
Remember the 22,000 overvotes in Duval county in Jacksonville. Voter instructions were to mark a candidate on every "page". The presidential ballot went on for many pages.

Posted by: HL Mungo on January 6, 2006 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

Gore couldn't win his home state, Tennessee, and also lost West Virginia, Kentucky, and Arkansas. Any one of these

Any Democrat that can't win at least two of these states does not deserve to be taken with respect as a national candidate.

Posted by: Thinker on January 6, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and we need to make sure we have candidates who don't, like Gore and Kerry, fade away from controversy when a recount is needed.

Posted by: PW on January 6, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK
The "get over it" crowd (who never got over Nixon's impeachment and who still visit their wrath upon the left because of it)

Which is most amazing as Nixon was never, in fact, impeached.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 6, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

I don't mind when the wingers say "get over it." Had Gore won and they had these complaints, I would probably say the same thing.

What really burns me is that Bush won in such a screwed up election and then doesn't even bother to try and prevent future elections being equally screwed up, just so his buddies at Diebold can see a little more profit.

Hey trolls, I'll "get over" 2000 just as soon as I'm reasonably confident that it won't happen again (regardless of whether the vote is for a "good candidate" or not). The Ohio results from '04 have not increased my confidence.

Posted by: mmy on January 6, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

whosays,

I have to admit I am totally baffled. Why do you do this to yourself? This has got to be torture. It's 2006. This was 2000, Two elections ago. How long will it take before you can let it go?

I always saw the voter recount process as a fair test of executive skill and a solid way to solve the problem. It was solved correctly. Al Gore did a horrible job. Why he didn't immediately ask for an immediate and total recount I'll never understand. Instead he tried to pick off only that's counties which could help him while blocking the militayr count when he had to know the contersuits were going to kill him from a time perspective.

I recall a report made just before the Supreme Court hearing where Gore was represented by David Boiles. He had the best of the best among democratic lawyers. For 20 minutes outside the court David had a cell phone in his ear listening to Al Gore. That's insanity. It was also reported Boiles had to spend a lot of time the previous few days keeping Al in the loop. He's not even a friggin lawyer! Why didn't he step back and let the pro's do their job?

Al lost because he mad a series of bad decisions. That's merit!

BTW: A large consortium of papers and magazines did a recount under a series of different tests. They announced under the original method, Al's method and the State Supreme courts method Bush won. It was only using the Federal Supreme Court's method that Gore may have won.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: your BTW is somewhat inaccurate. Gore would have won if the overvotes had been counted statewide. however, he never sued for that and it wasn't the relief granted by the Florida Supreme Court.

Posted by: Nathan on January 6, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

"Just unbelievable. Although, you know, it really does back up Strom Thurmond--if we'd have just gone with Wallace all those years ago, we wouldn't have had all these problems. The problem really rests with African Americans and their pesky habit of resisting disenfranchisement of their fundamental rights as Americans."

I believe about 19% of the votes come from black folks, while the black population is only around 13%. Sounds like to me, it's the non-blacks who are disenfrenchised.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on January 6, 2006 at 1:33 PM | PERMALINK

Nut, I'm sorry, was I coughing too loud for you to hear the military ballots part?
The military ballets? I'm afraid that post was a little incoherent, but it's becoming clear.

The first thing that becomes clear is your willingness to throw out the votes of the people that have signed up to protect your sorry ass.

The second thing is that yes, the law was on your side. Fortunately it's been fixed so our men and women in uniform can vote again (even though you Democrats don't desire this to happen).

Third, ... oh skip the third, it'll sail so far over your head you couldn't find it with a radio telescope.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 6, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

Any Democrat that can't win at least two of these states does not deserve to be taken with respect as a national candidate.

How about a candidate that wins a majority of the votes. Does he/she deserve respect?

Posted by: WhoSays on January 6, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

nathan,

that's what I meant to say. Gore never asked for and the State didn't proscribe counting overvotes.

The Federal supreme court ruled 7 - 2 those recounts were illegal. If a recount was to be done it had to be a recount of ALL votes in ALL counties. No just the ones Al tried to cherry pick. The 5 -4 voted was to stop counting because there wasn't time and Florida law said all recounts had to be completed by a specific date.

At least that's my recollection.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

Gore in 2008

Who else?
When you think of where we might be today it's enough to make you wretch in disgust and shame.
But then, you think, well maybe this was necessary to allow Al Gore to grow and change and truly become that man who can be President of these United States.
The universe works in mysterious ways....don't it

Posted by: marcus on January 6, 2006 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINK

As they say, possession is 9/10th of the law! - kaptain kapital

Ah, the Republican rationale for theft of Democracy. Nice to see that the Republican party is still recruiting the brightest and best kaptain krapital.

Posted by: Eric Paulsen on January 6, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

kaptain kapital sez:
"As they say, possession is 9/10th of the law!"

AS GW sez - "possession is 9/11th of the law..."

Posted by: Can't help myself on January 6, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

How about a candidate that wins a majority of the votes. Does he/she deserve respect?

They absolutely deserve our respect. They also deserve our fond wishes for good luck as they get on with life in the private sector.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

Gore won, but got robbed by hometown refs. It happens. Now we're in the situation where, to win the title, we have to win by knockout. Sucks to be us, but there it is.

That's why Dean's 50-state strategy is the only way to go. The Reps own the state houses, which is tantamount to owning the voting machines (yes, I know; they own those too). If it's close, they'll rob it, bigger 'n shit. In all honesty, I can't blame them.

Politics is politics. You either win or lose. Me, I like winning better.

And with the GOP gangster, Jack Ambramoff, getting famouser by the minute, I kinda like our chances in 2006. You know it?

Posted by: steve High on January 6, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

"Why he didn't immediately ask for an immediate and total recount I'll never understand"

It's not that difficult...see, unlike Bush, Gore actually believes in the rule of law. And there was no provision under Florida law to ask for what you think he should have asked for.

I know, I know....after 5 years of Bush the idea of folowing the law is just so passe.

Posted by: chaboard on January 6, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

Hi RDW, still single and hating it?

Posted by: WDR on January 6, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

look how many correctly executed their ballots for Bush both times

without a paper trail, we can't.

and without access to the source code of the voting terminals, we'll just have to trust that everything the computerized voting terminal outputs reflects its input, 100%

Posted by: cleek on January 6, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

wdr,

please show some discretion. If my wife finds out I'm single she'll kick my ass.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK


KEVIN DRUM: As a matter of policy, I think that pining over the results of the 2000 election is pretty counterproductive.

Whereas, your policy of bending over backward and forward to look for good intentions in Bush's policies and of failing ever to explicitly state the fact of his thorough dishonesty or to call for his impeachment has been pretty productive, right?

Productive for whom, by the way?


Posted by: jayarbee on January 6, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

steve high,

That's a start but eventually you're party is going to have a platform. It was like last December when you had GWB down in the polls. Then you rolled out Big Jack Murtha and GWB gets 10 points back in two weeks.

It's been known the DNC has been looking to repeat Newt in 1994. Newt was a flame thrower but he also had the Contract with America. Abramhoff can bring down Republican polls but it can't help DNC numbers.

A few weeks back CNN showed a poll showing how the corruption thing was playing. 7% blamed Democrats 12% blamed Republicans and 79% blames both. Considering over 1/3 of Abramahoff's money went to democrats, including Harry Reid, you are not going to have an easy time changing that 79%.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

rd, so do you blow her up manually, or do you have one of those fancy air compressors?

Posted by: WDR on January 6, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, this is dammed painful. If only...If only...

I don't understand why it is up to Al Gore to decide that there was wrongdoing in the election of 2000 and sue to correct the mistakes. The plaitiff should be the American people, justice and fairness. If a person checks off "Gore" and also writes his name, obviously his intent is crystal clear. This isn't the SAT, for God's sake, it's voting.

And how DARE these right wing nutjobs make their snide little remarks about intelligence and lack thereof. Have you dolts looked in a freaking mirror lately?

It's not over. It will never be over. With a President Gore, we would not have this horrible, unnecessary quagmire of a War. There isn't a thing in the country that wouldn't be better with Al Gore--except the war profiteers and the stupids and the greedies would not be raking in the big bucks. And we might have even been spared 9/11. One thing we can be sure of; Gore would have actually read the dammed memo. And he wouldn't be in such a hurry to disregard foreign policy advice from the Clinton administration.

Get over it? NEVER. Yeah, and we're supposed to "get over" the lies that got us into war, right?

Go Cheney yourselves.

Posted by: LAS on January 6, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

wdr,

this does not reach juvenile. give it a rest.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

without a paper trail, we can't.
Kind of makes you wonder why you lefties wanted to hold off on the CA recall election because they had those old style, verifiable machines instead of the latest, greatest electronic ones.

Can you say "I have no ideals, only political expediency"

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 6, 2006 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

las,

It is over.

It was over the minute the Supreme Court issued it's ruling. The fact you can't get over it changes nothing.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK


RDW: Considering over 1/3 of Abramahoff's money went to democrats

I defy you to produce even one authoritative source showing that even one penny of Abramahoff's money went to Democrats.


Posted by: jayarbee on January 6, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

can't we have one little 'your hair is on fire' please?

Posted by: WhoSays on January 6, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

Considering over 1/3 of Abramahoff's money went to democrats, including Harry Reid, you are not going to have an easy time changing that 79%.

the does not even reach wrong. give it a rest.

Posted by: cleek on January 6, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

Kind of makes you wonder why you lefties wanted to hold off on the CA recall election because they had those old style, verifiable machines instead of the latest, greatest electronic ones.

your alternative history fascinates me. please, go on!

Posted by: cleek on January 6, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

How can you people be so dim?

Gore was a ringer anyway. Look at his Veep choice. We were Israel's puppet either way. Gore stopped fighting, because Israel's ends would be served either way. Same with Kerry. My guess is Gannon/Guckert has blackmail material on all of them.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on January 6, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

your alternative history fascinates me. please, go on!
No problem

The Ninth Circuit decision [postponing the California Recall Elections set for October 7 until the March 2004 Primary Elections] was based on a suit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenging the antiquated voting machines used in six California counties where 44% of the states voters reside.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 6, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

Actually the washington state governers race proved that the right will spend years rambling on about thier loss of an election by a few hundered votes suing and investigating everything they can think of with vastly less evidence of wrong doing than in florida after they loose by an absurdly small margin in recounts (less than 200 votes in the end).

Of course our secretary of state is a republican who said the result was valid and the election was fine (meaning not perfect, but completely valid), and wasn't the campaign manager for the winner. The state supreme court decision here was unanimous against the republicans, not simply a majority composed entirely of judges appointed by the winner's party for the winner with a few appointed by the winners party dissenting or a party line federal supreme court vote. Our voter registration system wasn't recently privatized and put in the hands of a supporter of the winner who personally guaranteed victory. Our registration error rate didn't turn out to be ludicrously high and known to be so from the previous election. We didn't have any butterfly ballots and mostly used the most accurate and verifiable technology available (scantron). We had a pre-existing system for doing recounts, and followed it. The error rate found was very small and mostly because of signature verification problems with mail in ballots.

It is kind of amusing talking to a hard core republican here about it. You can often actually see the double-think playing out on thier face as you inform them of these facts. Often they recall them when prompted just as they forget them when prompted by right wing talk radio. Problem is they listen to right wing radio four times a day.

Curiously one of the main trends in our election "reforms" seems to be to go to all mail in ballots which were the source of most of the errors, and most of the fraud, huh? The main source of fraud appears to be old people voting for thier recently dead spouses, though I wonder how many ballots were filled out by people for still living relatives and friends. I have a strong suspicion that the ballot of one particular old man I know was counted in the last few elections though he probably doesn't know what year it is and is even less likely to know who the candidates are.

Posted by: jefff on January 6, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

I defy you to produce even one authoritative source showing that even one penny of Abramahoff's money went to Democrats

Jack was an equal opportuity guy. Do your own search. Harry Reid was far from the only Democratic Senator to know of his largess.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

Al lost because he made a series of bad decisions.

And Bush has been making a series of bad decisions ever since.

Posted by: ckelly on January 6, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: . . . even though you Democrats don't desire this to happen . . .

And a hearty f*ck you, conspiracy nut.

You are a lying and defaming bastard.

rdw: The fact you can't get over it changes nothing.

The fact Clinton served out his two terms can't be changed either, even though you can't get over it.

The fact that the majority of Americans today don't support Bush, the GOP, or your political philosophy, even though you can't get over it, hasn't changed either.

Rasmussen . . .

Bush approval 44%, Bush disapproval 54%.

Get out from behind Bush's ass and deal with it.

rdw: A few weeks back CNN showed a poll showing how the corruption thing was playing. 7% blamed Democrats 12% blamed Republicans and 79% blames both. Considering over 1/3 of Abramahoff's money went to democrats, including Harry Reid, you are not going to have an easy time changing that 79%.

Don't have to, idiot.

A 5% advantage wins elections, as does a 1%, assuming the 79% is equally divided, which I'm sure you can agree is reality.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

whosays,

It's not the time. The vast majority of even whacko lefties have moved on. This isn't an issue. It's a curiosity

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

based on a suit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenging the antiquated voting machines used in six California counties where 44% of the states voters reside.

fascinating. and about the part where "[you] lefties" wanted to use these new-fangled cheatable machines ? could you go into that a little bit? i'm sure it's very entertaining.

--

rdw: Harry Reid was far from the only Democratic Senator to know of his largess.

you should really do your own search. go find out how much of Jack's money went to Democrats. go on, we'll wait.

Posted by: cleek on January 6, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

And a hearty f*ck you, conspiracy nut. You are a lying and defaming bastard.
For years military ballots were accepted with no postmark; but suddenly, in what was expected to be a close race, the Democrats had military ballots (which vote overwhelmingly Republican) thrown out for lack of postmark.

Ya, I'm sure I've got it all wrong.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 6, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

I think, even if Gore had be sworn in in 2001, he would have only served one term President. Assuming 9/11 would have happened anyway, the GOP would have used it in a BRUTAL way against Democrats.

Posted by: Robert on January 6, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Advocate,

I was very happy to see Slick Willie finish. Had he been removed, which was never a real possibility, he would be a martyr. He would never have become the Prince of Pardons.

You have to understand how conservatives feel about Bill Clinton. Here's a chart:

dem senators dem reps
1992 57 267
2005 44 202


I can't really say much more than that.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

Dear Nut,
You realy must try harder.
Which do you prefer - no unpostmarked military votes and no overvotes, or unpostmarked military votes plus overvotes.

To say one is more valid or invalid than the other would be somewhat hypocritical of you, no?

Posted by: Tony on January 6, 2006 at 2:22 PM | PERMALINK

I can't really say much more than that.

somehow, i doubt it

Posted by: cleek on January 6, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: I always saw the voter recount process as a fair test of executive skill and a solid way to solve the problem. It was solved correctly. Al Gore did a horrible job.

GWB's demonstrations of executive skill:

1. Have brother be governor of contested state.

2. Have state campaign manager be secretary of state.

3. Have SCOTUS that leans so far in your direction that they issue an opinion that they say shouldn't be used to establish precident. WTF? Q: When doesn't a SCOTUS decision establish precident? A: when it's so crooked they're embarassed!

Posted by: alex on January 6, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

A few weeks back CNN showed a poll showing how the corruption thing was playing. 7% blamed Democrats 12% blamed Republicans and 79% blames both. Considering over 1/3 of Abramahoff's money went to democrats, including Harry Reid, you are not going to have an easy time changing that 79%.

Don't have to, idiot.

A 5% advantage wins elections, as does a 1%, assuming the 79% is equally divided, which I'm sure you can agree is reality.


Advocate. This isn't hard. The 79% are saying, "a pox on both your houses.". Few have tuned in or will. Congressional corruption is hardly new news. People assume for good reason both parties essentially follow the same practices and it's not an issure they look at to differentiate.

What's even worst is that 79% will be hard to change. People are tuned out.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

could you go into that a little bit? i'm sure it's very entertaining
Damn, did you sleep through all that?

Six counties without electronic voting machines have high concentrations of minority voters, ACLU says. [source]
Democrats: We have no ideals, we'll change any position to whatever we want to whine about today!

