[QUOTE=Oakminster]
Maybe Emmy Lou Harris said it best:
*Now the Queen of the Silver Dollar
Is not as haughty as she seems
She was once an ordinary girl with ordinary dreams
But there’s a man who found her
And he brought her to this world
He’s the one who made a queen of a simple country girl *
[/QUOTE]
Emmylou… one name. Submitted FYI and because I love her.
[QUOTE=Zebra]
Will she keep her house seat?
[/QUOTE]
So far as I can tell from this, she hasn’t even filed to run for re-election to her House seat.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
So far as I can tell from this, she hasn’t even filed to run for re-election to her House seat.
[/QUOTE]
But [ur=http://www.ourcongress.org/race/fl13]this site lists her as the incumbent and, apparently, only Pub candidate. Maybe she did file there as a back-up. And, the district being a safely Pub one . . .
[QUOTE=Evil Captor]
There has always been considerable speculation that her conduct of the 2000 election was illegal in some respects.
[/QUOTE]
Speculation where? After all, legitimate news sites don’t publish based on speculation. So what does that leave us with, blogs? OK, that’s reliable. Not.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
legitimate news sites don’t publish based on speculation.
[/QUOTE]
Where were you during the run up to our invasion of Iraq?
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
After all, legitimate news sites don’t publish based on speculation.
[/QUOTE]
Sure they do; they just give it a different name. “White House sources,” for example.
Judith Miller, “Queen of Baghdad”, late of the *NY Times * and media ho extraordinaire.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
Speculation where? After all, legitimate news sites don’t publish based on speculation.
[/QUOTE]
They do it constantly. 95% of CNN coverage during any given “developing situation” is going to consist of pure speculation. Hell, anyone who’s ever watched an election ought to know that legitimate news source’s stock-in-trade is speculation.
I don’t really think that those who were aware of Mrs. Harris’s conflict of interests in the election in 2000 had to wait for the press to speculate about her possible misconduct.
Time for her to reap her reward and become a lobbyist.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
Speculation where?
[/QUOTE]
Here is a good start, though it’s mainly about 2002 and 2004. Read it.
And here’s another. (Harris was instrumental in implementing the criminal-in-itself “felons purge list” in Florida in 2000.)
According to this, five other Pubs (and two Dems) are running for Harris’ 13th District seat. The primary election will be 9/5/06.
It doesn’t look like the news is getting any better for her, either.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Here is a good start, though it’s mainly about 2002 and 2004. Read it.
[/QUOTE]
According the Publishers Weekly Editorial Review, “much” of the author’s evidence is circumstansial, and his sourcing is “unclear”. I’ll pass on reading it, thanks.
After googling Mr. Miller, I find he is, well, a blogger.
What we have here is speculation on blogs and by people trying to sell books. Is there any factual information to indicate that Ms. Harris’ “conduct of the 2000 election was illegal in some respects”?
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
What we have here is speculation on blogs and by people trying to sell books. Is there any factual information to indicate that Ms. Harris’ “conduct of the 2000 election was illegal in some respects”?
[/QUOTE]
No, of course not. When the State Chairman of a Presidential candidate’s campaign is also the senior state official in charge of conducting an election which has been widely documented as having allegations of at least four distinct sorts of wrongdoing in at least six different counties, causing the longest disputed election in U.S. history (possibly barring 1824 and 1876), it would be absolutely scurrilous to suspect that she might not be 100% disinterested in the results of said election. :dubious:
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
After googling Mr. Miller, I find he is, well, a blogger.
[/QUOTE]
Sure, the right wing blogosphere has been co-opted in near entirety by the MSM, but don’t let that cause you to paint with too broad a brush. There are still many decent, honest lefty bloggers. In fact their portion of the blogosphere continues to grow in size, sophistication and influence.
Life is GOOD!
And another dittohead tries his/her hand at Argument By Attrition.
Of course, this one admits that he/she won’t even read the cite. A little too much honesty there, Carol - you might not want to do that next time.
-Joe
[QUOTE=Merijeek]
And another dittohead tries his/her hand at Argument By Attrition.
Of course, this one admits that he/she won’t even read the cite. A little too much honesty there, Carol - you might not want to do that next time.
-Joe
[/QUOTE]
Why should I read a “cite” that is based on circumstansial evidence, with unclear sourcing?
(Shouldn’t a Ph.D. like Mr. Miller at least know, and follow, the protocols of proper citation? :dubious: )
A blog, by definition, is commentary, not evidence. I asked if there were any evidence that Ms. Harris’ “conduct of the 2000 election was illegal in some respects.”
Apparently there isn’t any.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
A blog, by definition, is commentary, not evidence.
[/quote]
No, it isn’t, Carol.
[QUOTE=Carol Stream]
I asked if there were any evidence that Ms. Harris’ “conduct of the 2000 election was illegal in some respects.”
[/QUOTE]
Please bear in mind that her conduct might have been criminal even if it wasn’t illegal.