Gore's Florida victory lost in 9/11 smokescreen?

what about all the post-election recounts that showed bush really did win? Now a group of democrats labels themselves a “consortium” and says no, they did yet another recount and gore actually won? I find the timing of such an act quite tasteless. Meanwhile, the only thing scarier than terrorists is the idea of having gore as president when there are terrorists.

I’m afraid it’s not as simple as that Sam. You also have to contend with this aspect of the election (which was also somewhat under-reported in the mainstream press). We now know these things about Florida, but it’s also possible that Florida isn’t the only state using taxpayer money to do this kind of thing? Nor is it clear that anything much at all has been done to amend this problem in Florida (though I honestly don’t know).

Here are just a few excerpts from this interesting article:

“In all, some 200,000 Floridians were either not permitted to vote in the November 7 election on questionable or possibly illegal grounds, or saw their ballots discarded and not counted. A large and disproportionate number were black.”

“According to the Washington-based Sentencing Project, a nonprofit organization specializing in corrections issues, and Human Rights Watch, Florida is currently home to more disfranchised voters than any other state. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement admits that 187,455 former prisoners in Florida have been disfranchised because of felony convictions on their records. The state confirms that 17 percent of Florida’s black voting-age males have been disfranchised. In addition, according to the Justice Department, Florida leads the nation in the rate at which juveniles are charged with felonies, meaning those youths lose the right to vote before they are ever able to exercise it.”

“More than a year before Election Day 2000, it was clear the lists [of purged voters] contained thousands of names of Florida citizens who had never been convicted of felonies–or of any crime, for that matter. In some instances, the concentration of errors was absurd: Only seven people work in the Monroe County elections supervisors’ office in Key West. One of those employees, along with the husband of another employee and the father of Supervisor Harry Sawyer, were all erroneously listed as having felony convictions. “And my father is a retired Sheriff’s Department captain,” said Sawyer. The lists were also absurdly sloppy: Some conviction dates were in the future. Angry voters by the thousands eventually complained to county supervisors of elections, who in turn complained to Tallahassee.”

“The state officials were not content to include only former Florida prisoners. They also asked DBT to use its national databases to provide the names of felons from other states who might have moved to Florida and registered. But some of those came from the thirty-six states that have automatic restoration of civil rights, including the right to vote. More than 2,000 such individuals were included on the state’s purge lists. Following press and public attention to the situation after the election, the state quietly changed its policy [see Gregory Palast, “Florida’s ‘Disappeared Voters,’” February 5].”

Source: http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010430&c=1&s=lantigua

Correct. And this is one of the things we need to change. Once the election has been held, the only interest that counts is the nation’s interest in installing in the White House the candidate who got the most votes. Therefore, it shouldn’t be up to the candidates to pick and choose which counties will be recounted. If a candidate (or his advisors) makes a bad choice, the nation can find itself inagurating the guy who got the 2nd highest number of votes. Rules that allow such an outcome are rules that need changing.

Yes, yes, yes! I do not understand why so many people are so indifferent to this problem.

I agree that Gore would have won FL (and therefore the Presidency) had WPB not used the VERY badly designed butterfly ballot.

People often point out that this ballot was “designed by a Democrat! So there!”

So it was an honest mistake. That does not make it any less a mistake.

The person who designed the WPB butterfly ballot, and the people who looked at it, failed to see how bad it was, and approved it – these people were amaturs. They failed to consult professionals. They may not have known that professionals existed.

As I said in my earlier post, we need better rules. Better rules would have required that the same ballot be used statewide. Better rules would have required that the ballot be professionally designed.

I have been disagreeing with Rufus and others on this one since about November of 2000!

I do agree that if everyone who showed up said the name of the person they wanted to vote for and the names were perfectly tabulated, Gore would have taken Florida. I have no doubt that Palm Beach County, HEAVILY Jewish,doesn’t care for Herr Buchanan.