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 6, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Slick Willie ... Prince of Pardons

Maybe a minor noble, but prince? That title goes to GHWB for pardoning five or six Iran-Contra conspirators.

Posted by: alex on January 6, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

One of the great misunderstandings about Florida law has been exposed here. See, under the law at the time of the 2000 election the "Intent of the Voter" was the deciding factor. That means that in order to discount those ballots where the same name was chosen in two places you had to ignore the state law. So a decent Secretary of State, one concerned with the law and not getting her partisan in place, would not have needed a suit to do her job in ensuring a fair race.

See
Letter from Florida Attorney General Robert A. Butterworth

And the
applicable statutes as of 2000

Posted by: heavy on January 6, 2006 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

Mentioning the florida debacle of 2000 to a Republican immediately turns his face red, and he starts spitting out with rage, "GET OVER IT! Bush won! Shut up!" They know something bad happens, and they know it was wrong, so they they have to lash out with rage against anyone who brings it up in order to shut down discussion. Unfortunately, Dems, still believing that it was the 80s, were all to obliging and backed down.

But Republicans need to be reminded that defending Bush was tantamount then-- and, given the FISA-corruption as well as Abrahamoff-related corruption -- is tantamount now to participation in criminality and immorality.

Posted by: Constantine on January 6, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

To say one is more valid or invalid than the other would be somewhat hypocritical of you, no?
Now Tony, I know you don't want the military to vote. If you had your way though, all non-Democratic votes would be thrown out; and you'd happily call it the will of the people, democracy in action.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 6, 2006 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: The vast majority of even whacko lefties have moved on. This isn't an issue. It's a curiosity.

I have to agree with you. It reminds me of grade school. The Stamp Act, the Boston Massacre, the Intolerable Acts. For heaven's sake, let's just move on.

Posted by: alex on January 6, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

alex,

Part of being a good executive is to use the resources allocted to you properly.

A lot of libs were pissed at the time when they saw how involved Gore was in planning the legal challenges and they saw how uninvolved GWB was. Drove them right up a wall. George was 'uncurious' don't you know!

They had it exactly wrong. Jimmy Carter was a disaster because he was incapable of selecting good people and letting them do their jobs. GWB picked James Baker, "Said take care of it Jimmy!" and then got out of the way. That's an executive.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

Damn, did you sleep through all that?

no, no... go into the part where "[you] lefties" were planning to rig the election. tell me all about the secret meetings, the planning, the plotting! here we are now, entertain us!

Posted by: cleek on January 6, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

I think that pining over the results of the 2000 election is pretty counterproductive.

I agree. But studying the mechanism of defeat can be instructive: Gore lost because of miscast ballots by his supporters. The lesson seems to be a call for better voter education next time.

Posted by: contentious on January 6, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

cleek
You've jumped the shark here, bud. No surprise from a moonbat...

Might I suggest that you take something to calm your frayed nerves, then go back and re-read what I said.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 6, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

Mentioning the florida debacle of 2000 to a Republican immediately turns his face red, and he starts spitting out with rage, "GET OVER IT! Bush won! Shut up!"

You have it exactly wrong. When people 'win' they don't look back on the deciding moment with sadness or anger. I'm not asking you to shut up. I am cautioning you for your own mental health. There's a point where you have to realize something is over and there's no changing it. Al Gore will never be President.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

I can just hear Prez Gore now.

9/11

Ok you terrorists, that was BAD. Go to your corner for a time out.

Later...

Saddam stop killing your own people and producing WMD's (Ya see they thought so too) or YOU get a time out also.

Yeah, as LAS said, If only...

Posted by: Lurker42 on January 6, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: You're behind the "talking points" curve on Democrats and Abramoff. It has been declared that money taken from Abramoff's clients "doesn't count."

WhoSays:

How about a candidate that wins a majority of the votes. Does he/she deserve respect?

We talking about 2000, or 2004? If Ohio had gone the other way, Kerry would be president with about three million fewer popular votes than Bush. If nothing else, it was highly entertaining to see the Democrats suddenly rediscover their affection for the Electoral College in 2004.

LAS:

With a President Gore, we would not have this horrible, unnecessary quagmire of a War. There isn't a thing in the country that wouldn't be better with Al Gore--except the war profiteers and the stupids and the greedies would not be raking in the big bucks. And we might have even been spared 9/11. One thing we can be sure of; Gore would have actually read the damned memo. And he wouldn't be in such a hurry to disregard foreign policy advice from the Clinton administration.

And in his off hours, he'd balance the budget, cure AIDS, and square a circle using only a straightedge and compass. Wow. Who knew you could actually buy posters of Gore for your bedroom?

Out here in the real world, Al Gore's seriousness about airline security is already on the record.

Oh, PLEASE run him for President again...

Posted by: tbrosz on January 6, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

I have to agree with you. It reminds me of grade school. The Stamp Act, the Boston Massacre, the Intolerable Acts. For heaven's sake, let's just move on

Just a guess but I don't think Al Gore losing an election will be covered in too many history books. In 20 years no one under the age of 30 will know who Al Gore was unless they think that's the guy who invented the internet.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, you try not to think back to the deciding moment as much as you possibly can, because you know you were party to something wrong. Like most people, you like to think you're a good person, so when someone reminds you that you were part of a faction that participated in a moral travesty, you'd rather flip out and tell people to "shut up and get over it" rather than be confronted with your own moral shortcomings.

On a more personal note, of course, you lack any intellectual interest in the law, and thus the specificities of election issues and court decisions are not going to hold any interest to you. You will retreat to the only thing you can relate to, which is professional sports. You regard politics as simply a matter of "supporting your team" and the "rule of law" as just calls made by an umpire-- if a bad call happens, that's just what one can expect from a game.

Posted by: Constantine on January 6, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't really even want to wade into this thread because I knew it would be chock-full of rdw and his brother in the faith, conspiracy nut. And sure enough, here they are, burning up their keyboards.

What's so profoundly depressing about both of these two reactionaries is how sanguine they are about the 2000 election, Abramoff, etc. Their guy won, their side is winning, so the larger implications for American democracy mean jack-shit to them. They just don't care.

Posted by: Alek Hidell on January 6, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

Duval County is where the election was stolen-

Supervisor of Elections John Stafford, a Republican, waited until after the 72-hour deadline for filing a request for a manual recount to admit that 27,000, Stafford originally claimed only 200 to 300 votes had been rejected.

Most of these vote were the overvotes in which a person punched Gore's name and then wrote it down at bottom of ballot .. A perfectly legal vote in Florida.

Posted by: smartone on January 6, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

As I said, Alek, they're like the shirtless guys with their football team's mascot painted on their chest in the middle of winter. Woo-hoo! Go, team! If a few opponents need to be clipped or facemasked, hey, as long as they win, it's ok. Petty rule-breaking on the football field doesn't have quite as many legal and societal implications, of course, but such issues are only considered by those who find thought and thinking to be processes they enjoy. rdw and cn have allied themselves specifically with a movement that is contemptuous of thought and inquiry.

Posted by: Constantine on January 6, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

alex:

GWB's demonstrations of executive skill:

1. Have brother be governor of contested state.

2. Have state campaign manager be secretary of state.

3. Have SCOTUS that leans so far in your direction that they issue an opinion that they say shouldn't be used to establish precident. WTF? Q: When doesn't a SCOTUS decision establish precident? A: when it's so crooked they're embarassed!

The really brilliant part was knowing Florida was going to be a contested state in the 2000 election when George Bush somehow arranged all these things.

As others have pointed out, by the terms of Gore's contesting of the election, and the details of his request for specific recounts, had the Federal Supreme Court never taken the case, the results would have been the same. But by all means, rant on.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 6, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Jack was an equal opportuity guy.

Lie.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: In 20 years no one under the age of 30 will know who Al Gore was unless they think that's the guy who invented the internet.

They will remember Bush, though, as the worst president after Nixon.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: He would never have become the Prince of Pardons.

Bush 41 was the Prince of Pardons.

Again, you get your history wrong.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz, that's what makes the right-wingers' unhinged anger at the recount so irrational. Had they shut up and done nothing, they still would have won, despite the fact that we know that an actual, full recount would have indicated a win by Gore. However, once again, I realize that you don't want to be reminded of your ill-gotten gains and adherence to a mistaken ruling by the Supreme Court lest you have to confront the moral void in which you exist.

Posted by: Constantine on January 6, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: They absolutely deserve our respect.

You must be lying, because you don't accord such respect.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Just a guess but I don't think Al Gore losing an election will be covered in too many history books.

Nonsense, they still write about Teapot Dome.

In 20 years no one under the age of 30 will know who Al Gore was unless they think that's the guy who invented the internet.

I must have more faith in the next generation than you. I think they won't fall for the urban legend that he made such a claim. How about you?

Posted by: alex on January 6, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

How about a candidate that wins a majority of the votes. Does he/she deserve respect?

How's your reading comprehension Tbrosz? I thought it was a fairly simple question.

Posted by: WhoSays on January 6, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

Mentioning the florida debacle of 2000 to a Republican immediately turns his face red
Heh, and maybe we should track the amount of time right wing and left wing blogs spend on the subject.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 6, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz, that's what makes the right-wingers' unhinged anger at the recount so irrational. Had they shut up and done nothing, they still would have won, despite the fact that we know that an actual, full recount would have indicated a win by Gore. However, once again, I realize that you don't want to be reminded of your ill-gotten gains and adherence to a mistaken ruling by the Supreme Court lest you have to confront the moral void in which you exist.

Posted by: Constantine on January 6, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

constantine,

wrong on everything.

The Supremes ruled 7 - 2 the process ordered by the Florida Supreme court was unconstitutional. The Gore plan was a shallow fraud. He tried to game the recount. I love the irony that if they played it fair, recount EVERYTHING, Al may have won. He s/b tortured by that fact. He should also be tortured by the fact all of his legal mis-management ate up the entire clock.

Bush won on election day and he won in the courts. It was very fair.

As fair as my legal curiosity it's as deep as anyone's. But I know my limitations. I refuse to debate the legal merits of the NSA wiretaps because I've read enough to know the best legal minds are undecided. It they're on both sides of the issue it's a Supreme Court decision and no one can predict that. It's very clear the administrations lawyers think they win. I understand both arguments but I'll never add to it what the experts can so I don't bother.

I don't support my team when it's wrong. Meirs was a brutal pick. I was glad Conservatives vetoed it. I join all conservatives in trashing GWBs big government programs and spending habits. Like most conservatives i identify myself as a conservartive not so much as a republican.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

shorter CN, there is nothing to be learned from history, oh look over there, something shiny!

Posted by: WhoSays on January 6, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: You have to understand how conservatives feel about Bill Clinton.

You have to understand how liberals feel about GWB.

And since Clinton left office in 2000, he is irrelevant to congressional membership in 2005.

Stupidity has always been your long suit, as I've opined before, so keep playing your losing hand.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz idiotically conflates a sense of justice with affection. The 2004 election going the other way would have been poetic justice (and would have caused Republicans like yourself to suddenly rediscover the loathing they had for the electoral college when Clinton won twice in a row without winning a majority).

As to your idiotic parroting of the "Gore didn't file the right suit" meme, why didn't the Secretary of State insist on following the law as it was written? Or is that okay because she was a Republican?

Posted by: heavy on January 6, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

Nonsense, they still write about Teapot Dome.
They'll probably write about it. But oddly enough, they don't write about JFK/Nixon/Chicago. So what gets written depends on whether the lefties think they were robbed or not.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 6, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

there is nothing to be learned from history
There's nothing to be learned from the rewrite of history that you moonbats want to do.

Posted by: conspiracy nut on January 6, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, you are always supporting your team when they're wrong. You exist in a moral void, you act with name-calling outrage, calling Gore a "dick" when he was morally right. You got unhinged at John Kerry because he had the temerity to oppose Bush, and, as I said, you completely lack any understanding of why the SC decision was wrongly decided. Finally, you are, like most Bush-supporters, worked up into an apoplectic fit when someone-- correctly-- points out the voiting problems in florida because you don't wish to confront your moral culpability when it comes to supporting a bunch of phony outrage and phony riots started by Bush supporters.

You didn't like Miers simply because she was not the big "confrontational" pick you wanted in your apocalyptic showdown between good and evil that all loyal right-wigners were hoping for after the November elections. Your problem is not an ideological one-- it is a moral and intellectual shortcoming. You come out with unhinged outraged against morally good public servants like Gore and Kerry, and yet you reflect nothing but slavish loyalty to Bush, incompetent and corrupt though he is. In part this is because, once again, this issue of Florida, as much as the existence of Gore and Kerry, are nothing but daily reminders of your moral failures and shortcomings in life.

Florida, for all you care, was just a "bad call" by a ref at a game. Hey, it worked out for you (as did the home-run called for the yankees by an umpire in the 1996 world series, you don't see me getting upset about that-- my team won). Others, more concerned with good government, realized that it had implications for the trust of our voting system.

Posted by: Constantine on January 6, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

Constantine:

Maybe you hang around the wrong people. I don't know anybody on the right in my own circle that gets "unhinged" when a Democrat brings up the 2000 election. If anything, the emotion is more what you'd feel if you knew somebody who was forty years old and still obsessed with missing the critical field goal in a college football game.

Again, had the election never been passed to the Supreme Court, the recount, under the rules Gore had set at the time, would have changed nothing. Look it up. The entire "Supreme Court stopped the count" obsession is based on a false premise.

From CNN:

Florida Supreme Court recount ruling

On December 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Florida Supreme Court ruling ordering a full statewide hand recount of all undervotes not yet tallied. The U.S. Supreme Court action effectively ratified Florida election officials' determination that Bush won by a few hundred votes out of more than 6 million cast.

Using the NORC data, the media consortium examined what might have happened if the U.S. Supreme Court had not intervened. The Florida high court had ordered a recount of all undervotes that had not been counted by hand to that point. If that recount had proceeded under the standard that most local election officials said they would have used, the study found that Bush would have emerged with 493 more votes than Gore.

Gore's four-county strategy

Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-vote margin statewide.

The study then moves into some hypothetical scenarios, under some of which Gore would have won.

Now, granted, after the Florida recount had shown Gore short again, the Democrats might have convinced them to change the rules one more time. After all, the secret of recounting is to recount, change the parameters, and recount again. When you win, stop.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 6, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

In 20 years no one under the age of 30 will know who Al Gore was unless they think that's the guy who invented the internet.

I must have more faith in the next generation than you. I think they won't fall for the urban legend that he made such a claim. How about you

I have plenty of faith in the next generation. They'll know to weed out trivia. I'll bet if they know anything about Al Gore is the internet.

Can't you see it? in 2025 the classic scene of a child asking, "Daddy, where did the internet come from?" Now who can answer that? It'll be on everyone's libs, "A guy by the name of Al Gore". Quick and easy and comical

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: Heh, and maybe we should track the amount of time right wing and left wing blogs spend on the subject.

Hey, maybe we can track the number of times conservatives refer to a president, Clinton, who has been out of office five years, or a president, Carter, out of office for more than twenty years.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 3:06 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut,
Nixon won 8 years later....

Posted by: Bill Arnold on January 6, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: He tried to game the recount.

Lie.

He followed Florida law.

Florida law, providing for recounts by individual counties only, was virtually identical to Texas law, one which Bush himself approved as governor.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

the emotion is more what you'd feel if you knew somebody who was forty years old and still obsessed with missing the critical field goal in a college football game.

That was precisely part of my argument, now wasn't it. You regard our political future as a "game," and you ar the unhinged idiot with the painted chest in the middle of the cold declaring your support for Bush.

The other part of my argument is, of course, that these unhinged idiots of the Bush-supporting-right were quick to scream "get over it! shut up!" about Florida because they knew that there was no justification for supportinng the SC's interference in the election, nor was their jusitifcation for the bougeois riots of right-wing lobbyists.

You're well aware, already, of my opinion of you, tbrosz-- you're just a morally empty human being concerned only with your continued support for Bush, saving your faux-outrage for the moral betters who only remind you of your failings.

