Joe Lieberman would be a formidable candidate on his own, he’s likeable, squeaky clean, moderate, religious and articulate. The problem was that he didn’t give Gore a geographical advantage (I’m from CT, this was Gore country since the day he announced. Maybe it’s because Bush wouldn’t admit he was a native. What, we’re not good enough for him?). Edwards would’ve. Lieberman-Edwards would be good because they’d be bound to pick up at least NC.
Having been to Connecticut, I’m not too sure if I’d admit to being raised there either. 
Whether you like it or not, The Supreme Court decided the winner of Florida - that’s a fact. Recounts by Republican newspapers may be considered suspect in some jurisdictions.
Kathryn Harris did everything she could to stop any recounts - surprise, surprise - the people of the state demanded that she stop.
I am sure that as a Party of Nixon apologist, you feel everything was on the up and up in Florida. But, I’d bet a billion dollars to a donut that, if it was Bill Clinton winning the election this way, you would have 2,000,000 attorneys suing and would still be suing to get the election turned over.
In fairness, as I recall, newspapers including the New
York Times (which is not usually considered a Republican
newspaper) came to the conclusion that Bush would have won
if all votes were counted, and Gore would have won if really
strict procedures were used.
I also recall that everyone agrees that undervotes are much
more common, in all elections, in urban, more democratic
areas with older voting machines.
I also recall that the number of votes Buchanan got in a
very democratic Palm Beach County was many more than the
difference between Gore and Bush, but what can you do after
the fact?
More people intended to vote for Gore that day, but many of
them just failed.
I think a more effective leader than W. would have spoken
out in November and said that he didn’t want his future
constituents to feel like the election had been stolen. He
would then have asked, voluntarily, for the Florida electors
to abstain. Nobody would have gotten a majority, and the
election would have gone to congress, where W. would have
won.
Believe it or not, many liberals find it much more
distasteful the way Bush got there, than the fact that
he’s sitting in the White House.
The Great Gazoo:
Whether you like it or not, it was a valid, constitutionally-based decision, honoring the time limits, certification authority and recount standards established by the Florida legislature. It was not a “theft” as way too many people still seem to think.
Republican newspapers? The media coalition doing the recounts includes all the usual liberal media outlets, such as the NY Times. Why do you think these media-sponsored recounts are Republican-skewed?
Katherine Harris obeyed the law as written, and the first state Supreme Court decision overriding it…and the second one, extending the deadline even further and forcing the inclusion of partial recounts. Would you condemn her for that?
I will grant, though, that as the official in charge of certifying the election, she had no business being chairwoman of Bush’s Florida campaign committee. That said, prove to me that she in any way disobeyed the law or the Court decisions or in any way exceeded her authority during the mess before condemning her for anything other than that.
And what, exactly is this supposed to mean?
I feel that the election was not in any way, form or manner “stolen” by Republicans.
You’d be wrong (my billion, please? I’d like that in donuts…:)). Once I hear from the U.S. Supreme Court how the law is supposed to be interpreted, I don’t say that they illegitimately “decided the guy is president.” The law was written by elected representatives, and was interpreted by them. End of story
Chaim Mattis Keller
bup:
Actually, don’t you think that liberals would have found it more distasteful if Bush took actions to get the vote thrown to Congress, knowing that on a vote that would have presumably gone party-line, he would have won?
I mean, throwing it to the court put him in the incertain hands of those pledged to party indifference and limited to legal interpretation, while throwing it to Congress would have been simple calculation, not exactly a magnanimous gesture.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Is this the same Al Gore who promised both before and after the 1992 election not to allow the WTI toxic-waste incinerator in East Liverpool, Ohio to operate, then stood by and did nothing for the next eight years, even after WTI failed their test burn? Gore talks a good talk when it comes to courting the Green vote, but his record says otherwise. His scorecard from the League of Conservation Voters was a 64 out of 100, compared to 80 out of 100 for his primary opponent Bill Bradley.
Well, this liberal wouldn’t have. Statistically, Florida
was too close - I still don’t know who actually got more
votes that day, and I think most people who’ve know statistics
and are being honest know that they don’t know either.
Knowing that the vote would have gone party-line, well, the
constitution was written the way it was on purpose. I mean,
the guy’s allowed to try to win the presidency, and the
constitution provides for situations when nobody has won a
majority of electoral votes.
Said the man from Knoxville, TN, which is surrounded by hillbilly country.
BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000, by Alan M. Dershowitz
The Betrayal of America : How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President, by Vincent Bugliosi
The only thing constitutionally-based about the USSC ruling was the … creative way Rehnquist et al used the Equal Protection clause in a way that it had never been used before. Doubly surprising considering how he’s rejected the same clause in numerous other rulings before the Florida election.
Really? Odd that nobody has been able to find a respectable legal scholar to defend the USSC ruling, then. The only people who’ll stand up for it are Republican apologists.
Perhaps, though my thinking is that he’d have a harder time backing ANWR drilling and rejecting Kyoto if he were in office (given the high-profile nature of the Presidency and his election platform). Not that he wouldn’t, just that it wouldn’t be as blunt and undiplomatic as Bush’s efforts were.
The guy who got an artificial heart? I should guess not–he’s been dead for 17 years.
Well, its pretty obvious that once both the Bush and Gore teams started battling this out in the courts, the election was guaranteed not to end up the same way that all the others had. But you forget that had Gore won the SC decision, he would be in for exactly the reason that Bush is now: judicial fiat.
rjung:
People who agree with Supreme Court decisions don’t generally bother writing books, because the arguments are already articulated in the court decision itself.