But we do not conduct elections in perfection. We follow rules that are drafted BEFORE emotions and tempers run high. Rules are made in calmer times to prevent the type of fiasco that happened in Florida. Yet, when people try to change the rules midstream, things become chaotic.

Gore had the absolute right to handpick his counties. That was a rule. From a numbers perspective it was brilliant. Of course it virtually guaranteed he could not sell his every vote counts mantra when he cherry picked his counties.

The SCOTUS catches a lot of flack. But I’d like to make a few points. (1) It was not JUST a 5-4 decision. That is the number EVERYONE who dislikes Bush latches onto. But let’s not forget that SEVEN justices (including mr. “we” Breyer) thought there were EP problems in FL that required overturning FLSCt’s final decision. Where the 5-4 decision came in was the remedy. So let’s not say only the conservatives thought Fl was on the wrong track. Breyer and David “I should have been appointed by Jerry Brown” Souter :wink: agreed as well. They just thought there was time to fix it.
(2) Everyone seems to forget the role of the Florida Supreme Court’s role in all this. Was SCOTUS just to stand by and let them come down with deplorable decision after deplorable decision? They overruled FL Statutory discretion handed to the SecState (who was a bit of a harpy herself, who incidentally will be running for Congress in 02), without ruling on an abusive standard. Their rulings were unclear, off topic, and more “down party lines” than ANYONE can accuse the SCOTUS of being. The only reason there isn’t more venom directed at them is because inevitably their rulings did not stand.

I think there is something that we can all agree on. Most of the people in Florida, whether locally elected, or coming down to protest behaved themselves in an embarassing manner. Harris, the old lady on the canvassing committee who NEVER saw a Bush ballot, the Governor, the FL Sct. and even Daly/Baker. The only person with any dignity was a democrat. Judge Burton seemed like a fair and decent man. I really think he wanted to follow the rules to find out the true winner.

In conclusion, this was a contentious matter, but I must say that I have never enjoyed a news story more. From the conventions to the electoral college vote, I was on one heck of a wild ride. I watched more CNN, FNC, and MSNBC than I did until Sept. 11.

[personal annecdote]
I was watching the coverage of the Baker Press Conferences one day. Two minutes before he is to speak, I see a familiar face giving the media the 2 minute warning. Now, I had been watching the coverage so much that I could describe the moles on Bill Himmer’s cheeck down to size and mass. But upon doing a double take, I realize the guy is a fellow who sat behind me in Income Taxation in law school. I fell out of my chair. This was a guy who shameless hit on my wife all the time (before we started dating) and he was REALLY bad at it. Yet there he was in the middle of the storm. I remembered him telling me he was going to work for the Bush Campaign after law school. I guess he did.
[/personal annecdote]

It had nothing to do with brilliant, it was the way election disputes had been settled in Florida for years. Certainly the option of asking for recounts in all counties had been considered but on what basis was this request to be made? You don’t just ask for a recount, you have to justify it with some evidence that it will make a difference. Bush was entitled to seek recounts in any counties in which he felt he might pick up votes but the fact is, there weren’t any. Indeed, he got his selective recounts under the table during the first mandated recount. His team didn’t object to selective recounts, they objected to any recount.

Utter garbage, I suggest you read the decisions before you try to put forward the view that there was any significant agreement. The right wing judges reliance on equal protection was an unprecidented departure from their normal interpretation of the provision. Indeed, they had previously refused to even hear the argument and adopted it only when it was the only avenue open to stop the recount.

The only reason it arose at all was because the felonious 5 had previously set up a catch 22 for the Florida Supreme Court. Had they attempted to impose state wide standards on the recount to avoid the equal protection argument the 5 would have relied on the equally ridiculous proposition that this was rewriting the law in contravention of the constitution.

The Florida Supreme Court decisions would have withstood scrutiny. They were entirely within the bounds of standard statutory interpretation principles. Harris was not exercising her discretion, she was abusing it.