Posted by: Constantine on January 6, 2006 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think 9/11 would have happened on Gore's watch. There were too many opportunities for a`proactive leader like Gore to foil the plot. Also, Osama, Pakistani intel. and Saudi intel. may not have felt the chance of pulling the US into a protracted war was worth the risk without a bunch of neocons in power.

Posted by: Boronx on January 6, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: I am cautioning you for your own mental health.

That's pretty rich coming from a looney whose lips are permanently stuck to Bush's ass.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

the emotion is more what you'd feel if you knew somebody who was forty years old and still obsessed with missing the critical field goal in a college football game.

That was precisely part of my argument, now wasn't it. You regard our political future as a "game," and you ar the unhinged idiot with the painted chest in the middle of the cold declaring your support for Bush.

The other part of my argument is, of course, that these unhinged idiots of the Bush-supporting-right were quick to scream "get over it! shut up!" about Florida because they knew that there was no justification for supportinng the SC's interference in the election, nor was their jusitifcation for the bougeois riots of right-wing lobbyists.

You're well aware, already, of my opinion of you, tbrosz-- you're just a morally empty human being concerned only with your continued support for Bush, saving your faux-outrage for the moral betters who only remind you of your failings.

Posted by: Constantine on January 6, 2006 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

A somewhat different analysis of voting errors (from January 2001), is here.

Posted by: Ken Hirsch on January 6, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Bush won on election day and he won in the courts. It was very fair.

He won in the Supreme Court, not the courts.

He lost on election day.

It was not fair.

It may have been legal, in the most general sense of affirmed by the Supreme Court, but it was not fair.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz, just stop lying. There were no Democrats changing the rules. If you bother to read the statutes you will see that the "intent of the voter" was paramount in Florida State Law and the Republicans did everything they could to keep that simple fact from America.

Posted by: heavy on January 6, 2006 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

You've jumped the shark here, bud. No surprise from a moonbat

my god, you're pathetic.

Posted by: cleek on January 6, 2006 at 3:12 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: A lot of libs were pissed at the time when they saw how involved Gore was in planning the legal challenges and they saw how uninvolved GWB was. Drove them right up a wall. George was 'uncurious' don't you know!

Your world truly is a constant fantasy!

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, maybe we can track the number of times conservatives refer to a president, Clinton, who has been out of office five years, or a president, Carter, out of office for more than twenty years.


When they stop shoving their oars into present-day policies, they'll stop being the subject of discussion.

Used to be an unwritten rule that ex-presidents didn't comment much on current administrations. Clinton and especially Carter pretty much threw that out the door.

It's interesting how Republicans and Democrats differ in their views of political power. Republicans who leave high office tend to retire to their ranches and play golf. Democrats hang around outside the houses of power in Washington and steam up the windows with their breath.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 6, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

They'll probably write about it. But oddly enough, they don't write about JFK/Nixon/Chicago. So what gets written depends on whether the lefties think they were robbed or not.
-- conspiracy nut

More red herring from the biggest herring shoveler around - I assume this is an oblique reference to the 1960 presidential vote and the alleged fraud in Chicago. One problem - It didn't matter. Even if Nixon had received all of Illinois' 27 electoral votes, he lost the election 276 to 246. The analogy to the 2000 election doesn't work, since if Bush wouldn't have stolen Florida, he would be clearing brush full-time in Crawford.

Watch the DVD called "Unprecedented" - you will never again have any doubt about who won the 2000 presidential election. Guaranteed.

Posted by: Stephen Kriz on January 6, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

conspiracy nut: they don't write about JFK/Nixon/Chicago

They don't? So I guess you only heard about it via the wingnut oral tradition. Oddly, I've seen it in writing (although admittedly the pro-Nixon hijinks in southern Illinois are less well remembered).

Posted by: alex on January 6, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: I don't support my team when it's wrong.

Lie.

tbrosz: Democrats hang around outside the houses of power in Washington and steam up the windows with their breath.

Lie.

Carter is rarely anywhere near Washington unless invited.

The same for Clinton who has been traveling all over the country, out of the country, and pretty much everywhere but Washington.

What's truly pathetic is how transparent your lie is.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 3:16 PM | PERMALINK

heavy:

One of the main issues in the Supreme Court case was the wide variation of what was considered a "good" vote from county to county, and yes, it was changed as time went on. The "intent of the voter" turned out to be a remarkably flexible concept, depending on who was doing the counting.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 6, 2006 at 3:17 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Can't you see it? in 2025 the classic scene of a child asking, "Daddy, where did the internet come from?" Now who can answer that? It'll be on everyone's libs, "A guy by the name of Al Gore". Quick and easy and comical.

Interesting, but hardly surprising, that rdw rejoices in the dissemination of blatantly false information about Gore.

Pretty much like his hero's administration: fiction over fact.

And these guys claim to be intellectual, moral and ethical elites!

Hah!

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: Used to be an unwritten rule that ex-presidents didn't comment much on current administrations. Clinton and especially Carter pretty much threw that out the door.

Another lie.

Bush 41 spoke out about the Clinton administration.

Also truly pathetic.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: When they stop shoving their oars into present-day policies, they'll stop being the subject of discussion.

An implicit lie, since this is not why they are being referenced by conservatives.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

Bush 41 spoke out about the Clinton administration.

Also truly pathetic.

Really? During Clinton's administration? Back that up, please.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 6, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

As I said, Alek, they're like the shirtless guys with their football team's mascot painted on their chest in the middle of winter. Woo-hoo! Go, team! If a few opponents need to be clipped or facemasked, hey, as long as they win, it's ok. Petty rule-breaking on the football field doesn't have quite as many legal and societal implications, of course, but such issues are only considered by those who find thought and thinking to be processes they enjoy. rdw and cn have allied themselves specifically with a movement that is contemptuous of thought and inquiry.

Yes, I agree. In fact I almost drew a sports analogy in my post. I've often thought that America's obsession with sports comes from the fact that, usually, there's a clear winner and loser. American life since 1945, and particularly since 1968, has been notably muddy this way: to anyone who's morally honest, America has clearly not always worn the white hat. Americans today feel something is wrong somewhere, but they don't know exactly how. Unfortunately, over the past quarter-century they've repeatedly chosen Backlash as their way of reacting.

People have sometimes wondered why baseball is seldom discussed at the proverbial water cooler the way it once was, and I think it was overtaken by football simply because it's not violent enough. I think it's no coincidence that it was in the Sixties that football became more popular than baseball: that was precisely the time in which Americans looked at themselves, mired in Vietnam and racial violence, and opted for a proxy that better reflected their character. Football is violent, like Americans, and it has a clear winner and a clear loser. Much better and easier than the complexities involved in thinking about the South Vietnamese Army and Jim Crow.

So, today, the sports obsession has bled over into our politics. If you follow college football, you get angry at all those Florida State players who get into trouble - what a corrupt program! Unless, that is, you're a Florida State fan, in which case it all gets a nod and a wink: ah, they just don't like us because we win. What, you say Miami has committed several NCAA violations? What a crime factory they have there! Oh, uh, my team committed many of the same violations? Well, the NCAA is a joke anyway.

And so, in politics, IOKIYAR. Same thing. It's my team doing it, so you're just mad because we keep winning.

Posted by: Alek Hidell on January 6, 2006 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: Really? During Clinton's administration? Back that up, please.

Here is one listing, you lying asshole.

That conservatives continue to repeat these lies, such as the one that the press never referred to Clinton as "Clinton" but always as "the President" or "President Clinton", is yet another demonstration of a pattern of deliberate mendacity and disinformation that is the hallmark of American conservative tactics.

You can add it to the list of false claims that includes the likes of:

(1) Kerry was never in Cambodia;

(2) Kerry was never wounded by enemy fire;

(3) Kerry's boat showed no damage from enemy fire; and

(4) Gore said he invented the internet.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: The really brilliant part was knowing Florida was going to be a contested state in the 2000 election when George Bush somehow arranged all these things.

No, the brilliant part was in arranging for Florida to be a close state. Jeb and Kathy got over fifty thousand people thrown off the Florida election rolls before voting day. Of course over 90% of those people had never actually committed a felony, but some did have names that sounded vaguely like somebody who might have. Birth dates weren't verified because a lot of 60 year olds claim to be 20. They were so thorough that they even got people who are going to commit felonies in the future! The most significant part of identification though, race, was listed and verified. Let's see, which way do most black people vote? I can't remember, and I'm sure Jeb and Kathy never considered it.

Posted by: alex on January 6, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

Intent of a voter who has written in the same name they punched is pretty easy. In fact, the biggest problem with determining intent of the voter turned out to be a bunch of Republicans who would challenge clear ballots with the intent of running out the clock.

All of which is a distraction from the real fact that fewer people left the voting booth believing they had voted for Bush than believed they had voted for Gore. In a democracy, the will of the people is what counts.

The fact that the voting system failed the voters changes nothing. The evidence is clear. Bush lost the vote, he won the counting process in part by having partisans in positions of power to spite the will of the people.

Posted by: heavy on January 6, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

constantine,

The problem with Harriet wasn't that she wasn't confrontatonal. It's that we didn't know. We wanted two things. A top notch lawyer skilled in a debate format and a rock solid conservative. In Roberts we got both. I am confident Roberts will be remembered for 40 years as GWBs best pick. People like me will remember the trashing he gave to the Senate Judicial committee. There was never a doubt in a single mind that saw 5 minutes of his hearings he was superior in every way to every senator in the room.

Alito is of the same quality a Roberts. It's hard to see him as top notch as Roberts but word is he's just as right, quick and witty. The biggest difference is he is even softer spoken. The harder the Senators tried to go after Roberts the worst they looked because he was such a reasonable, soft-spoken, polite guy. They have to be careful. I'm a bit baffled they delayed his hearing ofr a week. They've given Sam another week to prepare. He's sitting in a mock courtroom right now getting beat up by real lawyers sitting in as Senators. He's going to go from getting pushed around by 1st rate lawyers to getting pushed around by the 3rd rate hams on the Judiciary committee.

Robert's, Alito and Thomas have at least 30 years left. I wish no ill will of Stevens or Ginsburg but if they retire smart libs will be suicidal. GWB will add another Roberts.

BTW: if you don't think Alito's appearance as a soft-spoken, polite, honest judge will be a factor think back to Ollie North. I saw the lawyer who led that prosecution (unfortunately he's passed away and I can't remember his name). A couple years afterwords he spoke of the North hearings with a fair amount and anguish and bemusement. The anquish was because Ollie was guilty and he had the goods and the bemusement was Ollie ended up the hero.

What happened was the Senate was set up to hang his ass. They had the main chambers set up so the Senators were up high behind their impressive oak bench looking very... Senatorial. In comes Ollie North, by himself, in full uniform with all of his medals (from what I am told in violaton of military protocal). On the evening news Ollie was shown by himself, no lawyer at his side, swearing allegance with his hand held high and a chest of medals, the picture of a squared away Marine as proud as could be. On the other side we had 15 Senators all looking like the had a rough night.

During this opening session this prosecutor laid out his case and he though he was devastating. Ollie pretty much just sat there as if in the Lions Den ramrod straight with his chest full of medals.

The prosecutor went home to watch the news and within 3 minutes said he knew he lost. He saw the coverage and it was all about this Patriotic Marine sitting in the dock getting badgered by prick Senators. The next day on his way to the hearings there were 300 protesters chanting, "Free Ollie". Obviously they were going to lead that nights news. A movement was born and Senators don't fight movements. They got Ollie on some misdomeanor and that was it.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: One of the main issues in the Supreme Court case was the wide variation of what was considered a "good" vote from county to county, and yes, it was changed as time went on. The "intent of the voter" turned out to be a remarkably flexible concept, depending on who was doing the counting.

True, which is what SCOTUS agreed on 7-2. So the logical remedy would have been to insist on a uniform standard (which is what the Florida Supreme Court was in the process of). In keeping with the Rehnquist court's respect for federalism, the issue should have been returned to the state court with clear direction to remedy the problem.

Instead, by a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS broke with their stated philosophy and tradition, and insisted that the current vote tally (counted under a non-uniform standard) be used.

Just for good measure, they added an odd note that this decision should not be interpreted as establishing precedent. Has SCOTUS ever said that before?

Posted by: alex on January 6, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

Can't you see it? in 2025 the classic scene of a child asking, "Daddy, where did the internet come from?" Now who can answer that? It'll be on everyone's lips, "A guy by the name of Al Gore". Quick and easy and comical.


Interesting, but hardly surprising, that rdw rejoices in the dissemination of blatantly false information about Gore.

Advocate;

Do you even have a shred of a sense of humor? You're killing me here. That's funny AND realistic. You know that's going to happen.

Lighten up. We're not going to solve the worlds problems here. Have some fun with it.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan is correct, this is old news, but with a little additional information. Florida law seemed, the time I actually looked at it (about a year and a half ago), to allow such overvotes to be counted under certain conditions; for example, writing in the same name as appears in the punched section. Why the Gore team didn't ask for such recounting right from the beginning is a mystery to me.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on January 6, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

Yancey Ward, when you ask for a sandwich do you typically also ask for bread? The law was clear. There was no legal need to request that the Secretary of State do her job.

Posted by: heavy on January 6, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

Watch the DVD called "Unprecedented" - you will never again have any doubt about who won the 2000 presidential election. Guaranteed.

We don't have any doubts as to won the 2000 election. He's the guy you'll have the honor of hearing make the State of the Union Address. Guaranteed!

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

Just for disclosure, I thought the SCOTUS decision was a terrible one. The State of Florida should have been directed to resolve the issue. This likely would have led, at a minimum, to two sets of electors being sent from Florida- or none at all- in which case the newly elected House and Senate would have picked the president (Bush) and the vice-president (might have been Lieberman).

Posted by: Yancey Ward on January 6, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

rdw wrote: Al Gore did a horrible job. Why he didn't immediately ask for an immediate and total recount I'll never understand.

That's because you are ignorant. There was no provision in Florida state law for a candidate to request a statewide recount. Florida law only permitted a candidate to contest elections on a county-by-county basis.

The 2000 election in Florida was stolen twice. First, when Jeb Bush and Katharine Harris deliberately purged tens of thousands of black Democratic voters from the rolls by falsely identifying them as felons who were ineligible to vote, and then again during the recount, when Gore won in spite of the Bush/Harris purge.

Note that what we are seeing on this thread is conspiracy nut, rdw and tbrosz gloating about the successful theft of a presidential election. Sneering and gloating over a successful crime. "We got away with it, so fuck you." That's today's Republicans in a nutshell.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 6, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Yancey Ward: Why the Gore team didn't ask for such recounting right from the beginning is a mystery to me.

Because Gore thought he had better odds with his selective approach. I don't claim that Gore is any paragon of virtue. However, what you're talking about is what the Florida Supreme Court was leaning towards, before they were rudely interrupted by SCOTUS. I expect politicians to be politicians, but I thought that lifetime appointments to the highest court in the country was enough to keep them above the fray. How naive.

Posted by: alex on January 6, 2006 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

True, which is what SCOTUS agreed on 7-2. So the logical remedy would have been to insist on a uniform standard (which is what the Florida Supreme Court was in the process of). In keeping with the Rehnquist court's respect for federalism, the issue should have been returned to the state court with clear direction to remedy the problem.

They had agreed 7-2 that in two different rulings the Florida Supreme Court DID NOT establish a uniform stantardand they told the court ALL ballots had to be counted not just the ones Al tried to cherry pick.

The 5-4 vote was decided on whether there was enough time to complete the process the Supreme Court laid out AND confirm the vote.

These were two separate votes on two separate, idependent issues.

It was a smack down of the Florida Supreme court.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

heavy,

Even if I grant that you are correct, why didn't Gore make an issue of overvotes in addition to the issue made with the undervotes? I suspect his lawyers were simply too stupid to accurately read the relevant Florida law. I will try to find what the law was in 2000 and post a link. I know Florida has changed much of it since so it may be difficult to find it now.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on January 6, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: You're behind the "talking points" curve on Democrats and Abramoff. It has been declared that money taken from Abramoff's clients "doesn't count."

Why, yes, tbrosz, money given by Abramoff's clients != money given by Abramoff -- which, as you know, but are desperate to distract from, went 100% to Republicans.