And how convenient that you summarily dismiss any “Republican apologist” as a respectable legal scholar. And, for that matter, the Supreme Court justices themselves.
No more creative, say, than using the “prenumbra” of amendments to decide the point at which human life begins. At least Rehnquist et al based their decision on something in the text itself. Supreme Courts have quite a bit of latitude in their interpretation, and this use of that latitude is certainly not the most outlandish in even recent history.
Chaim Mattis Keller
Have you read The Betrayal of America? It’s a fascinating book, and makes a phenomenally convincing case. (It’s worth pointing out that it is focussed on one and only one aspect of the election, namely, the USSC decision. But it completely and totally convinced me that the decisions was purely and grossly partisan. I’ve heard some people claim that there were other things, for instance, Florida Supreme Court decisions, that were partisan in the other direction. I can’t comment on them, having not read a book about that topic, but two wrongs certainly don’t make a right.) (And if your response is “well, of course it was partisan, the supreme court is always partisan, get over it”, there’s a huge fundamental difference between a 5-4 vote split on party lines about an issue such as abortion, in which the justices are basically doing what they were appointed to do, and a 5-4 vote split on party lines in which the justices are basing their decisions not on their conservativeness or liberalness, but on the party affiliation of the plaintiffs.)
…which have been shredded into confetti by several thousand legal experts across the political spectrum. Odd that no one feels so strongly in favor of the USSC ruling that they’d speak up against them. Then again, I can’t imagine a legal expert giving a plausible excuse for the “our ruling is applicable only under this case and these circumstances” clause of the ruling.
No more creative, say, than using the “prenumbra” of amendments to decide the point at which human life begins.
[/QUOTE]
Please, please, please go read a copy of Supreme Injustice. Dershowitz goes into mind-numbing detail about the history of the Equal Protection clause, Rehnquist and Scalla’s previous rulings against it, and how they violated their own precedents in using it to get Bush into the White House. It’s downright scary how far those two compromised their own beliefs just to prevent Gore from possibly winning the election.
If I remember correctly, the book version of The Betrayal of America has some fairly comprehensive footnotes on the Florida Supreme Court rulings. Bottom line is that – despite what the GOP wants to spin – the FSC rulings were in line with prior Florida precedent and followed the spirit and the letter of existing Florida election law. There were some ambiguities in the election law that the court sought to interpret, but that’s what courts are supposed to do anyway.
So let me get this straight:
Anyone who defends the USSC ruling is an apologist (in the pejorative sense).
Anyone who is critcal of the USSC ruling is a (so-called) legal or consitutional scholar.
Does this sound a little biased?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by cmkeller *
**The Great Gazoo:
Whether you like it or not, it was a valid, constitutionally-based decision, honoring the time limits, certification authority and recount standards established by the Florida legislature. It was not a “theft” as way too many people still seem to think.
For something that is so carved in stone, there sure was a lot of fudge factor in there.
Republican newspapers? The media coalition doing the recounts includes all the usual liberal media outlets, such as the NY Times. Why do you think these media-sponsored recounts are Republican-skewed?
I don’t believe the NY Times gave a thumbs up to Bush - it was a "we don’t know, but it could have been Bush…
Katherine Harris obeyed the law as written, and the first state Supreme Court decision overriding it…and the second one, extending the deadline even further and forcing the inclusion of partial recounts. Would you condemn her for that?
Yes - she should have tried to get it right, she shouldn’t have been so partial, and she shouldn’t have been in the position to make the decision - this is an obvious case where she should have recused herself - too much conflict of interest.
I will grant, though, that as the official in charge of certifying the election, she had no business being chairwoman of Bush’s Florida campaign committee. That said, prove to me that she in any way disobeyed the law or the Court decisions or in any way exceeded her authority during the mess before condemning her for anything other than that.
And what, exactly is this supposed to mean?
Sorry, I keep forgetting that not everyone is in Illinois - in Illinois, the GOP keeps referring to their party as the Party of Lincoln (which is dubious) and we keep having to remind them that it is also the Party of Nixon.
I feel that the election was not in any way, form or manner “stolen” by Republicans.
That’s not quite the same as saying it was all completely legitimate, is it?
You’d be wrong (my billion, please? I’d like that in donuts…:)). Once I hear from the U.S. Supreme Court how the law is supposed to be interpreted, I don’t say that they illegitimately “decided the guy is president.” The law was written by elected representatives, and was interpreted by them. End of story
You can say I’d be wrong, but there is a huge precedent. How many times was Bill Clinton sued???
That last post isn’t very legible, is it? Well, I’m sure you can figure which part I said 
If you can’t, don’t respond!!!
Just so everyone knows, my friend posted this OP because she couldn’t register so she used my username. I voted for bush so you don’t get any percent of my rebate check, thermalribbon.
Who made that claim? I’ll repeat what I said before… buy (or borrow) a copy of The Betrayal of America by Vincent Bugliosi, and read it. He makes his case so convincingly that I feel no need to say anything else. If you’d like to recommend a book with an opposing viewpoint, I’d be happy to read it. (By the way, I’m not talking about a book that criticizes Gore’s actions in other parts of the election controversy… I’m in no way trying to claim that he was blameless or innocent… I’m just talking about the borderline-criminal partisan USSC decision)