I must admit I don’t recognize the name. Have you changed your username since last November?

A point that I think is worth reiterating: there are rules, but there are also actors operating within those rules. Gore and Bush - and even the electors - were still free agents after the votes had been cast.

In the days preceding the election, there was much concern, in some GOP circles, that Bush would win the popular vote, yet lose in the Electoral College. Efforts were being prepared to convince Democratic electors to ‘do the right thing’ and change their votes to validate the popular outcome. That would have been pretty extreme, and as a Democrat, I’m glad that no serious thought was given to that approach when it turned out that the situation was reversed. But the point is that, even though rules are rules, there are still actors with choices to make.

Bush was one of those actors. We seem to agree here that in Palm Beach County, a badly-designed ballot, rather than the will of the voters, tipped the entire election.

Other than the detailed statistical analysis (which simply verifies with some hard number-crunching what everyone pretty much knew back then) we knew this pretty early on in the tussle over the recounts.

One man campaigned for the Presidency on the pledge to bring decency and integrity back to the White House. While I certainly wouldn’t have expected him to act on that pledge by stepping in front of the microphones and say to the American people, “I’m aware that thousands of Democratic voters in Florida were deprived of the right to vote for their candidate by a misleading ballot; I cannot with integrity accept a hollow victory based on such a miscarriage of justice,” it was still an option.

In the wake of the election, Gore took a fair amount of heat, in some circles, for pursuing the recount as far as he did. One of the facts that seemed to get overlooked was that most of that pursuit wouldn’t have been necessary had Bush not used every single weapon at his disposal to try to prevent a recount.

A more realistic option for Bush, in deference to the PBC situation (that is, as a partial concession to his knowledge that he would’ve lost Florida, if it weren’t for his inadvertently benefitting from the PBC ballot snafu) would have been simply to not fight the recount efforts quite so exhaustively, and take his chances on the outcome. But he chose to fight things all the way, and I think the country is much the worse for it.

And that’s not because it would have changed the outcome, for we know in retrospect that Bush would’ve won the four-county recount, if the case had never gone to the Supreme Court. By letting the one legal avenue for a contest go through, Bush’s win would have had more legitimacy and less ill will attached to it, and the Supreme Court would not look to many of us like a bunch of political hacks.

Such is life. What’s done is done, what can you do? :rolleyes:

Chill, friend. I’ll settle for ‘unfair’. I woulda thought that my deliberate and pointed use of the passive voice was enough to take away the implication of malicious intent, but if it troubles you, I’m happy to agree on ‘unfair’.

It took a combination of flukes - combined with the long-term neglect of the EC question - to get it that close in the first place. (Absent the EC, of course, it wouldn’t have come down to 500 votes, but rather 500,000.)

But even with the EC, it took a combination of factors, all operating on one side, to bring the election within the ‘margin of error’ that people keep prating about. That is, absent flukes, Gore would have won FL by thousands of votes. One of those ‘flukes’, as Mandelstam has pointed out, was FL’s policy of disenfranchising felons. (Kudos to the Washington Monthly for repeatedly bringing up this issue, btw.) When a felon has served his time, he gets his free speech rights back, and when his parole is over, any restrictions on free association, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc., vanish as well. There’s no Federal law that says he can’t get his right to vote back as well - but unfortunately, the franchise isn’t specifically mentioned in the BoR (maybe it’s implicit in the Ninth Amendment!) - so states have the legal right to deprive convicted felons of the right to vote, in perpetuity if they so desire.

And a number of them, particularly in the South, did so, a long time ago. And given the era in which this was done, it wouldn’t surprise anyone if part of their motivation was racial. And even if it wasn’t, what earthly reason is there for not allowing felons to vote again, once they’re out of jail? They’re still citizens, they’ve paid their debt, and they endanger no one by their use of the franchise.