Of course, I'm sure you'd love to see the talking point get established that Democrats took money from Abramoff too, but then honesty has never been your long suit, has it?

Shame on you for carrying water for these crooks.

(Cue tbrosz grumbling about the GOP not inventing political corruption. True enough, but they seem to have perfected it.)

Posted by: Gregory on January 6, 2006 at 4:00 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: There was never a doubt in a single mind that saw 5 minutes of his hearings he was superior in every way to every senator in the room.

rdw is wearing very, very large rose colored glasses.

Which must get in the way when he's got his lips planted on Bush's ass.


rdw: . . . not just the ones Al tried to cherry pick.

Jeesh! Does your mendacity have no limits?!

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 4:03 PM | PERMALINK

Yancey Ward: Gore's legal team did not pursue the overvotes because it was their analysis that the undervotes would go to Gore and the overvotes to Bush.

in other words, if the U.S. SC had not ruled (as Constantine noted)...Bush still would have won because Gore's lawyers f---d up.

Posted by: Nathan on January 6, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

Secular,

The decision to clean felons off the voter rolls was correct and proper. They in fact didn't do a good job and left a large number on the rolls able to vote.

One of the problems is that a felon from New York who moves to Florida can register to vote and won't be stopped. In the post-election analysis the GOP did a serious analysis to look for things they need to do better. This was rather low on the list but they found out it was easy to gather nationwide lists of felons and then use that list to purge the voting lists in all 50 states. You'll be happy to know this is much more accurate. You'll be less happy to know they scrubed a lot more names and they keep hte list updated.

Another area the RNC has been pushing is picture ID. The PA legislature has just passed a law and it's going to be hard for Rendell to veto it. As you know the Democrats in philly have a habit of voting early and often, even after they're dead.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK


RDW: Jack was an equal opportuity guy. Do your own search. Harry Reid was far from the only Democratic Senator to know of his largess.

First of all, entertaining your fiction that 1/3 of the bribe money Abramahoff gave to politicians was to Democrats, how does 1/3 vs 2/3 result in "equal opportunity?"

As for doing my own search, isn't it logical that such a chore should fall to the one who makes the claim? But why shouldn't others do your work, right?

No matter. You're neither logical nor concerned with equality. I searched. You read.


2006
RECIPIENT: Frank A. LoBiondo (R-NJ)
DONOR: Aramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2004
RECIPIENT: Eric Cantor (R-Va)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$8,000

2004
RECIPIENT: Republican Majority Fund, Leadership PAC of Don Nickles (R-Okla)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$5,000

2004
RECIPIENT: Rich PAC, Leadership PAC of Richard Pombo (R-Calif)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$5,000

2004
RECIPIENT: Americans for a Republican Majority, Leadership PAC of Tom DeLay (R-Texas)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$5,000

2004
RECIPIENT: Arlen Specter (R-Pa)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$4,000

2004
RECIPIENT: George W. Bush (R)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$4,000

2004
RECIPIENT: John Ensign (R-Nev)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$4,000

2004
RECIPIENT: Johnny Isakson (R-Ga)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$4,000

2004
RECIPIENT: Keep Our Majority PAC, Leadership PAC of Dennis Hastert (R-Ill)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,500

2004
RECIPIENT: Charles H. Taylor (R-NC)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2004
RECIPIENT: Chris Cannon (R-Utah)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2004
RECIPIENT: Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2004
RECIPIENT: Mark Foley (R-Fla)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2004
RECIPIENT: Leadership PAC 2004, Leadership PAC of Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2004
RECIPIENT: Richard Pombo (R-Calif)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2004
RECIPIENT: Senate Victory Fund, Leadership PAC of Thad Cochran (R-Miss)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2004
RECIPIENT: Christopher S. 'Kit' Bond (R-Mo)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,500

2004
RECIPIENT: Curt Weldon (R-Pa)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2004
RECIPIENT: Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2004
RECIPIENT: Doug Ose (R-Calif)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2004
RECIPIENT: Ernest J. Istook (R-Okla)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2004
RECIPIENT: George R. Nethercutt Jr. (R-Wash)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2004
RECIPIENT: Jim Bunning (R-Ky)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2004
RECIPIENT: Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2004
RECIPIENT: Rely on Your Beliefs, Leadership PAC of Roy Blunt (R-Mo)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2004
RECIPIENT: Tom DeLay (R-Texas)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2004
RECIPIENT: Tom Feeney (R-Fla)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2004
RECIPIENT: Americans for a Republican Majority, Leadership PAC of Tom DeLay (R-Texas)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$10,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Friends of the Big Sky, Leadership PAC of Conrad Burns (R-Mont)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$5,000

2002
RRECIPIENT: epublican Party of New Jersey
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$5,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Senate Victory Fund, Leadership PAC of Thad Cochran (R-Miss)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$5,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Dan Burton (R-Ind)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$3,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Eric Cantor (R-Va)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$3,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Suzanne Terrell (R-La)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$3,000

2002
RECIPIENT: American Liberty PAC, Leadership PAC of Bob Ney (R-Ohio)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,500

2002
RECIPIENT: Rob Simmons (R-Conn)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,250

2002
RECIPIENT: Charles W. "Chip" Pickering Jr. (R-Miss)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Connie Morella (R-Md)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Gordon H. Smith (R-Ore)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2002
RECIPIENT: James M. Inhofe (R-Okla)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2002
RECIPIENT: James M. Talent (R-Mo)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2002
RECIPIENT: John T. Doolittle (R-Calif)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2002
RECIPIENT: John Thune (R-SD)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Tim Hutchinson (R-Ark)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Tom DeLay (R-Texas)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Bob Smith (R-Fla)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,240

2002
RECIPIENT: Bob Ney (R-Ohio)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2002
RECIPIENT: C. L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Carolyn W. Grant (R-NC)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Denny Rehberg (R-Mont)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Elizabeth Dole (R-NC)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Frank A. LoBiondo (R-NJ)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Heather Wilson (R-NM)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2002
RECIPIENT: J. Randy Forbes (R-Va)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Jack Kingston (R-Ga)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2002
RECIPIENT: James V. Hansen (R-Utah)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2002
RECIPIENT: John Cornyn (R-Texas)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Battle Born PAC, Leadership PAC of John Ensign (R-Nev)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Kimo Kaloi (R-Hawaii)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Mike Ferguson (R-NJ)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Mike Simpson (R-Idaho)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Ralph Regula (R-Ohio)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Ric Keller (R-Fla)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Rely on Your Beliefs, Leadership PAC of Roy Blunt (R-Mo)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Thad Cochran (R-Miss)
Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2002
RECIPIENT: Dave Camp (R-Mich)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$500

2002
RECIPIENT: Phil Gingrey (R-Ga)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$500

2002
RECIPIENT: Tom Young (R-Ala)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$500

2002
RECIPIENT: Bill Janklow (R-SD)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$250

2002
RECIPIENT: Rely on Your Beliefs, Leadership PAC of Roy Blunt (R-Mo)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$6,500

2000
RECIPIENT: Americans for a Republican Majority, Leadership PAC of Tom DeLay (R-Texas)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$4,000

2000
RECIPIENT: Tom DeLay (R-Texas)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$4,000

2000
RECIPIENT: Fund for a Free Market America, Leadership PAC of Phil Crane (R-Ill)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,750

2000
RECIPIENT: Bob Ney (R-Ohio)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2000
RECIPIENT: Craig Thomas (R-Wyo)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2000
RECIPIENT: Dan Burton (R-Ind)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2000
RECIPIENT: Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2000
RECIPIENT: Eric Cantor (R-Va)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2000
RECIPIENT: George W. Bush (R)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2000
RECIPIENT: John Ashcroft (R-Mo)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2000
RECIPIENT: John T. Doolittle (R-Calif)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2000
RECIPIENT: Spencer Abraham (R-Mich)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2000
RECIPIENT: William L. Gormley (R-NJ)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$2,000

2000
RECIPIENT: Bill McCollum (R-Fla)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2000
RECIPIENT: Bill Redmond (R-NM)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2000
RECIPIENT: Bob Riley (R-Ala)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2000
RECIPIENT: C. L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2000
RECIPIENT: Claude B. Hutchison Jr. (R-Calif)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2000
RECIPIENT: Denny Rehberg (R-Mont)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2000
RECIPIENT: Francis E. Flotron (R-Mo)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2000
RECIPIENT: George Allen (R-Va)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2000
RECIPIENT: Team PAC, Leadership PAC of J. D. Hayworth (R-Ariz)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2000
RECIPIENT: Mike Enzi (R-Wyo)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2000
RECIPIENT: Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-NC)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$1,000

2000
RECIPIENT: Paul Ryan (R-Wis)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$949

2000
RECIPIENT: Bob Smith (R-Fla)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$920

2000
RECIPIENT: Joe Pitts (R-Pa)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$894

2000
RECIPIENT: Charles H. Taylor (R-NC)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$750

2000
RECIPIENT: Bob Ehrlich (R-Md)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$500

2000
RECIPIENT: Charles R. Gerow (R-Pa)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$500

2000
RECIPIENT: Charles W. "Chip" Pickering Jr. (R-Miss)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$500

2000
RECIPIENT: Ed Royce (R-Calif)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$500

2000
RECIPIENT: Elia Vincent Pirozzi (R-Calif)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$500

2000
RECIPIENT: Jerry Weller (R-Ill)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$500

2000
RECIPIENT: Mark Emerson (R-Utah)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$500

2000
RECIPIENT: Tom Davis (R-Va)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$500

2000
RECIPIENT: Van Hilleary (R-Tenn)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$500

2000
RECIPIENT: Rick A. Lazio (R-NY)
DONOR: Abramoff, Jack A & Pamela
$250
2000

But what about his clients, you ask? What are clients? Oh, that's right, they're customers. So if I own a hardware store and I'm found guilty of bribing 50 Republicans, you'll point to the fact that 1/3 of the people buying nails from me gave money to Democrats and only 2/3 gave to Republicans? No, wait, you won't point to that fact; you'll merely state flatly that I gave 1/3 of my bribe money to Democrats.

You're a crook too, aren't you, rdw?


Posted by: jayarbee on January 6, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

The problem with Harriet wasn't that she wasn't confrontatonal. It's that we didn't know.

I guess she didn't deserve an up or down vote. Why does Alito?

Posted by: ckelly on January 6, 2006 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

Why, yes, tbrosz, money given by Abramoff's clients != money given by Abramoff -- which, as you know, but are desperate to distract from, went 100% to Republicans.

gregory,

Harry Reid and a number of other democrats took money from Abramhoff. It's a fact. I know this and I'm not following it that closely. I'm in that 79% that thinks one party is as bad as another. You get these fact being tosed back and forth so it's impossible to figure out who is worse.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

Yancy, you may be right about Gore's lawyers being stupid, but that doesn't change the law, nor does it change the SoS's responsibilities. She failed in her duties as a public servant in order to game the system for her party. As for the statutes, check out this helpful post.

In fact, on review, I remember figuring this out in 2000 and so I will say you are probably right that Gores lawyers were stupid.

As to Nathan's speculation, I'd like to see something more substantive than his guess. But even if that is the case, then it changes nothing. It certainly doesnt change the fact that the single largest vote getter in Florida was Gore.

What is the most important fact in a democratic election? Who was responsible for ensuring a fair vote? Was Floridas electoral slate awarded to the person with the most votes, or just to the person whose partisans prevailed at mangling the rules? The answers to these questions are not helpful to Republican partisans trying to defend Bush's ascension to the Presidency.

Posted by: heavy on January 6, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

Can't we save the Abramhoff stuff for the next Abramhoff blog entry, which should be coming up 5 minutes from now?

Posted by: Yancey Ward on January 6, 2006 at 4:23 PM | PERMALINK

Here is a good summary of the Florida overvote laws as of 2000.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on January 6, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK


RDW: Harry Reid and a number of other democrats took money from Abramhoff. It's a fact. I know this and I'm not following it that closely. I'm in that 79% that thinks one party is as bad as another. You get these fact being tosed back and forth so it's impossible to figure out who is worse.

You're worse. Because you don't toss facts, you toss dogshit you've heard and mix it up with your own dogshit. When you poop it out here, you claim it's fact. And the proof of it? You "know" it!


Posted by: jayarbee on January 6, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

In other words, according to your link, my interpretation above is correct. The intent of the voter in each of these cases was clear, the winner of the election was Al Gore, and the Bush team, including his state campaign manager, broke the law to make him President.

Posted by: heavy on January 6, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

jayarbrr,

I'm just an average citizen trying to pay attention. But let's face it when it comes to find raising they all do it and it's impossible to keep track of who took what from whom.

79% of voters think both parties 'do it'. When this 'scandal' is over you'll be lucky if that's 76%. The DNC will name names and the RNC will name names and everyone else will tune out.

It's just politics.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: The decision to clean felons off the voter rolls was correct and proper.

The "decision" by Harris and Bush was to deliberately purge non-felon, fully eligible voters from the rolls by deliberately, falsely identifying them as felons. It was not "correct and proper". It was a deliberate criminal act.

You are nothing but a stupid little thug.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 6, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

heavy: I'm not speculating. see tsbroz's link to the voting consortiums results and tabulations.

as a matter of law, GW received the largest number of votes in Florida.

with that said, there is no question that more people INTENDED to vote for Gore in Florida. that's also irrelevant. (I do agree that it should have (and did) prompt changes in the way we conduct elections and vote-counts in order that future vote tallies run closer to the actual intentions of the voters.)

Posted by: Nathan on January 6, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: [the GOP] found out it was easy to gather nationwide lists of felons and then use that list to purge the voting lists in all 50 states

Interesting approach, considering that only a handful of Southern states prohibit former felons from voting. Perhaps the GOP considers it their perogative to cherry pick which state laws they'll obey.

They had agreed 7-2 that in two different rulings the Florida Supreme Court DID NOT establish a uniform stantard

You're confusing your talking points. "Two different rulings" were on two different claims. Bush won the 14th Amendment claim 7-2, but lost the Article II claim 3-6.

The 5-4 vote was decided on whether there was enough time to complete the process the Supreme Court laid out AND confirm the vote.

Suddenly SCOTUS's job is to make schedules for the states? SCOTUS ruled on 12/11. In 1960 Hawaii didn't make a final decision on electors until 12/27. Suddenly sixteen days wasn't enough time for a manual count, which most countries do overnight. Maybe SCOTUS was afraid the election workers wouldn't have enough time for Christmas shopping? It's a lame excuse for a crooked decision.

Posted by: alex on January 6, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

Advocate,

It is truly a pleasure to read your thorough take downs of tbrosz, c-nut and rdw. Thank you.

And just to be clear, the lack of a detailed response by tbrosz, c-nut and rdw is what's so compelling.

Posted by: Edo on January 6, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

rdw wrote: I'm just an average citizen trying to pay attention.

You are not an "average" citizen. You are an extraordinarily stupid, ignorant and dishonest citizen, a textbook example of the sort of low-grade thuggish moron who joined Hitler's brownshirts in Germany in the 1930s and today in the USA becomes an enthusiatic bootlicking worshipper of Bush.

And the only thing you "pay attention" to is the turds that you gobble from Rush Limbaugh's stinking toilet bowl and the bile that you slurp from the toxic sewer that is Fox News.

You post lie after lie after lie after lie, and when your lies are exposed for the lies that they are, you just post more lies. You are a pathetic, brain-dead stooge who loves to lie.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 6, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

Since when is rehashing historical events counterproductive?

Bottom line, it's clear from actual examination of the ballots the electorate in Florida (and nationwide) chose Al Gore. What Gore did or didn't do, what Bush did or didn't do, its all chaff and doesn't alter the fact.

It's also clear Bush & Co's technical coup in 2000 directly foreshadowed how they reign today. They disregarded We The People then and they're still doing it today.

Posted by: lellis on January 6, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

The problem with Harriet wasn't that she wasn't confrontatonal. It's that we didn't know.

I guess she didn't deserve an up or down vote. Why does Alito?

Harriet wasn't acceptable as a Supreme Court justice for Conservatives. That's why no up and down vote. Chuckie doesn't get a vote until we say he gets a vote.

