If even a tenth of the effort spent pissing and moaning about the past election had gone into productive political activism, the effect on the country would have been magical.
Baaaaa humbug.
That “anti-intellectual” stuff kinda hurts, though. 
Chance - I’d suggest you go back and take a closer look at the chronology of events post-Nov. 7. Or do you mean there hadn’t been any recounts the way that allowed Gore to unseat the winner?
Dr. J - Here’s pretty much the definitive word on recount of all Florida ballots, under any scenario you want to come up with.
Even though the pro-Gore slant of the article is almost laughable, try to glean the bottom-line: There is not some grand scenario under which “the truth” wins out and Gore unseats Bush. Half the standards favor Bush. Half the standards favor Gore. (And, amusingly, the ones Gore was apoplectic about using would have ensured a Bush victory.)
So, what would have been fair, again? This is where some idiot says “counting all the votes,” to which I respond, “How?”
Wanna talk Consitutional crisis? Try tallying the votes of the nation’s electors without those of Florida. Try not swearing in a new president on Inauguration Day.
But all of those standards counted Palm Beach County votes that said Pat Buchanan as being votes for Pat Buchanan, when we all know that they really meant to vote for Gore.
However, a rational person recognizes that Florida law at the time was inadequate to accurately determine who got more actual votes. For one thing, the standard of what an actual vote is was rather unclear. It also seems that in Florida there were several circumstances that contributed to voting errors, or people not being able to vote.
The votes were tallied, then recounted according to Florida law, and Bush was declared the winner. There is no evidence that any irregularities up until this point were at all the fault of George W. Bush.
Mr. Gore then availed himself of a remedy available under Florida law to have a hand count done in specific counties. Gore obviously chose the counties that he thought he could benefit most from, which was a perfectly legal thing to do. Bush didn’t seem to think that this idea adequately protected his interests, and the two ended up going to court.
Going to court to protect one’s interests is as American as apple pie, and generally considered a perfectly moral thing to do. We do not begrudge even obvious criminals their right to appear in court.
Bush was also helped, legally, by the deadlines set by Katherine Harris, and adjusted by the Florida Supreme Court, and US Supreme Court. Gore of course sought to protect his interests in court, as is his right.
After the election was certified by Harris, according to her and the Flordia Supreme Court’s interpretation of rather murky details of Florida law, Bush was declared the winner.
Gore then availed himself of his right to challenge the results of the election. At the same time various other courts tossed out cases brought by Gore’s supporters. Gore’s contest of the election was decided in Bush’s favor by Judge Stearns, adjusted by the Florida Supreme Court, and ultimately resolved by the US Supreme Court. That all these bodies acted partisanly at least in part was inevitable. However, that they acted legally cannot be questioned.
Bush never did anything illegal, by a long shot. There is no law prohibiting one from arguing a case in court. There is no law prohibiting one from accepting the Presidency after being voted to it by the Electoral College. There is no law saying that the system must actually take into account any intent not able to be discerned from a ballot.
To call Bush a traitor is simply wrong.
Reasonable people can discuss and debate the reasoning of any of the court cases mentioned, or the fairness of the laws, or any of several questions. Irrational people toss about terms like treason and fascism and demonize anyone who holds a contrary opinion. Irrational people refuse to acknowledge that Bush is indeed the President, of all of us in this country.
Elvis, did you bother to read my post? Suppose the supreme court hadn’t shut down the revote? What would have happened then? Well, George Bush would be president. Given that under some standards Gore would win and under other standards Bush would win, the result of the election was equivocal. And we have a political mechanism for resolving equivocal elections, namely the legislatures of the states and the US House.
Even if the treasonous Supreme Court had ruled in Gore’s favor Gore would still not be president.
There is no way to establish that with any certainty. In any case, it would have been desirable to establish the results without a judicial coup d’etat. SCOTUS is not a part of the electoral process. The electoral procedures leave these matters to the states, via the legislatures and electoral college. It’s a matter of states’ rights.
Well, SCOTUS didn’t get dragged in until the lawsuits started flying up up up the chain of appeals.
Here’s a specific for ya, big boy: Remember when the Florida Supreme Court ruled to extend the recount deadline beyond the pre-existing one? Florida’s SC was as much in Gore’s pocket as the SCOTUS was in Bush’s.
And don’t feed me the line about “The court said it was legal, so it was!”, because a higher court overruled that decision. It kinda sucks when the ultimate arbiter disagrees with you, I know. You have my sympathies. Want some juice?
We also know for damn sure who the State’s choice was, and that, my raving friend, is what counts. You can scream “people’s choice!” like the Rock until the cows come home, but that won’t let you travel back in time and tell the Founding Fathers: “Electoral college… bad idea.”
Estimate shmestimate. Come back when you have some cold, hard evidence. Here’s some for you: Every single motherfucking cow-raping hobbit-snorting goat-blowing recount gave the election to Bush. Including all the privately-funded recounts which took place long after the election.
But I admit there might’ve been something I missed. So please, point out a single, reasonably executed recount that would’ve given the election to Gore. No, not estimates - quit hiding behind your estimates, pal - show us some actual proof. Oh, and while you’re at it, please describe how the recounts were undertaken… I’ve found that your defintion of “reasonable” is a tad… odd.