So, under ‘solutions’:

Item 1: Make the right to vote a Constitutional right, applying to all American citizens past their eighteenth birthday, excepting those actually incarcerated, and those adjudged mentally incompetent by a court of law.

Anyway, back to the flukes: the two biggies, besides the felons (and the nonfelons who somehow wound up on FL’s list), were the ballots in Palm Beach County and Duval County. PBC got the lion’s share of attention - and as the paper I’ve linked to indicates, in all likelihood over 2000 Buchanan votes were cast by people who intended to vote for Gore. In addition, there were 19,000 ballots in PBC with multiple punches, as a likely result of the ballot confusion, and IIRC, several thousand of those were Gore-Buchanan double-punches. (The linked article doesn’t deal with the double-punches, but given all the other evidence at hand, you’ve got to expect that a lot more persons who intended to vote for Gore than for Bush lost their votes due to double-punching.)

The Duval County ballot dealt with the abundance of people on the Presidential ballot by spreading the names over two pages. “Vote on every page,” the instructions said, and a lot of people invalidated their Presidential votes by doing so. But we don’t have the sort of records from Duval that would allow us to measure the effect, so I’ll let that go.

You can also design the system to allow the users to catch their own mistakes. And of course, the system has to be designed in a manner that is as tamper-free as is reasonably possible, and that allows the results to be independently recounted and reverified after the fact.

I’ve actually got a suggestion for that, which would use a computerized voting station to produce a paper ballot. If you know who’s taking suggestions on this sort of thing, I’ll send it to them. So:

RT’s proposal for fixing voting systems:

When you come in to the poll, and they check off your name, they give you a card that allows you to enter the voting area.

When it’s your turn to vote, you hand over the card, and go into a curtained cubicle with a computer. It brings up each office and list of candidates in turn, and for each one, it asks you who you want to vote for. You click on a candidate, or type in a write-in, then click Done. It tells you, “You have voted for ___________ for President. Is this what you want to do?” and you confirm. Then it takes you to the next race on the ballot. (This is all borrowed from the fantasy football league I was in last fall. I figure the same technology can be applied to voting, off the shelf.)

At the end, it lists all the races, and the candidate you voted for in each one. And it asks you one more time if that’s what you wanted to do. If you say yes, it prints a paper ballot with just those names on it, which you can look over and verify. If it got it wrong, you take it to an election worker who rips it in half, puts the two pieces in a special box, and you’re given a new card admitting you back into the voting area. If it was right, you feed the paper ballot into the optical reader, and that is when you have actually voted.

The computer is used to make sure you know what you’re doing and can double-check your work, but the paper ballot (which you can also look over) is the actual vote. It’s tamper-free, and it can be recounted later.

The error level for this system would be the level of error for the optical scanning of machine-printed text. That’s already quite small, and getting smaller, for plain old off-the-shelf technology. I’d be willing to live with that error level.

Media bias? What’s that about? I’m firmly opposed to kicking Rush Limbaugh, Pat Robertson, and Gordon Liddy off the airwaves. Make Election Day a national holiday on the even years, and give states incentives to pass laws closing all but essential businesses on Election Day, with polls open twelve hours, and an outright ban on any worker having to work more than six of those 12 hours.

I’m not sure what the real effect is of the different poll-closing times, but either make 'em all (except Alaska and Hawaii) operate on the same schedule, or not, and stick with it. And the ‘polls that stayed open an extra half hour’, IIRC, had the voters already there before they closed. It’s always been SOP that if you’re at the polling place before they close the doors, you get to vote even if the workers have to stay until midnight.

As I began a thread once, there are two kinds of error - variance and bias. Variance is the error that makes your scale read anywhere from 170 to 180 when you really weigh 175. You can shrink that, but you’ll always have some. I’m willing to live with that.