Sam is acceptable. Chuckie will be a vote and all but a few Democrats will vote against him. There will not be a filibuster and he'll get 55 to 65 votes.

Some liberals are upset and should be. Sam will be as conservative as John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. My bet is the Democrats will NOT pursue the NSA disagreement in court. It's clear Sam and the rest will support GWB. The last thing they want to do is hand GWB a Historic Victory. They'll cut a deal.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

Nathan, rdw, conspiracy nut and tbrosz are just spewing the same old lies and distortions about the 2000 Florida election that the Bush bootlickers have been spewing for years.

FACT: Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush deliberately purged tens of thousands of fully eligible, overwhelmingly African-American Democratic voters from the rolls before the election, by falsely identifying them as felons. The head of the company that actually processed the purge testified that he informed Katherine Harris that the way the purge had been programmed, it would produce a large number of "false positives", wrongly flagging people as felons, and recommended that additional programming should be done that would eliminate most of the false positives. He testified that Harris told him not to make the changes, because she wanted to "cast as wide a net as possible." Harris was informed that the purge would disenfranchise eligible voters, and she told the database company to go ahead and do exactly that.

FACT: Even after Harris and Bush criminally disenfranchised tens of thousands of Democratic voters, Gore won. If every legally cast ballot had been counted in accordance with established Florida election law, then Gore was the clear winner.

Bush stole the election. Nathan, rdw, conspiracy nut and tbrosz are still gloating about the success of this crime today.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 6, 2006 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

WASHINGTON - In an ominous election-year sign for Republicans, Americans are leaning sharply toward giving Democrats control of Congress, an AP-Ipsos poll finds. Democrats are favored 49 percent to 36 percent.
The poll was taken this week as Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to tax evasion, fraud and corruption charges and agreed to aid a federal investigation of members of Congress and other government officials.
President Bush's job approval remains low - 40 percent in the AP-Ipsos poll. About as many approve of his handling of Iraq, where violence against Iraqis and U.S. troops has been surging.

tee hee

Posted by: cleek on January 6, 2006 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

jayarbee,

Good work! Serously. Where did you get the data? Did you print all of it? I've read a series of reports listing Reid and a few other Democratic Senators as recipients of Jacks largess. Plus this is how it works. I was 'educated' as to how Verizon spead it's money around and it's common practice to play both sides. Those with seniority and power get the most.

I also read the 1/3 , 2/3 in a credible column but I can't remember where.

In any event this is going to be one of those things where perception = reality. I find thee issues boring and repetitive and consider both sides equally complicit. I am the averge Joe.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: The decision to clean felons off the voter rolls was correct and proper.

It's implementation was not.

You must have missed the fact that many, if not most, of those individuals were not actually felons.

Which means removing them was not correct and proper, nor in fact was the initial decision which was designed to reduce legitimate Democratic voters, not to police felons.

Typical rdw dissembling when smacked in the back of the head with the truth.

(We would smack your face, but it's buried in Bush's ass and, therefore, unreachable.)

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

That's okay, Gore will in 2008.

Posted by: Oberon on January 6, 2006 at 4:56 PM | PERMALINK

cleek,

If only congressional elections were held in evenyears rather than odd years! You would never lose.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

Wow. George Bush is actually illegitimate and the American electoral system is bunk. Designed for speed and efficiency, it is inaccurate and ineffective. This is America's biggest challenge, to really be a democracy and stop indulging those who would cheat the system to make sure their party always wins.

Good people must not flinch in the face of evil and that is exactly what happened in 2000.

The tragedy unfolds...

Posted by: Nemesis on January 6, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: I am the averge Joe.

No, not really.

The average joe has much more intelligence and doesn't have his lips glued to Bush's ass.


Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Suddenly SCOTUS's job is to make schedules for the states? SCOTUS ruled on 12/11. In 1960 Hawaii didn't make a final decision on electors until 12/27. Suddenly sixteen days wasn't enough time for a manual count, which most countries do overnight. Maybe SCOTUS was afraid the election workers wouldn't have enough time for Christmas shopping? It's a lame excuse for a crooked decision.

I don't remember the exact dates but Florida law required the election to be certified by December 16th. The court issued it's ruling December 15th. The court ruled that end date was constitutional and had to be observed. Obviously there wasn't time to carry anything out and since the efficient Kathleen Harris was prepared to certify the results she had it was over.

The Scrotus did not make a schedule or set a single date. The State of Florida had already done so. SCROTUS merely respected the legislature.

At the end of the day it's clear most people on this post agree. Gore completely mismanaged the recount

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 5:05 PM | PERMALINK

I'm in that 79% that thinks one party is as bad as another. You get these fact [sic] being tosed [sic] back and forth so it's impossible to figure out who is worse.
Posted by: rdw

After reading this clones previous posts (and then this whopper) all I can say is PLEASE KILL ME!

Posted by: mickeypigduck on January 6, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

You sir are a liar.

Posted by: Nemesis on January 6, 2006 at 5:06 PM | PERMALINK

No Nathan, as a matter of fact, George Bush was granted more votes than Al Gore, but as a matter of law Gore received more votes. Read the link provided by Yancey Ward. Read the statutes. I've posted the link to the 2000 version.

Oh and a quick scan of the link provided by tbrosz to CNN showed nothing regarding this strategy. The link to WingNutDaily was duly ignored as the partisan hit piece it appeared to be from the title and, of course, the source.

Posted by: heavy on January 6, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: If only congressional elections were held in even years rather than odd years! You would never lose.

If only time could be stopped and 2000-2004 repeated over and over. You would never lose!

Unfortunately, time doesn't stand still and history is against you, as are the facts and current public opinion.

The GOP leadership is falling like flies in a pesticide fog.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

alex,

I stand corrected on assserting 50 states ban felons from voting. I forget not all do so but my understanding is it is a large majority. The process still holds. The RNC now manages it closely and petitions the various states to see it's done properly and effectively.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: At the end of the day it's clear most people on this post agree.

You seem to have a funny definition of "agree".

I think we both can agree you need to get a dictionary before you make a complete fool of yourself.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

It's just politics.
Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

Gee didn't Nixon say that?
Might always makes right on the right don't it rdw?
Liar.

Posted by: Nemesis on January 6, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: The RNC now manages it closely and petitions the various states to see it's done properly and effectively.

No, they manage it closely to try to get as many non-felon Democrats wrongly off the voter rolls as possible by lying in their petitions to have voters removed.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

Yancey,

What is your impression of the Gore team regarding the recount?

My readings at the time were that Gore was intensely involved in all of the details and decisions. He was the picture of the micro-manager. One story I read was of David Boiles walking into the Supreme Court with a cell phone in his ear, "Yes Al, Yes Al, Yes AL".

Bush was quite different. He was briefed and made the final decisions but James Baker was handling the political details and coordinating the legal details. They did not have George in every huddle.

It seems to be that's an important distinction. Al's not even a lawyer let alone a competent lawyer.

You seem to think he just had bad legal advice. He had a star studded roster. Is that your opinion?

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

Unfortunately, time doesn't stand still and history is against you, as are the facts and current public opinion.

Senate dems Senate Reps

1992 57 267

2005 44 202


What facts are against me?

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

c.n. wrote: "Ya, I'm sure I've got it all wrong"

To nobody's surprise, you do. Take a look at what happened to overseas ballots in Florida counties that traditionally voted Democratic. And take a look at who was doing the protesting and disqualifying. What you find just might surprise you, assuming that you ever learn how to actually read and process knowledge.

Posted by: PaulB on January 6, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

heavy,

My understanding is that the Secretary of State certifies what the different counties in Florida submit as their totals. Now it is clear that those county officials erred in not examining the overvotes as the machines kicked them out. Whether they failed to do so for venal reasons is unclear. I have read and heard literally hundreds of comments over the last 5 years that all overvotes do not count, and some of these comments came from people that should have known the Florida election laws (some from Gore supporters and some from Bush supporters). This is why I don't necessarily think the election officials were corrupt in their actions in this regard, and why I think Gore's lawyers were simply ignorant. If I hadn't read actual statutes and procedures myself, I might have guessed that almost all types of overvotes would have been void. For example, choosing Al Gore on the ballot and writing in "Gore" does not absolutely mean a vote for the same person. However, in Florida and a lot of other states, they have addressed this possibility by making people actually register to be a valid write-in candidate and requiring that write-ins that are not valid be completely ignored.

Still, Gore should have made an issue of the overvotes right from the beginning. If he had, he would have been president in 2001 and likely would have been president today. A colossal f*&kup.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on January 6, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: I don't remember the exact dates but Florida law required the election to be certified by December 16th. The court issued it's ruling December 15th.

If you don't remember the dates, then why are you trying to cite them? BTW, they're the wrong dates.

SCOTUS ruled on December 11. The safe harbor date was December 12. Safe harbor and recount requirements conflicted in Florida law. SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over Florida law, which must be ruled on by state courts. The Rehnquist court more than any other in living memory has emphasized that point - except when they were afraid that their guy might lose.

You also forgot to mention that many of the previous recount delays were due to SCOTUS issuing injunctions, based on the idea that recounting might put Bush's legitimacy in question. That only makes sense if your guy lost the election.

How hard is it to understand "rigged court"?

Kathleen Harris

Katherine Harris.

SCROTUS

SCOTUS, though I kind of like your version.

At the end of the day it's clear most people on this post agree. Gore completely mismanaged the recount

Irrelevant to the points that I and most other posters have made. Gore did a bad job fighting crooked court decisions? Despite having the deck stacked against him I agree, but it has nothing to do with who actually won the election.

Posted by: alex on January 6, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: What facts are against me?

Almost all of them.

Bush approval 44%; Bush disapproval 54%.

See, I can post real but irrelevant-to-the-issue-at-hand numbers too!

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

rdw, rather stupidly wrote: "Why he didn't immediately ask for an immediate and total recount I'll never understand."

Because the Florida law does not permit such a thing. In any case, you are wrong, because Gore actually proposed to the Bush campaign that they do a statewide recount, with both agreeing to abide by the results. Bush turned him down.

Posted by: PaulB on January 6, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

rdw,

I lean towards the explanation that the legal team thought the overvotes were all validly spoiled ballots. However, alex could just as easily be correct that the Gore team thought the overvotes would favor Bush, but I can't think of any reason why someone would believe such a thing without some solid evidence that it were so. Either way it was a big mistake not to contest them.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on January 6, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

Alex,

I used the estimated dates to show the Supreme Court make it's ruling the day before ruling the electon was to be certified. I was correct.

Bush won the election. He won it on the day it was counted and he won it under ALL of the recount regimes specified by the Gore team and the florida Supreme court. Bush is known as Mr. President

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: Bush won the election.

Clearly we can agree that Bush stole the election.

I think we can also agree that you need to get a dictionary so you can tell the difference between "won" and "stole".

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: I stand corrected on assserting 50 states ban felons from voting. I forget not all do so but my understanding is it is a large majority.

Try again. The only states remaining with a lifetime ban are Florida, Kentucky, and Virginia.

Posted by: alex on January 6, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

Yancey,

One other thing. I also understood in each county the party in power in that county was responsible for managing the election process. For example the famous butterfly ballot was designed by a Democrat because because that was a democratic county. I remember during the supreme court hearing O'Connor pointing out the written instructions posted on a large sign and hung on the wall in the voting area seemed to be very clearly written. My understanding in that example those instructions were written by a Democrat because it was a Democratic county.

Considering we hold elections every year isn't it the responsibility of these county election officials to know the rules? The over-vote rule you cite seems to be straight forward and clear. It also would seem to be a common mistake rather easily corrected. How is it the folks on the gound doing this for a living didn't know of the rule and, if they didn't, how is it it did not come up long before 2000?

I don't hold Gore totally responsible but it strikes me the Florida DNC has a lot of culpability.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: The RNC now manages it closely and petitions the various states to see it's done properly and effectively.

Considering that an officer of the Washington GOP committed perjury when filing 1900+ challenges to Democratic voter registrations in that state, this is laughable!

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

Paulb,

See, he's not as dumb as a post.

Those who win elections do not request recounts.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

Yancey Ward: alex could just as easily be correct that the Gore team thought the overvotes would favor Bush

What I meant was that Gore initially asked for recounts in only a few counties because he thought those would favor him. My guess (and it's just that) about Gore not pursuing the overvotes in general is that they didn't appreciate the nature of them or their significance. Such things often become obvious only in hindsight.


, but I can't think of any reason why someone would believe such a thing without some solid evidence that it were so. Either way it was a big mistake not to contest them.
Posted by:

Posted by: alex on January 6, 2006 at 5:51 PM | PERMALINK

yancey,

I am with you. To be honest I thought on day one Al should have petitioned for a statewide recount on everything even if he had to file in every county.

He invited the countersuits and the appeals and wasted clock.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: He invited the countersuits and the appeals and wasted clock.

No, he expressly followed Florida statutory law.

Again, a virtually identical law to the one approved by Bush in Texas.

Those who win elections do not request recounts.

I see you are as dumb as a post.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

advocate,

before you cream in your pants

THAT POLL GIVING CONGRESS TO DEMS [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Multiple readers point out: The respondents are 52% Democrats, 40% Republicans

One always has to be careful with the AP.

Besides, this is one of the most useless poll questions out there. It's 9 months too early and voter don't vote for parties. They vote for candidates. Thanks to McCains incumbant protection act there's no chance Nancy becomes majority leader.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

Bush was quite different. He was briefed and made the final decisions...

Bush has never made a decision except which nostril needed another snort or what bottle was closest. He may be the only impeached president to pled insanity as a defence.

Posted by: Barbarbushit on January 6, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: . . . before you cream in your pants . . .

Since I neither quoted nor referred to such poll, your comment is as irrelevant as all your other comments are inane.

You are either projecting again or wallowing in some fantasmagorical world that only you can understand.

Posted by: Advocate for God on January 6, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

Bush was quite different. He was briefed and made the final decisions...

Bush has never made a decision except which nostril needed another snort or what bottle was closest. He may be the only impeached president to pled insanity as a defense.

Posted by: Barbarbushit on January 6, 2006 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

Wow.

This thread reminds me of Ali's fight with George Chuvalo, with rdw in the role of Chuvalo.

That Canadian could sure take a licking!

The only problem with the analogy is that losing a boxing match because you didn't have the talent to win is world's away from losing a debate because you are fundamentally uninterested in finding out what the truth is.

rdw, hit the showers, kid.

Posted by: obscure on January 6, 2006 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

I'll surprise everyone by saying something nice about conspiracy nut:

His comments, while equally stupid, ignorant and dishonest, are shorter than rdw's.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 6, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

obscure,

I'm the energizer bunny. I am watching Fox News and they're discussing Ariel Sharon. Fred Barnes reminded everyone of when GWB back in 2001 called Sharon a man of peace and was widely ridiculed by the liberal elites in NY, Canada and France. Now they're all worried, "What happens next?"

As usual George was 5 years ahead of them.

GWB was also out there touting the 2M jobs added in 2005 and the 4.9% unemployment rate and the 4% productivity rate.

It's interesting that the Democrats had a good opportunity to use the economy against Bush in 2002 or 2004 and could not get it done. Now were heading toward 4.5% unemployment and Nancy Pelosi has to make the case life sucks.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 7:03 PM | PERMALINK

I remember reading, back during the 2000 controversy that some Florida counties that performed a recount actually counted over votes. They made this decision on their own. And they were predominantly Republican counties.

The thing is, once a recount gets underway, its hard to stop local boards from counting all the votes unless somebody stops them from doing so. And we all witnessed how, once Ms. Harris interfered by calling it a day, people started going to court and Florida ended up having to follow court guidelines.

Too bad that, as in most elections, the local election boards were not allowed to make their own decisions as to how best to conduct a recount once the recount law was honored. In that case, the over votes would not doubt have been counted and we know who would have won.

But, Republicans decided that things should be done differently in the Florida case. They went to federal court of all things. They went to the Florida legislature to prepare to implement a weird alternate plan, if necessary. They took it to the Supreme Court, of all things.

