- "Let's ignore for the moment that several independent recounts of the very rejected ballots Gore sought to have (improperly, in my opinion) counted revealed....Bush won Florida. Even if you deny that (which I'm sure you will, if for no other reason than I asserted it), Gore made a tremendous legal error by only moving the courts to count certain counties' ballots. This legal strategy paved the way for the Equal Protection Clause-based decision by the Supremes. See, when you peel back the bias, there is the law. Gore's team sought to do an end-run around counting rejected ballots in places it would hurt them, in favor of only counting in certain counties. This was far more abusive than the Supreme Court following the Fourteenth Amendment. And making James Baker of all people out to be Darth Vader-esque is a joke. Baker continually surprises Republicans by not coming out with a McClellan-like book "telling all" about the Bushes. I await your assertion that I give nothing but "Talk Radio Talking Points," while refusing to address my argument."
- "The only way Al Gore wins a statewide recount in Florida -- and remember, he wasn't asking for that -- is if you count the "overvotes," where some moron both punched a selection on the ballot AND WROTE A NAME IN. These are by any standard improper votes.It's time to move past 2000, Mike. Your guy lost the Electoral College, and your guy lost worse in 2004. We're in '08 now; maybe some of the bitterness should be purged?(If only you had guns and religion to cling to, to help with the bitterness) ;)"
Yes, although I yearn for the comfort of guns and religion, I am made of stronger stuff.
Prosqtor has the details of the specious equal protection argument wrong. It wasn't that the Gore legal team had cherry-picked hand recounts in friendly counties -- by the time it got to the U.S. Supreme Court, it was a state-wide hand recount of undervotes. It was the different interpretation of the ballots -- some counties counting dimpled chads, some not. He's also wrong about what scenario would have had Gore ahead. It was not only overvotes on optical ballots -- it was also if "a statewide recount of all disqualified ballots was undertaken using the standards that each county's election officials have said they would use in a recount." That's exactly the standard the Florida Supremes ordered and that the U.S. Supremes stopped in its tracks.
You know, I was as surprised as Prosqtor was (and you know he was) when the media consortium that (finally) counted the votes found that Bush won under some scenarios, Gore in only some others. Certainly, if not for pre-election blunders (the butterfly ballots) and deviousness (Harris' overly-broad-on-purpose felon purge list), Gore wins Florida in a walk. No one believes that more people didn't go to the polls there on election day intending to vote for Gore.
But whether Gore comes out on top or not is not really the point. At the time the Bushies were fighting to stop the recount, no one knew who won. The outrage of the Bushies being able to stop the recount and run out the clock is not, necessarily, that Gore would have surely won. It was that they would go to such outrageous lengths to stop and hijack the process of democracy. As Spacey/Klain screams in a bar at the height of Recount, "Who WON??!" No one would have denied even Junior Bush electoral legitimacy if his henchmen had let the process play out to answer that question.
Let's review just some of the Republican tactics, shall we? 1) Sending congressional aides from Washington to start a riot during the Miami-Dade counting. 2) Sending in a lobbyist to sit on Katherine Harris so she'll do what you want. 3) Getting their election monitors to object to every ballot not because they had a legitimate concerns, but to slow the process. 4) Getting the legislature to vote to give Bush the electoral votes no matter what happened. 5) Using the U.S. Supreme Court to take the counting process away from the State of Florida. 6) Treating what should be a delicate matter like a scorched-earth political battle instead of a sacred protection of the voters' intent.
Now, let's play one of my favorite games: What If a Democrat Did It? If Gore was ahead by 500 votes and in control of the Florida political apparatus and pulled any one of the stunts listed above, do you think Bush would have graciously conceded, as Gore did? Do you think the (then) GOP House of Representatives and Senate would have certified the election results? Do you think Gore would have been impeached for these shenanigans in his first year?
Come on. But my favorite comments -- from anonymous pipsqueaks like Prosqtor and especially from people like Justice Scalia -- are that we should "get over it". This - yes - talking point emerged immediately after Gore's concession. This from people who never "got over" a stain on a blue dress. The hijacking of democracy in Florida is not something your "get over". It is a historical outrage. It is something that you (and your children, forever in history books) study and understand how it happened. It is something that you work to prevent. It is something that you never let happen again.
12 comments:
"He's also wrong about what scenario would have had Gore ahead. It was not only overvotes on optical ballots -- it was also if 'a statewide recount of all disqualified ballots was undertaken using the standards that each county's election officials have said they would use in a recount.' That's exactly the standard the Florida Supremes ordered and that the U.S. Supremes stopped in its tracks."
The standard that was ordered was unconstitutional, as it applied different standards to different counties. That is a violation of Equal Protection, period.
As to the rest: You do know that it was GORE who initially sued twice? First, to request the by-hand recount after the automatic machine recount was completed, which was his right -- but which required a petition be filed in Circuit Court.
From _Bush v. Gore_:
"Vice President Gore then sought manual recounts in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties, pursuant to Florida’s election protest provisions. Fla. Stat. §102.166 (2000). A dispute arose concerning the deadline for local county canvassing boards to submit their returns to the Secretary of State (Secretary). The Secretary declined to waive the November 14 deadline imposed by statute. §§102.111, 102.112. The Florida Supreme Court, however, set the deadline at November 26. We granted certiorari and vacated the Florida Supreme Court’s decision, finding considerable uncertainty as to the grounds on which it was based."
(The statutory references are to the Florida Statutes' Election Code)
Now, you're arguing that the GOP / Bush Campaign / RNC "sat" on the Florida Secretary of State to make sure she did what they told her to. Interestingly, they were telling her to follow the law as set forth by the Florida Legislature. See, there are timelines and deadlines set by statute with respect to submitting election returns.
Then, 12 days later the Election Commissions certified the results at the time.
Two days later, VP Gore filed another lawsuit, this time in Leon County, challenging the certification. This denied, and Gore appealed to the state appellate court, which certified the matter to the Florida Supreme Court. That court then decided as it did, with the US Supremes deciding as they did.
From his phone call concession to withdrawing the concession 10 minutes later, to filing lawsuits and appeals and challenges, VP Gore hardly was as conciliatory and gracious in defeat as you make him out to be.
But whatever, I'm just an "anonymous pipsqueak." Which is funny, because you either know full well who I am or can find out easily. There was a reason I posted anonymously at my blog, and it continues to be of some assistance to me to remain slightly unknown.
Mike said,
"No one believes that more people didn't go to the polls there on election day intending to vote for Gore."
I'm willing to bet the Arizona Diamondbacks showed up at Miller Park tonight intending to score more runs than the Brewers. I guess that means we should overturn the results of the game and give the victory to them instead of the Brewers.
I'm sorry but you cannot reasonably and accurately conduct an election without some kind of rules or standards. If people fail to follow those rules then their votes don't count. And if you're too damn stupid to follow the relatively easy rules then perhaps your vote ought not count anyway.
Oh and by the way, if "counting all the votes" is so great, why did Gore originally cherrypick only three counties?
Could it be because he was no less nor more transparent in his political motives than Bush?
Don't worry Mike you don't have to answer that substantive question either.
And then there's the felon lists. You might be interested to know Mike that it was up to the Counties - the ones who actually run elections in Florida as in most states - to verify the lists and their own voter rolls. Many County election officials threw the state-supplied lists in the trash.
So let's see. A few posts back you proclaimed you're an independent thinker. In the past few days, you've informed us that:
1. You're convinced the White House has had a role in keeping gas prices high to benefit "big oil".
2. You lament high gas prices for their economic effect on the poor.
3. You paradoxically support high gas prices because they reduce demand for evil SUVs (the folks in Janesville who lost their jobs today thank you).
4. You're convinced Bush stole Florida.
5. Katherine Harris is evil.
6. You're convinced Iraq was fought on lies, over oil, yadda yadda yadda.
7. You proclaim school choice is all about profiteering.
8. The Catholic church...yadda yadda yadda.
Substantive question that, perhaps unlike the $4/gallon gas one, you might answer: do you have any political positions that fall anywhere but the lunatic fringe of the left? I mean any centrist positions on the role of government, or maybe even something that might be considered "conservative"?
I mean me, I'm pro gay marriage but generally opposed to significant government intervention in anything. I'm anti-religion period but pro-school choice.
Do you deviate from the ideological orthodoxy at all? Or do you just rely on the easy answers ideology provides like all the other hacks?
Anything that doesn't match exactly something I can hear some dumbass college student shout when I'm at my alma mater on football Saturdays?
Prosqtor:
If I thought it would be interesting, I might be able to figure out who you are. But I don't and I think any anonymous poster has to deal with their chosen anonymousness, which, since I am out here as my own self, I consider cowardly. You have to deal with the fact that your cowardice cuts your credibility by at least 50 percent. Your problem, not mine.
Besides that, as the movie makes clear, Bush sued first. I remember this from the time, but I'm not going to take the time to find out what that suit was. Your recitation of the legal trail ignores that Harris had the discretion to extend deadlines, but the lobbyist sitting on her in her office talked her out of it. And the fact that the deadlines were artificially hard to meet because it was the Republican strategy to run out the clock.
ATV:
You know why the Gore team picked three counties instead of the whole state. First of all, there was no mechanism for a state-wide hand count and, for some reason, the Dems did not have the resources to get all 69 counties to have hearings (they will next time, believe me). They picked the first two counties because of well-established actual problems in Palm Beach and Velucia (sp?) and pulled in two more. The Republicans could have asked for in "their" counties, but, again, as the movie makes clear, they didn't so they could make the Dems look bad for choosing only four (something that, apparently, you still think is useful eight years later).
As for your other comments that are actually on point, Bush didn't "steal Florida", he stole the democratic process, which is worse. And Harris isn't "evil", she was needy, lame, pliable and got played like a violin.
-------
I am disappointed in both you guys. You refused my invitation to play What if a Democrat Did It. I guess you know how that would turn out, don't you?
(1) I'm far from a coward.
(2) So you choose to believe a work of fiction "based on actual events" over the procedural history of a US Supreme Court decision.
That says more than enough about your blog and your positions, and ATV is right -- there's nothing here to read that I can't find at some sit-in, concert for peace, or protest.
'Night, Mike, it's been nice.
Mike said,
"You know why the Gore team picked three counties instead of the whole state."
Of course I do - he knew those three counties would give him the best chance to win.
"I am disappointed in both you guys. You refused my invitation to play What if a Democrat Did It. I guess you know how that would turn out, don't you?"
Mike, I would have to use crayons, glitter and construction paper to make it more obvious: I'm not a partisan for either side. If a Democrat did it your opinion would be the opposite and so would the opinions of Republican partisan hacks.
I find it highly ironic that you express disappointment that I won't answer your questions (even though I did) when you've shown yourself too much a coward to answer my questions about $4 gas and whether you have any unorthodox political positions.
You're a typical hack. Just repeat your baseless proclamations and ignore any questions that are difficult to answer.
You don't even deny that do you?
Leaving so early, Prosq? How pissy of you.
By the way, the first lawsuit filed by either campaign in Florida 2000 was filed by the Bush campaign: Siegel v. LaPore. See the chronology here: http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/election/election2000timeline.html. No, no -- don't thank me. Glad to help.
ATV, I don't know what you want me to say about $4 gas. I think you want me to define a "solution" for it, but, except for a windfall profits tax on Big Oil, I don't think it needs one. And no one but GM is to blame for the plant closing in Janesville. They pursued a stupid corporate strategy to build big stupid trucks and, as usual, it's the workers who get screwed. They should have seen this coming long ago and retrofitted for greener vehicles. The good workers in Janesville are like our brave soldiers in Iraq -- good people, doing what they are told and doing it well, and getting screwed (and killed) because of the disasterous policies of their clueless leaders.
Speaking of Iraq, you accused me before of saying the invasion was launched for oil, something I've never said. I think the dreamers in the White House thought that might be a nice added benefit for their Big Oil buddies (it still might be), but I think the war was really fought for geopolitical advantage, taking out the weakest leader in the region (Hussein) to impose a "friendly" government - and many permanent bases - right next to Israel. That is hardly the party line for us lefites, so I hope that is independent enough for you.
I'm guessing not. I believe what I believe independently and if it happens to track the Democratic agenda, that's fine with me. I'm not going to stake out a conservative position on something just to prove I'm independent. Until last night, I did support Clinton as the more electable known-quantity, but I'm perfectly happy with Obama, especially over the hapless McCain.
I haven't been to a Badger game for a while -- are the students really mixing political slogans with their booze on Saturdays these days? Jeez, we didn't even do that back in the 70s/80s. And I was working for the Daily Cardinal. I think I would have heard about it.
Ummm....I posted that at 12:12a.m. I went to bed after posting it.
Look, I understand that there are a lot of people like you who think that the election of 2000 was the biggest rip-off ever. I also understand that there are a lot of people like me who think that, although Florida's shitty electoral practices were exposed, the proper thing was done. And ne'er the twain shall meet.
And so I wish you well, dwelling in the mire that is the Hollywoodization of political events. I assume you saw "Rendition" and "Stop Loss" and all the other pathetic anti-war films that no one but anti-war types saw (and few of them, even).
I try to enjoy living in the greatest country in the history of humanity. Things have motored along pretty well for you, and the vast majority of Americans, since November 2000, and they almost certainly will whether it's Obama or McCain who is president this time next year.
"ATV, I don't know what you want me to say about $4 gas."
I want you to explain why it was at one point a problem - part of a disastrous legacy - and why it's now a good thing.
And if it is a problem what you would plan to do about it.
"except for a windfall profits tax on Big Oil,"
Wow, imagine that, liberal talking points.
Big Oil does not set the price for oil. Its profits also help the pension funds of lots of public employees like me.
Also a windfall tax was tried in the late 1970s and 1980s and it failed.
So do you have any actual solutions or are you just going to stick to your liberal talking points?
"And no one but GM is to blame for the plant closing in Janesville.
Was GM's union at all to blame for GM's fiscal problems?
"They pursued a stupid corporate strategy to build big stupid trucks"
But people wanted those trucks. Aren't companies supposed to cater to the market?
"and, as usual, it's the workers who get screwed. They should have seen this coming long ago and retrofitted for greener vehicles."
Indeed I agree...to a point. However are you under the impression that it's easy and inexpensive to retrofit an aging factory?
"The good workers in Janesville are like our brave soldiers in Iraq -- good people, doing what they are told and doing it well, and getting screwed (and killed) because of the disasterous policies of their clueless leaders."
And they need enlightened heroes - people like you - to save them don't they.
"That is hardly the party line for us lefites, so I hope that is independent enough for you."
Israel. Permanent bases.
No, there's nothing independent there.
And I like you do not support the war.
"I'm guessing not. I believe what I believe independently and if it happens to track the Democratic agenda, that's fine with me."
I find it extremely difficult to believe you just happen to come to all the same conclusions and use all the same terms - like big oil - and it's all a coinky-dink.
"I haven't been to a Badger game for a while -- are the students really mixing political slogans with their booze on Saturdays these days? Jeez, we didn't even do that back in the 70s/80s. And I was working for the Daily Cardinal. I think I would have heard about it."
LOL. Watching all their protests is what prevented me from becoming like you.
ATV:
I feel like I'm going in circles here, but, what the heck:
$4 gas: I think it's good for its effect on driving habits and stupid SUVs; bad because of the ripple effects throughout the economy. The middle class was already going backwards under Bush, in real dollars; losing solid jobs for jittery part-time ones, etc. It just adds to the Bush disaster.
Big Oil: "Its profits also help the pension funds of lots of public employees like me." Well, alrighty then. Why not just invest in South African blood diamonds and Columbian drug cartels, if its only the money that is important?
Big Stupid Trucks: The companies created this market by mass marketing and getting them all tricked-out with leather seats and cup-holders instead of gun racks. The Bushies didn't help by loosening CAFE standards. Companies who are slaves to the short-term market and ignore the obvious future end up, well, like stupid American car companies.
"And they need enlightened heroes - people like you - to save them don't they." Well, it can't hurt.
"I find it extremely difficult to believe you just happen to come to all the same conclusions and use all the same terms". Dude. It's called "world view". I studied it in high school, something about some guy named Maslow and self-actualization and stuff. Anyway, if you have a consistent world view, everything else follows fairly logically. If you are for peace, you are against war. If you favor truth you reject lies. If you believe in a common humanity, you reject actions that might hurt others, no moatter how much money you might make on your public pension. See how it works? It all leads logically to support for universal health care, for efforts to slow global warming caused by humans, the rich getting richer while the poor get porrer, etc.
I don't need to be told what to say, but I know what I like. I can't think of a Republican proposal I would support. I can think of plenty Washington Dem proposals I don't support, but far more on balance that I do. I can't imagine what's wrong with that.
"I can think of plenty Washington Dem proposals I don't support, but far more on balance that I do."
Name five.
Maybe I need to start a clock on waiting for an answer on this.
It's been almost 25 hours now.
I'll head you off on this -- here are some GOP proposals I disagree with:
(1) Amnesty bill ("Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act").
(2) The Kennedy education bill Bush was "bipartisan" in passing.
(3) The farm bill the President just vetoed, which had large Republican support. If you want to consider this the continuing proposal to maintain grain subsidies, that's fine too.
(4) Anything that has to do with accepting cap-and-trade as a viable "solution" to "man-made global warming."
(5) Nominating Harriet Myers to be a Supreme Court Justice.
(6) Nominating Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General.
(7) Keeping Richard Clarke when Bush was elected in 2000.
(8) Anything that doesn't seal the border -- by whatever means necessary short of shooting people as they come across -- before we decide what to do with the illegal population within the borders of this country.
There's 8. I await your response.
So let me get this straight:
You're not really sure if $4/gallon gas is a problem.
You're seriously going to compare gasoline to blood diamonds, as if they're brought to market under event remotely similar circumstances with remotely similar results.
You're suggesting people are mindless idiots swayed by marketing campaigns who desperately need your enlightened guidance to save them.
Everything your ideology says is truth and you cannot think of an opposing argument that has any merit, yet you're an independent thinker.
Add in the fact that you have the emotional maturity of a 13 year-old girl, and you cannot seriously expect anyone to take your policy positions as anything more than an amusing joke, can you?
Post a Comment