Bias is the error that makes your scale consistently read on or about 168 when you weigh 175. That was the sort of error we had with Palm Beach County, and with the felons. It was bias that put us within the range of the variance; the results weren’t ‘within the margin of error’ to start with. Bias is bad, and any significant source of bias - in either direction - needs to be dealt with.

So it’s been said, but I’ve yet to see any cites or supporting evidence. So, you got one?

So I take it you disagree with me? Of course I have read the big four decisions. Your opinion while partially correct, convienently ignores the fact that the two liberal justices DID feel uncomfortable with the process in Florida.

In the specific or in the general? Yes I agree it was out of the ordinary for the conservatives to use EP for ANYONE. I am not suggesting that Scalia and his crew were behaving while everyone else was cheating, but come on. Let’s give it a fair look. There were two other justices that disagreed with whether there were problems. Souter and Breyer disagreed (vehemently) with remedy.

Not a chance. If it had ended with the last Florida SCt, Conservatives would have bumper stickers about the Florida Justices. And of course you think they were within their bounds. It supports your view point. And please tell me how you think Harris was abusing her authority? I feel she had political motivations, but there was no clear LEGAL evidence of that. Just your assumption.

Look. Don’t take the low road and throw around the “garbage” comments. I think it is important to realize that intelligent people disagree with your view point.

Sorry. I guess it is a case of mistaken identity. Ironically, there is a guy with similar views and aggressive but civil style at a different board I frequent. His username is Rufus T Firefly, which I assume is the source of yours? Nonetheless, I enjoy the debate.

Well, as to the odious Ms. Harris, the Mascara Abuse Poster Child…

She was given the option, as I recall, of accepting recount results by 5 pm the following Monday, or Sunday if the SecState office was open. Was anyone surprised that, lo and behold, the office was open on Sunday. I would be interested to hear on what other occassion that office was open on Sunday, Repubs beings such a pious, church going bunch and all.

Then, to top it all off, the ballot counters called at 3pm Sunday, saying they needed like one more hour to complete thier work, c’mon, give us a break. No dice, says Ms. Harris, it is within the letter of the law to screw you and screw you I shall. (Theme from “Shaft” here)

Our Leader’s advisors tell him that if they had campaigned for the popular vote rather than for the electoral vote, he would have won anyway. And the vacuous little twit believes it! He sincerely believes it! He needs to be reminded that it Just Ain’t So.

No doubt they would have, they had the impeach clinton stickers out within days of his election. The decision would have withstood any legal critique as it was based in well established uncontrovercial principles. The one odd part of the decision, setting a time limit, was mandated by the completely unreasonable behavior of Harris. Under normal circumstances the court would have simply directed her to reconsider her discretion in accordance with principle but she had demonstrated that she was unprepared to do so. I would have prefered that they give her the rope to demonstrate her partisan decision making again but the Court seemed to feel the election process could not spare the time this would take.

Actually the supreme court found she abused her discretion and stated so explicitly in their second judgment. It was an abuse of discretion because it was not based on any rational considerations. To deny that she was entirely a political player in that episode is beneath anyone who values their intellect.

As for uncomfortable with the process, what rational person could have been comfortable with the process. It was a rat’s breakfast. You ignored the fact that the Florida decision was entirely mandated by the earlier bizzarre ruling from the USSC. Had the FSC given more guidance on the recount procedures the USSC would have found that they were rewriting the law.

The two were prepared to go along with an era argument that sent it back to the FSC for refinement of the recount proceedures. They also said the case should never have been heard. This does not in any way shape or form add anything to the legitimacy of that atrocious decision.

RTF…

They also have the right to deprive convicted felons of the right to bear arms (which IS specifically mentioned in the BoR). When’re you gonna get on a soapbox about that?

'Lucidator…

Horror of horrors! Her office was OPEN!!! The woman is evil, I tell you! A Hitler clone, even! She even wears her mascara like Hitler!

:rolleyes:

If your criticism of a political figure starts with her makeup, you have no tangible criticism at all.