My take? No integrity there. None at all.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on January 6, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

The simple fact is that Gore won the popular election. This had serious ramifications: it meant that Bush prevailing through subterfuge proved he and his party were craven and illegitimate. A magnanimous man and true leader would have stepped aside for the people's choice. Instead, a small man hid behind the machinations of his brother and allowed himself to be installed as president. I could scarce believe it when it happened, and it has caused calamity. If elections are not sacrosanct, what hope did the constitution have?
I think most thinking Americans had to be frightened by the emergent empty suit who was GW Bush. I was never so angry and petrified at the same time. Sadly, people are now fearful to even voice their opinions against the heinous "leaders." We have fallen so far, so quickly. As bad as I knew Bush to be, I could not imagine an American being deprived of due process, free speech, free access to transportation (no-fly lists political lists), basic privacy, and free party affiliation. And the brown-shirted trolls enable this, thinking that they have "political" power which, in fact, they have ceded to amoral fascists who care little about their means to the end. On Amazon, I saw a troll threatening legal action against people who rightly lambasted a dull-witted right wing book.
We are, in 2006, in the middle of a nightmare. Some of you just don't remember the dream.


Posted by: Sparko on January 6, 2006 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: I'm the energizer bunny.

No, you're the energizer asshole.

I am watching Fox News

We know that already since all you do is slavishly regurgitate whatever they tell you.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 6, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

I realize I'm pretty late to this party, but a couple of the first responses to this post were of the type "overvotes are still invalid votes".

I don't have the cites immediately available (I can dig it out, if anyone want), but under Florida law at the time 1) any ballot where the clear intent of the voter was apparent was a legal vote. and 2) it was the legal responsibilty of the county election boards to examine each and every rejected ballot to attempt to identify that clear intent.

Obviously, that didn't happen with the vast majority of the 175,000 'spoiled ballots'. Such a shame.

Posted by: Robert Earle on January 6, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

This has been an excellent thread in which to observe the grotesque corruption, blatant criminality, and sneering, gloating dishonesty of the Bush bootlickers, which they share with Bush himself. No wonder they love him, since they are dumbass thugs just like he is.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 6, 2006 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

I am rather shocked Kevin is still able to throw Prince Albert's name out there and get 200 comments. This is when being a Conservative is fun. It's good to reflect back and know that even then GWB had all the signs of being an especially savvy politician with special skills at building a team quickly and then adroitly managing that team. What ever you think of SCOTUS you have to give GWB a lot of credit for out-maneuvering the best and the brightest of the liberal elite.

Why liberals want to look back still escapes me. Your efforts should be directed toward making sure Howard Dean gets his ducks lined up for efficient on the ground operatoins. GWB immediately after the election told Karl Rove to find out why the GOP got it's butt kicked on election day (internal polls had him winning by 3%). The result of that was a totally different plan for getting out the vote based on a state by state massive volunteer program which resulted in GWB increasing his vote totals by more than 20%.

What does Howrd Dean do besides put his foot in his mouth?

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

rdw: I think defending corruption and evil has worn you down as badly as DeLay's integrity, and like him, no longer useful to the machine, your termination will be authorized by your overseers, your loss barely acknowledged nor lamented like the missing Al. Short of a visit from three progressive spirits and Jacob Marley. . . .

Posted by: Sparko on January 6, 2006 at 7:20 PM | PERMALINK

Robert Earle: You are correct.

Normally, the auto-recount (because the election was so close, a very tiny percentage difference)would have gone into effect and the over votes would have been counted. They are most definitely legal. Any time the voter intent can be determined by the local folks, the vote is counted. Except for Florida 2000.

If the election is not close, the local election boards do not bother to count he votes that were thrown out on technicalities unless there were huge numbers of them.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on January 6, 2006 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

Sparko: you're replying to someone who is wasting his/her life trolling. I doubt you can help, but try if you want.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on January 6, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

it may be counterproductive to rehash 2000, but the fact remains that you'd be hard pressed to recount in the course of human events a more fatefully disasterous wrong outcome.

Posted by: gak on January 6, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

sparko,

This is the dream. We have adults in charge. We now fight back and take reasonable steps to catch terrorist while making sure we protect our civil rights. GWB has maneuvered us out of the obsolete ABM treaty and kept us out of Kyoto. Better yet he has created the replacement for Kyoto in the Asian - Pacific partnership.

I think we all know by now Europe is on the verge of a Demographic collapse and can only be a liability. They have no military and a weak economy and daunting social issues. They get no respect because they haven't earned it:

The head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Ali Larijani, who is also the man behind Iran's foreign policy, has warned Europeans "not to force the Islamic Republic to cut short the dialogue process and to opt for another scenario". Speaking on Tuesday night on state television he said: "We are for a strategy based on dialogue, but if the counterparty Europe plays dirty, then we will pass onto another plan that we have worked out and then there will be problems for the Europeans."

Without specifying the nature of the other plan and the other scenario, Larijani has compared the talks on Iran's nuclear programme to a chess game.

"In this game, we are for a result that will be satisfactory to both Iran and Europe," said Larijani adding that "if we lose, the same will also happen to the other party (Europe) and they will have to prepare themselves to live in a hell."

Larijani pushes the Europeans around because he can. He knows they've lost their American defense shield.

At the same time Condi Rice is on her way to Indonesia to finalize increased trade and defense deals and before the elections will do the same with India, Pakistan, Japan and Brazil at a minimum. The liberla world is shrinking every day, here and in Europe.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

secular,

I enjoy Fox because it's the most balanced and most witty of all the news shows. They interview liberals as well as conservtives and their debates include both. They're also more honest. You'd never see Brit Hume pull Dan Rather's nonsense.

I rather prefer the blogs and talk radio. Rush is of course the best but he's got a lot of comptition from Bill Bennett, Laura Ingram, Michael Medved, Glenn Beck, Hugh Kewlitt, Tony Snow, Sean Hannity, etc. Aside from Rush all of these people have a wide array of guests from a list of the sharpest conservative minds.

This is why Conservative writers can bypass the MSM completely and still routinely make the top 10 lists.

The conservative media is almost as big as the MSM. You've lost a huge edge.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

A reminder of GWB's success in the War on Terror

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK

rdw,

I can imagine you cheering on the beginning of the Dark Ages as well, when Pope Gregory was scoffing at the value of learning and scientific inquiry was criminal and the Church was giving money to local princes to fight proxy wars with pagans.

Cheer on the darkness all you'd like, you can't extinguish the light in the human spirit. Your side has one thing and one thing only going for it: the fear of terror attacks. If Americans ever overcome that fear or learn to live with it -- Republicans are doomed. Their handling of the economy, domestic issues, the Iraq war, fiscal policy, natural catastrophes, and relations with allies has been terrible, and their corruption is becoming legendary. The one and only issue keeping them in office is that people falsely believe Republicans will keep them safer.

You better keep the fear of the swarthy man alive or your party is doomed to another thirty years of ignonimy.

If you'll allow me, I'd like to anticipate your usual response by setting it to poetry:

"Tar sands, tar sands burning bright
In Dan Rather -- he's a blight,
I wish I may I wish I might,
See the French destroyed tonight.

Amen."

Posted by: trex on January 6, 2006 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

trex,

What is this? A lib with a well develop sense of humor! You nailed me pretty well there. You have a talent.

You don't know crap about politics but at least you're fun.

GWB was elected BEFORE 9/11. The election of 1994 occured BEFORE 9/11. Americans are not scared. Americans are pissed. We're not going to be pushed aroud or blackmailed and we're not going to sweat terrorists civil rights. We're also not going to protect the Europeans any longer. GWB has totally realigned US Foreign Policy away from the liberal world. We'll see how well France does in talking to people until their blue to the gills. In the meantime expect Condi to sign a trade and defense deal with Indonesia in the near future. There's no going back.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK

rdw,

You don't understand! The book was a warning, not a recommendation.

Posted by: Ghost of Orwell on January 6, 2006 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK

Stocks extend New Year rally into fourth day
Energetic jump sends Dow, S&P 500, Nasdaq to highest levels since 9/11

Partially due to the unemployment report and partially other poitive reports. We added 2M jobs last year and reduced the rate by 0.5% to 4.9%. JP Morgan is predicting strong economic growth for the next 2 years and even better job growth in '06. Look for an unemploment rate below 4.5%.

Nancy and Harry couldn't do a thing with the economy in 2002 and 2004 and you think they will now?

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

Ghost,

The libs are suggesting conservatives are scared and we're using fear to win elecions. It seems to me you are scared. The whole, "a chill wind blows across the land" thing. Tim Robbins was scared 3 years before we knew about the NSA. He must be on sedatives by now.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 8:23 PM | PERMALINK

"Again, had the election never been passed to the Supreme Court, the recount, under the rules Gore had set at the time, would have changed nothing. Look it up."

Not true. To get that result you have to assume
overvotes would not have been counted. Unfortunately for you, the judge in charge of the recount indicatecd that they *would* have been counted. And both of the media recounts afterwards showed Gore winning under *every* standard that included those overvotes. Even more unfortunately for you the SCotUS said in Bush v. Gore that overvotes *had* to count.

Posted by: chaboard on January 6, 2006 at 8:45 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, GWB was elected before 9/11 and boy were we lucky to have someone who would ignore the threat of terrorism and run and hide when they hit. Can you imagine the horror we would have faced if Gore had been President on August 6th? He might have actually done something to prevent the attack that allowed us to go to war with Iraq. Or on 9/11? When he might have gotten to New York or Washington the same day? You know, like that grandstander Clinton who managed to get to New York before GWB, even though he was in Australia when the attacks occurred?

It sure was lucky we had someone like GWB to ignore the terrorist threat for eight months so that I could watch thousands of Americans die on national television.

I mean, how good can one President be? The stock market is just now recovering from Bush's greatest success in the War on Terror. Bush really is the greatest President of the last four years!

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

There are so many things wrong in these comments that it's leaving me breathless.

"Military ballots". GOPers like to bring this up because the RNC spin was that they wanted to count military ballots but Democrats didn't. That's not true - Republicans disallowed improperly signed or postmarked mail-in ballots in Democratic precincts, but fought to count them in Republican precincts.

Overvotes are not "illegal" ballots (unlike mail-in ballots postmarked a week or more after the election). In fact, the Florida administrative code requires that overvoted ballots kicked by machines must be hand-counted. The Secretary of State and the various election supervisors are supposed to know this and do it without the candidates having to sue. Gore's lawyers, who weren't familiar with local laws, were apparently unaware of this. Local lawyers told the Gore campaign flat out that they had been threatened with loss of business and other problems if they lent their help to Gore's recount efforts.

So local officials illegally failed to do proper recounts - a responsibility that was not Gore's to begin with, but which local lawyers could probably have known about and helped with if they weren't terrified by GOP threats to their local business.

Of course, to Bush-supporters, it is apparently reasonable to commit acts of bribary, blackmail, derelection of duty and other criminal acts in order to win an election - it proves your a good manager.

Posted by: Avedon on January 6, 2006 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK

In any event this is going to be one of those things where perception = reality. I find thee issues boring and repetitive and consider both sides equally complicit. I am the averge Joe.

No you are just a willfully ignorant sub-average moron. You said the same thing about the legal issues regarding the NSA and FISAtoo boring and complicated for you. Yet here you are, opinionated up the wazoo, parroting your favorite right-wing radio blowhards and spouting nonsense about all these things you are willfully ignorant about.

You really need a visit from the shame fairy.

Posted by: R. Porrofatto on January 6, 2006 at 9:36 PM | PERMALINK

The Secretary of State and the various election supervisors are supposed to know this and do it without the candidates having to sue. Gore's lawyers, who weren't familiar with local laws, were apparently unaware of this. Local lawyers told the Gore campaign flat out that they had been threatened with loss of business and other problems if they lent their help to Gore's recount efforts.

So local officials illegally failed to do proper recounts - a responsibility that was not Gore's to begin with, but which local lawyers could probably have known about and helped with if they weren't terrified by GOP threats to their local business.


Point of all this is that liberals are chickenshits?

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINK

Unlike Republicans who will break the law at the drop of a hat. That's something to respect.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINK

No you are just a willfully ignorant sub-average moron. You said the same thing about the legal issues regarding the NSA and FISAtoo boring and complicated for you. Yet here you are, opinionated up the wazoo, parroting your favorite right-wing radio blowhards and spouting nonsense about all these things you are willfully ignorant about.

I did not say NSA or FISA were too complicated. I understand the issues completely. I said it was pointless for non-lawyers to debate technical legal issues the brightest legal minds in the business could not agree on. Especially when none of them are going to decide the issue.

Campaign cash and lobbists spreading money around IS boring. It's also relentless. We're all so tired of it. We all know neither party is better than the other. The DNC will put out an ad about GOP corruption and the RNC will respond with an Ad on Democratic corruption. It will serve to drive down public opinion for the entire congress. No one pays attention except the diehards and their minds are already made up.

The perception you can't ignore is, 'they all do it'. Don't blame me. I didn't create it and I didn't make it up. It's there. Deal with it.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 10:15 PM | PERMALINK

Someone asked what Howard Dean does. Well, he does quite a lot.

Posted by: Avedon on January 6, 2006 at 10:17 PM | PERMALINK

Advocate for God:

tbrosz: Really? During Clinton's administration? Back that up, please.

Here is one listing, you lying asshole.

That's an acceptable response. I hadn't read those before. I stand corrected.

BTW, does God know you talk like that?

Posted by: tbrosz on January 6, 2006 at 11:05 PM | PERMALINK

I stand corrected.

Points to you Tom Brosz. A phrase we all should become more acquainted with. Myself included.

Posted by: LW Phil on January 6, 2006 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK

WoottenTheWitless,

I honestly do not know who is more dumb, Dr Mike K or you. Again, your facts are incorrect. You posted of Oliver North defeating Congress by wearing his uniform, changing public opinion on the evening news and receiving only a misdemeanor.
He was well represented by Brendan Sullivan of the "What am I, a potted plant?" fame. Sullivan snookered the Senators by not allowing them to take North's deposition and demanding that North be given immunity.
Following the Senate hearings, North was tried and convicted on three felony counts. He was sentenced to a 3 years suspended prison term, 2 years probation, $150,000 in fines and 1,200 hours of community service. By being convicted of a felony, North would also lose his pension.

However, an appellate federal court overturned the sentence because of the immunity granted by the Senate. It was felt that the senate testimony heard at trial may have influenced the jury.

He did not win because of his uniform, bearing and medals. He won because of Brendan Sullivan, his extremely talented attorney who outsmarted some Senators who did not realize that they were not trial lawyers.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 6, 2006 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK

tbrosz:
If you dont think you can get Florida to immediately recount the entire state, you ask for a limited recount, e.g., four counties, whatever.

Then, yes, you ask for more. People, including election boards and judges, realize a recount is necessary.

The fact is that certain counties, on their own, even counted over votes when they did a recount. This is as it should be, thats what the law says.

The whole problem began when Harris did what no Secretary of State had done before: she called the election. The function of a Sec. of State is to do the opposite, i.e., provide assistance to any local folks who need it to get their votes counted. There should, by law, have been a statewide recount. Her convenient interpretation of deadlines was absurd. Local election boards are constantly missing deadlines, including election 2000, all over the county.

That travesty led to all the other problems and heavy-handed behavior. You then had a candidate who could claim to be the winner, bogus as it was.

However, had the Florida Supreme Court ruling been allowed to stand, odds are that some of the local boards would have insisted on counting the over votes. Others had already done it. Then the process would have cascaded and Gore still would have won.

It is really hard to stop a local board from counting votes. That is, until year 2000 and the amazing intervention of the U. S. Supreme Court.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on January 6, 2006 at 11:37 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist:

The 2000 election in Florida was stolen twice. First, when Jeb Bush and Katharine Harris deliberately purged tens of thousands of black Democratic voters from the rolls by falsely identifying them as felons who were ineligible to vote, and then again during the recount, when Gore won in spite of the Bush/Harris purge.

Actually, according to this article citing a computer study (not just extrapolation from one county) the number appears to be more like 1,100. The article also points out that thousands of felons succeeded in voting, so there it is.

I have not seen anything that backs up the number "tens of thousands" of Democrats purged wrongly from the rolls. But as always, I'm open to correction.