More of your estimates. Quit hiding behind your estimates.
Since this came from the shmoe who hasn’t posted a single, objective fact in this whole debate, I find that comment very amusing.
If we don’t know, it’s because we CAN’T know, you dink. “Pretty good idea” does not conclusive evidence make. Again, quit hiding behind your estimates, your guesses, your “good ideas”.
Well, even though you weren’t the one I posed the challenge to… I’m not the one who called the SCOTUS decision “illegal” to begin with. I simply like evidence, and so far, I see no reason to conclude the SCOTUS decision to be “illegal”. Care to provide some evidence, Elvis? Just because this is the Pit, that doesn’t mean you need to throw all logic out the window (although that hasn’t stopped you before in GD…)
Not surprised in the least. The insane tend to consider the sane to be insane.
I swear by all that’s holy, I’m trying to empty the ocean of ignorance with a spoon.
How on earth can you rail against the methods by which the President achieved the office and then in good conscience accept money that comes as a direct result of the policies instituted by that President?
If you honestly believe that Bush has no moral or legal claim to the Presidency, the only option I can see for you and ElvisL1ves is refusing to cash those checks. Or, as manhattan noted, sending them as voluntary donations back to the Treasury Department to pay down the debt. Accepting the money, even to donate to a charity, is tantamount to stealing, because you’re saying that Bush is in office illegally.
For the record, “Junior,” I agree that Florida election procedures (and likely those in many states) need revamping. I agree that some shady maneuvering went on. But sitting on the sidelines, saying “I’ve done my part to effect change because I recognize the problem,” as ElvisL1ves is doing, is the epitome of ignorant arrogance. The world don’t change just because you want it to.
Don’t assume that everyone who disagrees with some of the more histrionic statements made by Gore supporters is an ardent right-wing commando.
ooh! ooh! ooh! Let’s attack every single word the man ever says, and every single thing he does!!! Everything!! That’s right, no matter how trivial, LET’S FIND FAULT IN EVERY SECOND OF THIS MANS EXISTENCE.
It’s the only thing that gives my life meaning, after all.
I just thought it was funny…
calm down
**
**
Anybody recall what the Florida Legislature was feverishly in the process of doing, before SCOTUS turned out the lights on the party?
I’ll remind you. They were working to ensure that Florida’s electors went to Bush.
Florida law says how the state determines its Electors is up to the Legislature. So did the Florida Supreme Court. The legislators were going to (overwhelmingly) vote to cast the state’s electoral votes for Bush.
So, to quote Bugs Bunny, “What’s all the hubbub, bub?”
Isn’t that what we’ve been doing for the past eight years?
Sorry, vanilla, it wasn’t directed at you. Disagreeing with policy is one thing. Being upset about the election results is understandable. But an article about the guys material for second-graders? Come on, does this woman have nothing better to say?
Lego, I don’t even know what books Clinton read to school children. I could just be uninformed…
Oh, Okay.
I just thought it was funny; his head exploding and all…
Not that I woudl want that to happen in real life.
Just picturing it, cartoon style.
Likely so, given the partisan control of the Florida governor’s office and the US House. That’s how Hayes got in, if you’ll recall your history. But there would be no question about the political issue being resolved by political means using the procedure defined in the Constitution. There would have been no usurpation of democracy by the courts, and no question remaining about what happened or why. Bush had the opportunity to get the matter settled by democratic political means, with his legitimacy being determined appropriately.
But instead of doing that, Bush stalled and stalled, demanding that the full count NOT be completed when it endangered his lead, and insisting that it BE completed elsewhere when he thought he had a chance. He got stay after stay ordered while pursuing a political campaign to get the process we’ve used in every election for hundreds of years in this country seem somehow partisan-oriented.
We had a usurpation of the political and Constitutional processes by a partisanly-activist Court (don’t bother to deny it), which further had the effect of making their choice’s legitimacy forever dubious in history’s eyes.
PS: I hadn’t realized you were asking a question of me specifically, or that you were even making something more than a rhetorical point. No offense intended.
Wrong again, pal. The Florida state constitution, and all other states’, delegate the choice of electors to the people. You may be referring to the US Constitution.
But go on believing what you want to, as always.
I know the feeling, especially when I read things like this:
The rebate was passed by an act of Congress, not the President, at a time when it was controlled by the Republicans. And for the record, I have never said that Bush is in “illegally”, simply because the law is what the US Supreme Court says it is, however outrageous. Would you like to say he isn’t in dishonorably, though?
For pity’s sake, as I keep having to remind Scylla, if you’re going to flame somebody, at least get the substance of the flame on target, or else you look like an idiot.
Now, what did you decide was Gore’s home state, again?
As I recall, I’m not the one trying to decide what Gore’s home state is. It’s Tennessee. You seem to be trying to say that his “home state” is Washington, D.C. Correct me if I’m misrepresenting you.
Are you now saying that it wasn’t evil Republicans who orchestrated the whole Florida situation? That seems to contradict what you’ve said earlier. Isn’t revisionism fun?
Besides, we’ve have a Republican-controlled Congress for several years now. Not once do I recall a one-time tax rebate similar to the one being handed out now. Are you saying it WASN’T Bush’s doing? Does that make you feel better about accepting the money?
Actually, the rebate idea came mostly from Democrats.