I don’t know what ‘long-term neglect of the EC question’ means. Are you suggesting that the Electoral college is a problem that most people recognize but have ignored? Or just that YOU think it’s a problem? Or are you talking about something else? There are good reasons for the EC. Being a Canadian lacking an equivalent, I suggest you think long and hard before getting rid of it. Reform it? Perhaps. If you can point to specific flaws with the EC system, I’m all ears.

And it’s not clear to me that 500,000 votes is outside the margin of error here anyway, when sampled out of 300 million. There is evidence that over 100,000 votes were incorrect in Chicago, and I believe the California vote total was off by even more than that. But none of those changed the electoral count in each state so no one cared.

I suspect that if you applied the same level of scrutiny to every state that we applied to Florida, we’d find out just how error-prone the whole system is. It just almost never matters.

But the first ‘fluke’ here was that the election was so close that the EC votes of Florida could swing it. That alone is historically rare. If Gore had taken even one more state, then all the screwups in Florida would never even have come to light. I’ll agree with you that in Florida Gore was the victim of a lot of bad luck, and perhaps even an institutionalized system that favored Bush. That in itself is a ‘fluke’, because it could have been any of 50 states that turned out to be one that made the difference, and in lots of those Bush would have been at a disadvantage.

I wasn’t actually trying to make a claim that there WAS media bias. I’m just pointing to it as a possible factor in future elections, and it could be bias on the right or left.

I don’t see why you have to make the entire election day a holiday - just pass a law mandating that employers must give their employees 2 hours off with pay on election day. But before we take that step, we have to recognize this as a problem. Is it? If there is a problem, couldn’t you just solve it by keeping the polls open a little longer?

I think this could use a little clarification. Because apparently some voters were turned away at some polls, and allowed in at others. And what if the line extends out the door? Do the people inside get to vote, but not the ones outside? Who decides?

I think we agree on uniform poll closings. An alternative is to not allow vote counts to begin until the same time GMT. So in other words, polls in the East can still close 2 hours before polls in the west, but no one can start counting until the western polls close. This would prevent operatives from either side notifying people across the country if the vote is close and they need a few more or something. Again, before taking that step I’d need some evidence that it’s needed.

And there are two kinds of bias - intentional and unintentional. A freak storm in Berkeley would certainly bias the election, but it isn’t intentional. The ‘Butterfly Ballot’ falls in that category as well.

But how many errors like the ‘Butterfly Ballot’ were there all across the country? Would you find different problems in each state, perhaps even more severe? Probably. Given a large enough sample, and a compartmentalized election, even intentional bias can probably be considered ‘variance’ if you assume that Republicans and Democrats tend to engage in it in equal amounts. But sure, do whatever you can within reason to minimize it. And intentional bias should not be tolerated and every attempt should be made to minimize it to as low a level as possible.

I already gave you plenty of examples. There have been plenty of examples in the past of storms hitting one area of the country and skewing the election towards whoever was the underdog in those areas. There are plenty of documented cases of election tampering. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to think of all kinds of things that can add variance to the election.

No one cared about these things in the past (at least since 1960) because they never mattered. If a candidate wins the EC by more than 40 or 50 EC votes, then it’s almost impossible to skew the election to have the other guy come out on top, even if you have an army of cheats trying to tamper with ballots. How many elections in history have been close enough to swing on one state? Of those, how many of those states were close?

I repeat, we may find out that the odds of this happening again are 10,000-1. In which case you don’t really need a ‘fix’ for anything, because it’s a virtual certainty that the ‘right’ man will be elected next time, even with all the electoral problems.

So, SPOOFE, is it your contention that her office being open on Sunday was a mere coincidence? It is my contention that the office being open was a deliberate political ploy. Let me help you out: you can utterly crush the plausibility of my argument by showing me that her office was frequently open on Sunday, even commonly.