The dissenting statement to the Florida Election Report can be found here.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 6, 2006 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK

thethirdPaul:
North also got off due to biased appeals judges if you believe Lawrence Walsh. See his book Firewall. Walsh thought he presented a case that did not rely on the congressional testimony.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on January 6, 2006 at 11:43 PM | PERMALINK

Considering it was the DC Circuit, Walsh has an excellent point.


LW Phil,

Like a person who is adaptable - for instance, when confronted by a melting mountain, he immediately drops his skis and rents a kayak.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on January 6, 2006 at 11:50 PM | PERMALINK

rdw=really dim-witted

Now, back to reality. Pretty bleak, eh? Has the war with Iran started yet?

Posted by: Acronym on January 6, 2006 at 11:50 PM | PERMALINK

3rd paul,

He won big time. He was a hack political aide who turned his show trial into a very profitable career. That trial made him a very wealthy man. Being oveturned on appeal means you were never convicted. The only charge which stuck was some silly misdeamor.

I remembered him standing there by himself. If you say he had a lawyer with him I'll take your world for it and stand corrected.

Do you remember the name of the prosecuting attorney? The interview I saw with him where he described how shrewdly Ollie used the 'staging' to his advantage, and how upset he was when he saw Ollie coming off as a very sympathetic star, was filmed a few years after it all happened. When I saw it, it was a few months after he died. He wasn't old.

Posted by: rdw on January 6, 2006 at 11:51 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, found some more numbers:

Combine this with the previous number from the other Palm Beach Post article, and it appears entirely possible that the felons who voted illegally outnumber by quite a bit the innocent people wrongly purged from the lists.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 6, 2006 at 11:56 PM | PERMALINK

Tom:

I was pretty impressed for a moment - until I googled them and came up with this. Yucch. Better experts please. Still thanks for admitting error. Rare on your side of the aisle. Rare on my side of the aisle.

Paul - Come on, give him props. He's a real person. Granted, you have to check his links, but it keeps us sharp. Good God, can you concieve of rdw reproducing? R2D2...r2d2w2...borg

Posted by: LW Phil on January 6, 2006 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINK

Energetic jump sends Dow, S&P 500, Nasdaq to highest levels since 9/11

In other words:

Stocks go nowhere for over 4 years, strong competition from money in mattress

Posted by: Mornington Crescent on January 6, 2006 at 11:59 PM | PERMALINK

Unfortunately, the history of democracy is that leadership philosophy is eroded as the competition between elites becomes more intense. Thats what happened with Athenian democracy; thats what happened in the Roman Republic. So you look at our system today; you see our elites doing it, and you know were in big trouble. Its in my lifetime that this has happened, that elites have begun to put winning ahead everything else, ahead of truth and country.

Doom and gloom! That's all you liberals have to offer!

Posted by: Rush Limbaugh on January 7, 2006 at 12:13 AM | PERMALINK

tbrosz: But as always, I'm open to correction.

Well, even when you're not open to correction, you're still quite often wrong. But it is nice to see you recognize it once in a while.

BTW, does God know you talk like that?

[Scratching top of my bald head] Gee... Shouldn't you be asking God that question? And if you have doubts, what kind of God is that?!?

rdw: You'd never see Brit Hume pull Dan Rather's nonsense.

Here you go, Shmendrick: http://mediamatters.org/items/200502160003

Posted by: obscure on January 7, 2006 at 12:13 AM | PERMALINK

I don't understand why you guys don't appreciate all the effort Bush has put into obeying the law. I mean, brilliant minds like Harriet told him it was okay. That's good enough for him, it's good enough for me, and it should be good enough for you.

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 12:19 AM | PERMALINK

LW Phil:

I was pretty impressed for a moment - until I googled them and came up with this. Yucch. Better experts please.

I don't suppose you noticed the irony of using a biography of a conservative written by the Center For Media and Democracy, in order to show me how the bias of a source can lead one to suspect the accuracy of the information. ;)

Posted by: tbrosz on January 7, 2006 at 12:20 AM | PERMALINK

conceive - I miss spell check (i before e except after c and the sound of a...)

Tom, the Palm Beach Post is a real source. If it refutes previous claimed numbers, congratulations - I still think Bush is an incompetent, deranged, criminal twit, and the Iraq war is a stupid waste of blood (most important), treasure, and international standing for an incoherent delusion. Sorry to be blunt, but its a fiasco...I would go on, but words fail me...Okay, can you imagine if we had put all that money into alternative energy? Penurious Wahabbists...camel jockeys once again... (politically incorrect and I don't care)...global warming stopped?...Oh yes!!! But - GWB...energy task force...oil subsidies...murican...brush clearing...

Posted by: LW Phil on January 7, 2006 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINK

It's not the time. The vast majority of even whacko lefties have moved on. This isn't an issue. It's a curiosity - rdw

The theft of Democracy is a curiosity. It's not an issue? Now I have said my share of obtuse offensive things on many boards over the years but I tip my hat to you rdw. You may as well have gone into a church, climbed up on the altar, and pissed in the face of that crucified Jesus statue that seems to hang on the wall behind the dias in just about every church. Maybe Democracy is garbage to you, the Constitution just a fucking piece of paper, civil rights an annoying vestige from a failed experiment but some of us still love this country.

Watch your fucking mouth.

Posted by: Eric Paulsen on January 7, 2006 at 12:25 AM | PERMALINK

obscure,

not even close.


1st off Brits quote was 1 of 4 different topics on a 2 minute segment. Nothing like the Tang story.

2nd - I don't remember the details but neither Brit nor Fox made any retraction because none was necessary. He didn't take anything out of context nor twist anything. It was trivial anyway. Keith is a moonbat. How many timmes has he impeached Bush?

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 12:28 AM | PERMALINK

Get over the 2000 election so you can concentrate on the future. You guy's are stuck in the past.

Posted by: berlins on January 7, 2006 at 12:30 AM | PERMALINK

A general note - rdw is a monumental twit. tbrosz is a real person (albeit someone you have to watch - and check his links). Don't confuse them.

Posted by: LW Phil on January 7, 2006 at 12:33 AM | PERMALINK

GWB was elected BEFORE 9/11. The election of 1994 occured BEFORE 9/11.

rdw, your analysis leaves everything to be desired. First of all, GWB wasn't elected: he lost the popular vote and was appointed by the Supreme Court.

Secondly, my point stands: what were Bush's poll number prior to 9/11? Forty-what again? As I recall, they were among the lowest a newly installed president had ever had, showing that there was no popular groundwell of support for him. People basically understood him to be the language-mangling boob that he is and rued their decision to vote for him. Pathetic.

Also, the election of 1994 is so yesterday's news it's not funny. The Repubs ran and won on an integrity campaign that year -- they have lost all perception of integrity due to scandal after scandal after scandal, and it's far from over. Add to that abysmal fiscal mismanagement and everything else I pointed out upthread. People trust them on one issue and one issue only. Don't believe me? Here's a new poll for you:

AP Poll: Congressional Democrats favored

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - In an ominous election-year sign for Republicans, Americans are leaning sharply toward wanting Democrats to take control of Congress, an AP-Ipsos poll finds. Democrats are favored 49 percent to 36 percent.

I take that back, there is a second issue and that's big business who know the R's will do everything legal and illegal in their power to buy their votes.

You better hope we have another terrorist attack, because that's the only thing that will boost your guys numbers: that's what they live by. And how are things going in Iraq again? One of the bloodiest days ever yesterday, wasn't it? That really gives people a warm fuzzy that their chief executive knows what he's talking about when he says the December elections will start a new era of peace.

Not.

He's an incompetent boob whose party controls every organ of government yet can't pass Social Security abolition, can't make Iraq work, can't act effectively when a major American city is underwater, can't get Harriet Myers on the court, can't pass Go -- but can collect $$$ from crooked lobbyists.

And yes, I am very funny, thank you. That's one thing you've been right about.

Posted by: trex on January 7, 2006 at 12:42 AM | PERMALINK

Eric,

Sorry my friend. This is not even going to make the history books. Nor is Ohio in 2004. You'll never forget it just like some don't forget Il and WV in 1960. But it's not history.

Bush is 1 of 4 Presidents who did not win the popular vote. Can you name the other three? How many people can?

You have to put this in perspective and look at all the things that went wrong in 2000 and go wrong in every election. These over-voted would not have happened if the democratic poll workers had provided adequate instruction. If your party had it's act together wouldn't be crying now. Bureaucratic incompetence is not history.

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINK

trex,

1994 wasn't that long ago. I remember it well. It changed everything. It made people like Newt Gingrich, Denny Hastert and Tom Delay. 1994 and the 1980 elections were the most consequential of the last 50 years. 2002 would rank 3rd.

Bush didn't win the popular vote because he didn't have too. He's still Mr. President.

THAT POLL GIVING CONGRESS TO DEMS [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Multiple readers point out: The respondents are 52% Democrats, 40% Republicans

Always be careful with an AP poll or report.


We didn't have a terrorist attack in 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, or 2004. We won Congress every time. Wishful thinking is not analysis.

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 12:58 AM | PERMALINK

We cheated, it counted, get over it.

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 1:00 AM | PERMALINK

LW Phil:

It's nice to dream that we would all be driving solar-powered cars right now if Gore were president, but the hard fact is we'd still be highly dependent on oil from the Middle East and South America for years to come, and like every other president before him, Gore would be schmoozing the Saudis and others, making the same deals, and overlooking the same old crap.

Let's keep our feet on the ground, okay? We already tried a major "Synfuels" program once. Didn't work. The only thing that will really drive alternative energy is high oil prices. Frankly, I hope they stick in the 60 dollar range forever.

I'm willing to believe Gore might have done some things better than Bush. Other things worse. With a Republican congress, we'd have gotten a lot of gridlock, but maybe that's a good thing. Studies seem to show that government spending is lowest when the executive and legislative branches are at each other's throats, and I wonder how much of our our surpluses were due to just that.

Posted by: tbrosz on January 7, 2006 at 1:22 AM | PERMALINK

Tom: youre such a pessimist. Are you that jaded? Would you sell out that easily? I don't think so. If you did, would you you spend it on a stupid war? I don't think so. Rumor has it Iraq is costing over a trillion. I would much rather blow it on research than a PNAC pipedream centered on a hasbeen dictator turned romance novelist. You?

Posted by: LW Phil on January 7, 2006 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry. It's my George Bernard Shaw punctuation.

Posted by: LW Phil on January 7, 2006 at 1:47 AM | PERMALINK

Always be careful with an AP poll or report.

rdw, you might want to educate yourself on an issue before you open your mouth and make yourself look like a fool. The AP poll reflects the same trend in virtually every other poll on this issue, no matter who the pollster or how conservative.

I'm not going to post the results here because I don't want to embarrass and humiliate you. But to sum up, there are over twenty polls on this page, and not only are Dems preferred by huge margins to retake Congress in poll after poll, the Repubs are trending down, down, down.

You're getting as boringly predictable as tdoze -- when the numbers don't agree with your wishful thinking, just attack them as untrue.

As for the Repubs winning in the late 90's, that has nothing to do with their recent abysmal performance. If you can't wrap your head around that concept, I just can't help you.
The American public is going to take them to task for low wages, jobs going overseas, corruption. It will take two cycles, but things will turn around. This is no longer 1998, the economy is not humming along and there is no salacious Starr report to keep people indignant about the behavior of a Dem.

There is however Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff, Scooter Libby, Duke Cunningham, James Tobin, the Noe coin scandal, a number of Repub governors under investigation, and a host of other local R scandals for people to focus on.

You better keep your fingers crossed for something that will change the subject and get the spotlight off the Republican gang that can't shoot straight. What's the deficit again? How are wages? Where are household savings?

Indonesian trade agreements don't mean anything. Anything! Why do you bring them up? Trade is trade is trade. People don't care if it's with Finland or Findlandistan, and it has no bearing on liberalism or the price of tar sands in China.

"Brownie is doing a heckuva job."

Right. People are starting to get it now.

The Rush echo chamber is just that -- people getting a rush off listening to a drug-addled blowhard telling them what they desperately want to hear.

Oxycontin much?

Posted by: trex on January 7, 2006 at 3:29 AM | PERMALINK

this is old news.

we knew in 2001 that if the overvotes had been counted Gore would have won.

however, Gore never sued to have the overvotes counted and based on the Washington Post/NY Times consortium, it appears that they wouldn't have been counted...with the result that if the Supremes had not intervened, Bush still would have won. its obvious that more people tried to vote for Gore that day. it's also irrelevant. Gore sued for the undervotes.

Posted by: Nathan on January 6, 2006 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINK

Elections don't belong to the candidates. Elections belong to the people in a democratic republic.

I don''t give a fuck what Gore asked for. We can keep playing these bullshit games, but it doesn't change the fact that overvotes are LEGAL, and nobody should have to sue to get legal ballots counted.

The election laws are clear in Florida: Every consideration is given to the citizen and his right to vote.

We had a coup d'etat in 2000. A bloodless coup, but a coup nonetheless. That's what coup d'etat's look like in civilized America.

Posted by: Carrie on January 7, 2006 at 4:24 AM | PERMALINK

Watch the BBC report on how tens of thousands of legitimate voters were purged from the Florida voting rolls prior to the 2000 election.

What that piece was too early to tell you is that those people are still trying to get Florida to return their names to the voting rolls.

What that report also doesn't tell you is that a similar purge was carried out in Tennessee, despite the fact that Tennessee is not one of the states that prohibits felons from voting. This purge was entirely illegal. Also in Tennessee, motor-voter registrations were never processed, so thousands of people who thought they had registered discovered on election day that they still could not vote.

Without these illegal actions in Florida and Tennessee prior to the election, there is every reason to believe that Gore would have carried both states easily.

Meanwhile, just for the record, George Bush did not even come close to carrying his home state - which was, of course, Connecticut.

Posted by: Avedon on January 7, 2006 at 6:45 AM | PERMALINK

rdw: not even close.

We agree!

What Brit Hume did was far worse. Dan made a huuuuuge error, recognized it, apologized, and resigned.

Brit Hume lied about FDR's vision of Social Security with the express purpose of helping our Coward in Chief to dismantle the program. Hume didn't accept responsibility and didn't apologize. That's disgusting.

Furthermore, the forged documents that Rather bought into were, it seems likely, copies of originals. If not word-for-word, they were accurate representations of the essence of the originals.

Posted by: obscure on January 7, 2006 at 9:52 AM | PERMALINK

trex,

Why do you do this to yourself? Every off year since 1994 Dick Gepheart would rally the troops with, "We got'em where we want them now!"

You are the Charlie Brown party. We are Lucy. The election is the football.

You had 267 Representatives in 1992. You have 202 now. That's the lowest in 75 years.

You had 57 Senators in 1992. You are down to 44 now.

You are good at making noise. You are not good at running elections. You know how bad a candidate George W. Bush is yet you weren't even even able to beat this poor, incoherent candidate. The dunce was able to do something no President since Roosevelt was able since his 1st term in winning EVERY election as President.

One of the reasons 2000 and 2002 and 2004 were so devastating was because the echo chamber had you convinced you were winning. Someone that dumb can't possibly beat the enlightened liberals. You get your hopes so high and then 'BAM' two more years of depression.

Don't do this to yourself. It's just Lucy setting you up again.

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

obscure,

Dan has never admitted being played for a total sap. He was a fool. Memogate will outlive him due to it's soaring incompetence. They were crayon copies prepared by a certified looney tune. The story is actually funny.

Brit Hume is now the Dean of Network Anchors. Scheiffer has been around longer but everyone knows he's just a disaster fill-in. You know he's good by the level of antimosity he is able to generate. His 'duels' with Juan Williams are classics. Obviously with their audience Juan is pretty much the class clown. He does an excellent job representing the silliness of being liberal and he's as much a part of the reason for Fox's stunning success as Fred Barns or the brilliant Charles Krautenhammer.

It's the Nexus of Fox, Talk Radio and conservative bloggers which has made the alternative Media so powerful. Regarding Dan's Memo the next day they showed the letter in question and highlighted 6 reasons why it was all but impossible to be authetic. The next day they added 4 more reasons. They helped expose where the letter came from (CBS would not disclose for obvious reasons) and determined it was a known fruitcake Bill Burkett. If I remember correctly they kept that story in the news every day for two weeks providing new evidence every day why it was not only a fraud, but a seriously incompetent fraud, AND showing CBS trying to tapdance. Even ABC had to cover it.

