I don’t need to strain too hard, elucidator. That may indeed speak poorly of the Florida legislature or even of SCOTUS, depending upon how you interpret these decisions. It still does not mean that any other alternative on the table would have resulted in any other outcome than the one that occurred. Period. Nothing was “stolen” if by that you mean a different outcome was possible if only SCOTUS or the Florida legislature or the Republicans had behaved differently.
But of course it does. The statements of the Florida legislature amount to a pre-emptive strike against any unfortunate effect that might have resulted from the will of the people. Keep in mind that, by this point in time, the fact that President Elect Gore had recieved a plurality of the votes cast nationwide and he had, at least in principle, won the election. Flinging your arms around the sanctity of the Electoral College is to confuse process with intent: the Electoral College is meant as a mechanism to manifest the will of the voters, not as a means to thwart it.
He could do an awful lot of damage in another 4 years, particularly to the Supreme Court.
elucidator, please re-read my post. I am not arguing that the Florida legislature was not about to conduct a pre-emptive strike, although I would argue that since they did not get to do what they proposed, this is a red herring. (I would also argue that Gore had NOT in principle won the election at that point by any definition I am aware of, since the “official” Florida count at that point was in Bush’s favor. The popular vote in the rest of the country is not how we elect presidents, regardless of people’s preferences that it should be so.)
Anyway, I am indeed pointing out that whether or not the Florida legislature did what they proposed, the result would have been the same–Bush still wins.
Whether or not SCOTUS ruled as they did, Bush still wins.
Whether or not the Republicans had enthusiastically agreed to what Gore had proposed as an equitable recount, Bush still wins.
No one’s behavior, ultimately, affected the outcome of the election, because all roads lead to the same conclusion based on what was on the table–Bush wins the Florida election. So, enough with the “he stole the election” red herrings so popular on this board. You can’t steal something from Gore that would never have been his under any circumstance. That’s my point.
This strikes me as utterly bizarre. I can understand why you might not be an environmentalist yourself (just barely), I can understand that you may not agree with some tactics and some “collateral damage” of the fight.
What I can’t grasp a mindset that is * actively hostile * toward a movement whose primary goal is wholly and completely positive for everyone and their children: the preservation of the planet you inhabit.
Geez, Bob, if your logical processes are any indication, you must be really good at playing Twister!
Ah, well. Believe what you will.
Right. Continuing to believe something that is demonstrably not so is the real logical path. Gotcha. (And, actually, I’m more of a Yahtzee guy.)
BTW, I am not constructing a syllogism, so I’m not sure where logic is an issue. I am pointing out facts. Which fact do you dispute? Care to actually point one out, or is another meaningless cheap shot in order?
Howzabout a half million of them? Or is that a “cheap shot”?
At the very least, elu, you have to admit that Gore only would have one a recount under standards that his OWN CAMPAIGN elected not to try for (i.e., the statewide recount that the papers have him winning): including things like double votes with clear intent. Gore’s campaign thought recounts in heavier Bush states would hurt him, so, pushing for his own interests, he didn’t elect to go for them. As if turned out, he was wrong: they would have won him the election. But he chose not to go that route, and the route he did take never would have succeeded.
So what? A statewide recount was the only legitimate recount, whether or not Gores campaign staff was mistaken as to thier tactics has no real bearing on the issue.
I voted for George W. last time, but I can’t think of any circumstance under which I would do so again. Of course, I don’t see any democrats out there that I’d vote for either. There is no lesser evil. I’ll still vote, but only because of the other races on the ballot. Maybe I’ll throw my vote away on a third party.
The people who say “get over it” WRT Bush’s electoral theft are offering very bad advice. A country that ‘gets over’ crooked elections of its national leadership is a country that is well on the way to becoming a dictatorship.
True patriots will never “get over” the Florida election. As for the rest of you, we know what you are.
And let us not forget the ballot design that resulted in a common error that disproportionally affected Gore, which was written off by the right wing as either “we can’t help it if the voters are too stupid to vote right” or suggestions that all those people really were trying to vote for Buchanan.
Let us also not forget the (disproportionally minority) people who were denied their right to vote because they were on a “convicted felons” list despite being no such thing.
I will “get over” the fact that Bush did, in fact, win Florida when right-wingers “get over” the fact that Gore should have won Florida.
As for the OP, I cannot envision the pure evil that the Dems would have to put forth to get me to vote for Bush. If it’s some milktoast Republican-Light like Lieberman, I could see myself going third-party again, but unless it’s a two-man race between Bush and Cthulu, I couldn’t bring myself to pull his lever. (Even then I’d be torn.)
Dr. J
quoth Milum:
Wow. A little tightly wrapped, aren’t we?
by “Fuck it,” I was referring to the prevailing wisdom that any vote not cast for either a Democratic or Republican ideologue is a vote discarded. I meant fuck the polls, fuck the commercials, fuck buzzwords and fuck “image”. Next time around, I’m voting for something, not against someone.
You, of course, can vote for whoever the hell you want to.
You, of course, can vote for whoever the hell you want to.
Why thank you** bizzwire**, I will.
(And thank you again for explaining the “it” that you wanted fucked.)
If Gore was the best the dems had to offer last time, and since there doesn’t seem to be any dem around today that measures up to Gore’s limited standards, I’d have to say yes, I’ll re-elect GWB.
I was distinctly underwhelmed by all the choices last time around but voted for Gore on the basis that he had better experience and qualifications, i.e. the least threatening wildcard among the options. The election fiasco left a very unpleasant taste in my mouth mainly because, IMO, it exposed some critical weaknesses in the system that–again, IMO–have not been addressed. Elections aren’t just numbers, they’re they’re litmus tests of credibility. The fact that the mechanics of that election are still controversial isn’t exactly a compliment to the republic, and serves no one well. Being POTUS is daunting enough without questions of basic legitimacy clouding all four years.
That said, I was very willing to give Bush every chance and respect as POTUS. I like responsible conservatives and share many of their beliefs. Sure, I very much disliked some of Shrub’s positions, especially his blatant ass kissing of the extreme religious right and his–in my view–extremely UN-conservative zeal to intrude government into citizens’ private lives and rights. Foolish me, I hoped much of it was campaign rhetoric and he’d prove to be much more moderate in actual practice, a la Reagan. As for actual competence, I decided, hey, give the guy a fair chance to show his stuff. Let him find his feet, hit his stride, remember what the POTUS actually can and can’t do, try to filter through the partisan bullpucky, give him full loyalty and qualify it only for serious cause, cross my heart. I didn’t vote for him, on points, but wanted badly for him to succeed, brilliantly, for the good of the country.
Bush has proven to be dreadful, domestically and internationally. I cut him full slack for manning the helm when the unthinkable happened: 9/11. His challenges were great, and I’m in no way indulging in sterile “what if” comparisons. Alternate universe speculations can be fun but nobody “knows” how things would have shaken down with somebody else. My judgement is based solely on the effectiveness of what Bush has actually done for and to the country–and world.
Forgive the lengthy blather, but I want to go on record that my disgust and disappointment with Bush are in NO way based on partisan sour grapes. Unfortunately, my intitial reservation was correct. He’s a nice, sincere guy who, by a fluke gift of birth, was granted an insider’s track to immense political power. He was a master at navigating our twonky political system to gain office but sadly lacks anything remotely resembling substance or statecraft once he actually won the prize.
Bush is not presidential caliber, and has totally blown any potential promise. Instead of growing into the position–trial by fire–Shrub has retreated into the worst inanities of black-and-white campaign rhetoric. He’s gotten smaller, in thought and wisdom, instead of larger. I don’t know if anything can truly prepare someone for the pressures and complexities of being the POTUS. It’s a pitiless, steep learning curve but that’s the nature of beast. I don’t expect perfection from a POTUS and try to limit second-guessing, but Shrub’s mistakes have been just plain too arrogant, narrow and stupid to grant him another pass.
So…no, under NO circumstance would I vote for Shrub. Only damned fools hit a parked car twice.
Veb
Hellz no.
[semi-joke]
Vote Republican – it’s easier than thinking
[/semi-joke]
I will vote for whoever runs against him just to get rid of his henchmen-Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Secord, Poindexter, etc. - many of whom have a demonstrated history of ignoring and circumventing the will of Congress, the American people, and the Constitution.
Probably get flamed for that, huh?
Like '92 and '96?