Is it your contention that she acted in a non-partisan, objective manner? Indeed, have you any argument at all, other than “'lucidator don’t like her.”

If that’s it, I humbly submit to your brilliant rhetorical assault. You got me. I think she stinks on ice.

However, if you’re actually going to make a telling point, you will have to go a bit beyond the “neener-neener” approach to advocacy.

Note how The Nation combines several classes of circumstances to reach the 200,000 total figure. Many Floridians were properly preventerd from voting, e.g., because they were ex-convicts. OTOH some were improperly prevented from voting and that’s wrong.

I believe that by far the majority of the 200,000 figure was in the last category – ballots not counted for some reason.

When you get to the “large and disproportionate number” of black voter ballots discarded, note that:

– There’s nothing on a ballot to indicate the race of the voter
– The conclusion of disproportionate black is a statistical correllation, not a proved fact
– If it’s true that disproportionate number of Black voters had their votes discarded, the reason is that their ballots were flawed.
It wasn’t racial prejudice.
– Most of the ballot problems occurred in districts where the voting was controlled by Democrats.
– In particular, the Butterfly Ballot was sellected by a Democrat with the intention of allowing larger font, to make it easier for voters to be accurate.

But, don’t expect The Nation to clarify the issue. They’re happy to omit relevent facts in order leave an appearance of racial bigotry by conservatives.

Dearest elucidator -

Not if you’ve read the website.

Well, since we were discussing how we choose our leaders, which is the definition of a republic instead of a democracy (in the classic sense of the terms), I thought it was a point to be held in mind. Sorry if I went too fast for you.

Yes, I deny that, in that I deny that it is valid to assume who voted for whom in any way other than by actual enumeration. Any other method leaves one open to abuses such as your bland assumption that you know for a fact that Florida could not possibly have gone to Bush. And by God, they better keep counting until the result comes out that way. Over and over and over and over…

Well, let’s see. Since Clinton engaged in illegal campaign contributions, obviously a good number of the votes that went for him did so under false pretenses. So the intent of the voters was clearly not carried out. So let’s just assume that 20% of the votes that went to Clinton should really have gone to Dole. Presto! President Dole.

Of course it seems cut and dried to you. You begin with the assumption that a Bush victory cannot possibly be legitimate, and anything necessary to make it come out that way sounds perfectly logical. Just like recounting, and then changing your assumptions, and recounting, and changing again, and recounting.

Or something.
quote:

And the implications that the media is conniving in keeping Bush in office, or that Bush welcomed the terrorist attacks, are both obviously stupid and beneath contempt.


Indeed. Which is why no such argument is being made, only being sternly refuted.

[/quote]
Actually, the OP made exactly that argument. Read the website.

[/quote]

As I understand it, the news is being down-played only so as not to embarass Our Leader or cast aspersions on his, uh, “legitimacy”. That’s all, and it is quite enough.

[/quote]
Not quite enough. How about a scrap of evidence that any such cover up is possible (given the media tendency to tilt left) or has occurred?

You may wish to invest in an umbrella anyway. Pigs may not fly, but when it comes to the late election, what pigs do in the barnyard is thick in the air.

Sincerely yours,
Shodan

Nah – I just wanted to see what all the political-minded folks on this board made of the news. I don’t give it too much credence myself, given the article’s lack of substantive cites and numbers, but decided to toss it out just to have something to talk about besides Osama bin Laden.

I’m enough of a realist to know that Dubya will be camped in the White House until 2005 – even if solid numbers confirming a Gore landslide in Florida were to appear tomorrow, I have no doubt the GOP would stonewall the issue to keep Bush in office (and I definitely don’t expect Dubya to have the good graces to step down). But considering the sheer magnitude of the crime – and yes, I see it as a crime, where five Conservative judges on the US Supreme Court hijacked America’s election process with an unsubstanable ruling to put their candidate into office – this is definitely not something for any true-blooded citizen to “just get over it”.