The reason Fox was able to do this was mainly bloggers and the bloggers connections uncovering evidence and sharing it in real time over the internet. For example some blogger had a few documentation experts feeding him info such as the fax data. They found out it came from a Kinko's in rural Texas. Bill Burkett was the only known figure close to that Kinko's. They found out he was actualy in the kinko's that day. All of this was handed to Fox on a platter and braodcasted to the world.

In the past only the networks had these kinds of resources. They'd bury it. Dan would still be the anchorman instead of an old fool.

Who would hve thought the internet would be this powerful. I'd argue that it provides Fox with more investigate firepower than ABC.

The reason Fox was able to show a clip of Jamie Gorelick supporting GWB on the wiretaps less than 5 hours after trashing him on the wiretaps was because one of the think tankers remembers Jamies prior congressional testimony and did a google search. They alert talk radio and Fox and before you know it ABC can't run with Jamie Gorelick but Fox can.

How cool is that the smallest of the networks is the fastest and furtherest reaching.

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK


I'm willing to believe Gore might have done some things better than Bush.

Like, for instance, not ignore terrorist enemy #1 for nine months (the gestation period of that-which-changes everything)?

fake rdw is funny; real rdw is scary

Posted by: Cassandro on January 7, 2006 at 10:24 AM | PERMALINK

Avedon,

Your losers lament makes for powerful reading but GWB does has a home state and it's not Connecticut. THe GOP is never going to carry Connnecticut and that's why you don't see Presidential campaign dollars spent there or much influence aside from the perfunctionary minium. Joe Liberman is a terrific Senator. Will he survive? Dodd is a moron. He still can't get over Reagan creamed him in Central America.

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

Carrie,

Let it go. It''s been over 5 years. You'll have to face the face the fringe will not be writing history and in fact history will NOT be kind to the left. George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the USA and the 1st two termer this century. He is the 1st President in 75 years to be so successful in elections and history will record he remade the world.

Liberals have lost great power. You are not only on the wane here but globally. Schroeder is out in Germany and his party fractured. Martin appears to be out in Canada and his party greatly weakened. Tony Blairs labor party has been significantly weakened and Chirac is effective done as President with polls far below GWBs. The labor party in Australia has all but disbanded

Kyoto is done. The ABM is done. Kofi Annon and the UN are done. European countries are starting to see net emigration for the 1st time in 50 years despite their massive welfare programs and despite the fact they are still taking in muslim immigrants. This is happening before the great de-population wave starts to take effect.

Birth rates in the liberal world are devastating. You are breeding yourself out of existance. We see it here in our census data and it's much worse in Canada and Europe. No Democrat has won a majority of the popular vote since 1976 and no liberal since 1964. Every year there are fewer of you.

Carrie you need to embrace conservative. Every year there are more of us.

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 10:43 AM | PERMALINK

Truly conservatism is on the rise. Conservative values of borrow and spend, like Reagan. The Nixonian doctrine of foreign adventurism that kills our soldiers for the entertainment of people like myself. The small government programs that look into the bedrooms of our citizens, after all, nothing could be smaller than the bedrooms of some of you perverts. And my personal favorite, the conservatism of Bush where the government ignores real threats until something bad happens and then uses it as an excuse to implement all of the above policies that an America hating majority of Americans wouldn't stand for otherwise. Yes, hug a conservative. It helps us get over being bottle fed, from old scotch bottles, as babies.

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

RDW wannabe,

Check this out from victor Davis Hanson. He's a bit less acerbic than Mark Steyn but no less accurate. Your European liberal cousins are now persona no grata here a we are there.

Abroad you face even worse challenges. In the post-Cold War you dismantled your armed forces, and chose to enhance entitlements at the expense of military readiness. I fear you counted only on a tried and simple principle: that the United States would continue to subsidize European defense while ignoring your growing secular religion of anti-Americanism.

But in the last 15 years, and especially after 9/11, heaven did not come to earth, that instead became a more dangerous place than ever before. Worse, in the meantime you lost the goodwill of the United States, which you demonized, I think, on the understanding that there would never be real repercussions to your flamboyant venom.

Your courts indict American soldiers, often a few miles from the very military garrisons that alone protect you. Your media and public castigate the country whose fashion, music, entertainment, and popular culture you so slavishly embrace.

The Balkan massacres proved that a mass murderer like Slobodan Milosevic could operate with impunity in Europe until removed by the intervention of the United States. And yet from that gruesome lesson, in retrospect we over here have learned only two things: The Holocaust would have gone on unabated hours from Paris and Berlin without the leadership of United States, and in this era of the Chirac/Schroeder ingratitude the American public would never sanction such help to you again. If you believe that an American-led NATO should not serve larger Western interests outside of Europe, we concede that it cannot even do that inside it.

We wish you well in your faith that war has become obsolete and that outlaw nations will comply with international jurisprudence that was born and is nurtured in Europe. Yet your own intelligence suggests that the Iran theocracy is both acquiring nuclear weaponry and seeking to craft missile technology to put an Islamic bomb within reach of European cities oblivious to the reasoned appeals of European Union diplomats, who themselves operate as Greek philosophers in the agora only on the condition that Americans will once more play the role of Roman legionaries in the shadows.

Russia may no longer be the mass-murdering Soviet Union, but it remains a proud nationalist and increasingly autocratic power of the 19th-century stripe, nuclear and angry at the loss of its empire, emboldened by the ease that it can starve energy supplies to Western Europe, and tired of humanitarian lectures from Westerners who have no real military to match their condescending sermons. Old Europe has neither the will nor the power to protect the ascending democracies of Eastern Europe, much less the republics of the former Soviet Union from present Russian bullying and perhaps worse to come.

The European strategy of selling weapons to Arab autocracies, triangulating against the United States for oil and influence, and providing cash to dubious terrorists like Hamas has backfired. Polls in the West Bank suggest Palestinians hate you, the generous and accommodating, as much as they do us, the staunch ally of Israel.

So, terrorists of the Middle East seem to have even less respect for you than for the United States, given they harbor a certain contempt for your weakness as relish to the generic hatred of our shared Western traditions.

You will, of course, answer that in your postwar wisdom you have transcended the internecine killing of the earlier 20th century when nationalism and militarism ruined your continent and that you have lent your insight to the world at large that should follow your therapeutic creed rather than the tragic vision of the United States.

But the choices are not so starkly bipolar between either chauvinistic saber rattling or studied pacifism. There is a third way, the promise of muscular democratic government that does not apologize for 2,500 years of civilization and is willing to defend it from the enemies of liberalism, who would undo all that we wrought.

A European Union that facilitates trade, finance, and commerce can enrich and ennoble your continent, but it need not suppress the unique language, character, and customs of European nationhood itself, much less abdicate a heritage that once not merely moralized about, but took action to end, evil.

The world is becoming a more dangerous place, despite your new protocols of childlessness, pacifism, socialism, and hedonism. Islamic radicalism, an ascendant Communist China, a growing new collectivism in Latin America, perhaps a neo-czarist Russia as well, in addition to the famine and savagery in Africa, all that and more threaten the promise of the West.

So criticize us for our sins; lend us your advice; impart to America the wealth of your greater experience but as a partner and an equal in a war, not as an inferior or envious neutral on the sidelines. History is unforgiving. None of us receives exemption simply by reason of the fumes of past glory.

Either your economy will reform, your populace multiply, and your citizenry defend itself, or not. And if not, then Europe as we have known it will pass away to the great joy of the Islamists but to the terrible sorrow of America.

This is from a 'Letter to Europe'. It's not a warning but a statement of fact. Victor has been to the WH several times to meet with Bush and Cheney. They are already assuming Europe is lost and acting accordingly. Rather than economic reform they are raising taxes. Their birth rates drop each year. Germany just traded a terrorist for a hostage and the EU has ignored a threat from Iran because they have no means of response.

Conservatives run America and we are running, not walking, away from Old Europe. NATO in less than 3 years has been rendered a toothless shell. The ABM and Kyoto treaties are defunct. We have permanent mechanisms to stay outside the UN on everything from diplomacy to environmental protectons to the delivery of ALL foreign aid.

Iran pushes France and Germany around because they can. The challenge for France and Germany here isn't just if they can get the respect of the Middle East. It's our respect they need. If tomorrow there was a crises in Europe they are on their own. They know this. Their enemies know this. My own suspicion is that with their lack of military power they'll get the same respect as the UN and the Vatican. They'll preen over their moral superiority but that's all they'll do.


Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

RDW wannbe,

read and weep

Mark Steyn on the population decline of the West, and the further embarrassment of Pat Robertson

HH: Mark Steyn joins me, columnist to the world. Let me ask you, Mark Steyn. Yesterday, you wrote a piece in the Opinion Journal that the Wall Street Journal picked up. It's the Demography, Stupid. Have you ever had such amount of commentary that quickly on a piece?

MS: Well, it's interesting. It's basically a speech I gave in New York a few weeks ago, I think, late November. And it was a relatively small crowd. There was Daniel Pipes there, and Judge Bork, and a few other people for the New Criterion. And it pops up on the internet, and within a minute and a half, it's gone around the world, and you're getting reaction to it from Australia and Israel, and Italy and Denmark. It's an amazing thing. It's a completely different kind of media time we live in, where you make a passing reference to Denmark, as I did, and I had reaction from a couple of dozen Danes within an hour and a half. You wouldn't get that in a...

HH: Here's my theory. It's candid. It's brutally, bluntly candid about where the West is going, and that people have been hungry for, and are afraid of that at the same time. Your reaction to my analysis?

*************

The rest of the interview is at hughhewlitt.com. The article is all over the place but also at marksteyn.com

The Danes are getting the message. It's not from their media but ours. Steyns comments were even more insulting and ominous than Victor Davis Hanson. And it's not opinion. The demographic data is theirs and it's undeniable. They know any year now there will be more babies of Islamic than Danish descent and a few years after that dramatically more. 50 years after that will abortion be legal?

Posted by: rdw on January 7, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, now that we have conquered Iraq, made peace in the Middle East, and killed thousands of our soldiers for the entertainment of Republicans like myself, we should invade Iraq. It's not like our soldiers can't handle it. After all, that's why we put their salarys on the nation's credit card. And nothing is more sustainable than constant borrowing. That is, after all, how I make my living - all you have to do is put the next bill on the next credit card and you too can live like me!

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 12:37 AM | PERMALINK

And I love the fact that we are talking about me, rather than about how we managed to steal the election right out from under your noses. You guys even had more votes throughout the nation and still you couldn't get the "liberal" media to investigate our clear violations of the law! How great are we? You even got behind us when our incompetence let over 2000 people die in a single day. Republicans rule, Democrats drool.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 12:42 AM | PERMALINK

I think there were some real lessons from Florida 2000 that unfortunately have not been taken to heart by either side.

  • No election can be perfect. If an election is close enough then no one can really say with accuracy who won.
  • When the rules for counting an election or recounting an election get decided after the fact there is no way to decide them in a way that will be generally regarded as fair.
  • People are endlessly creative in messing up their ballots. Any process that uses humans to decide how to interpret these ballots will not be generally seen as fair.
  • Inevitable wear and tear on the ballots means that large recounts of any physical ballot will not come up with exactly the same result twice.

This suggests a different approach to counts and recounts:

  1. All ballots should be designed to be machine counted.
  2. The ballot design, machines, and machine settings should be established well before the election. Challenges to them should have to be done before the election.
  3. All recounts should be purely mechanical. A ballot is rejected if the counting machines reject it. No human gets involved.
  4. The rules should be designed to support machine counting. For example, write ins could be required to apply a bar coded sticker provided by the candidate to support machine counting.
  5. The only human based challenges to a count should be based on claims that the machines or ballots were not set up in the way that was previously agreed so the count was not done as approved before the election.
  6. Optionally, if the result is close enough, have a run off for the top two vote getters. The rules for this should also be set before the election.

This still leaves open big issues like which absentee ballots to count, claims of double voting, etc.

Some things can definitely be done to reduce problems in this area:

  • Require every voter to provide fingerprints.
  • Dramatically increase the penalties for voter fraud - people who do things like voting in two states, voting while not a citizen, etc. should spend several years in jail.
  • Use computerized matching of fingerprints for all the votes nation wide to identify illegal voters and multiple voters and then prosecute all of them.
  • Establish clear rules for throwing out elections based on illegal voters. My preference is to say that an election is invalid if the number of illegal voters exceeds the margin of victory.

Posted by: Michael Friedman on January 8, 2006 at 5:32 AM | PERMALINK

agreed

Posted by: Teen on January 8, 2006 at 8:09 AM | PERMALINK

Michael F,

Great post but unfortunately liberals will never agree to any form of identification. They lose their cities they are done as a party. If you require ID in the city that will tend to eliminate a small army of democratic shrills from voting dozens and dozens of times.

I'm with you.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 10:34 AM | PERMALINK

RDW wannabe

Yes, now that we have conquered Iraq, made peace in the Middle East, and killed thousands of our soldiers for the entertainment of Republicans like myself, we should invade Iraq.

Maybe you got a bit too excited and got ahead of yourself? Relax. If using my name entertains you then by all means continue. As a practical matter it's clear you have neither the balls nor the brains to use your own name, or even your own alias. That's more than a little pathetic.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 10:38 AM | PERMALINK

Perhaps... but consider - a lot of things that upset liberals (like pre-purging of voter registration lists for felons) become a lot less important if there is a big sign at the polling place explaining eligibility requirements and stating "If you are a felon and you try to vote you will go to jail."

Posted by: Michael Friedman on January 8, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

Michael your suggestions about how to run the elections are perfect. After all, it wasn't the machine counts in Florida that were wrong. And no machines have a margin of error. I've never heard of a machine jamming, getting dirt on the sensors, or failing for any number of reasons.

The point of elections isn't the determination of voter intent, it is a test to see who can follow directions, no matter how small, how difficult to understand, and no matter how arbitrary or even wrong (one of our great successes in Florida was the "vote every page" instruction that allowed us to convince stupid people to vote on every page and spoil their Presidential vote).

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

Michael Freidman,

That may or may nor work but as a practical matter it will never be tried. It would be viewed as threathening of the poor and minorities by the ACLU and thus never supported. I am skeptical as to if it is really workable anyway.

I love the fingerprint thing but until the technology is here and cheap I think Picture ID is a very practical and politicaly possible alternatie. We are not there yet. The PA legislature has passed a bill but it's likely Ed Rendell won't sign it. But once this political battle is won to require identification the main hurdle to eventually use fingerprint scans will have been passed.

If you look at a map of the Red State/Blue State divide you can see the Liberals have little or no support outside large urban areas. They absolutely rely on large cities. It's far, far more important to end the scam of democratic operatives voting dozens and dozens of times all ovr the city than of stopping felons, which is of course more easily done as well. This alone could lower their vote by 5%.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

Plus with picture ID you can charge for it and institute a de facto poll tax. And the fingerprinting idea? Brilliant. Once we do that then we can use the poll watchers as little deputy sheriffs and have them turn over anyone who has an outstanding warrant to the police. This will have the additional effect of making those suspicious of the police (you know who I mean) less likely to vote and that will cut down on that dirty Democrats voting base. Voter intimidation rocks! Plus, like I said, it is impossible to believe that people in cities don't understand that it really is better that Bush slept through the warnings that might have prevented 9/11 so we could start the Iraq war. Come on, without the Iraq war we'd have hundreds of soldiers still alive and no "no-bid" contracts. And those are the important things. Not voting the best interests of the nation.

Posted by: rdw on January 8, 2006 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

At Least Now the America is able to see the consequences of stealing the election in 2000. May be in the future America will make the right decision when they are choosing their Leader. When Al gore was VP 22 millions New Jobs were created, Unemployment rate was low, Had surplus in the Economy, Americans were not getting killed unnecessarily and losing their body parts for Oil and the arrogance of the few right wingers.

http://www.electgore2008.com

http://www.runalgore.com

Posted by: ElectGore2008.com on January 9, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly