# Never liked Bush but the shrub grows on ya **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 8, 2001, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-liked-bush-but-the-shrub-grows-on-ya/92109 "2001-11-08T02:45:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![llamasex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bbce88/32.png) [@llamasex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/llamasex)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-liked-bush-but-the-shrub-grows-on-ya/92109/141 "2001-11-13T11:40:58Z")
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4980-2001Nov9.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4980-2001Nov9.html) I hope this isn’t against the rules it is just a portion of the article. > [@](#): > > The first reporter from India asked Bush about a suicide truck explosion last month that killed 38 people at the state legislature in Srinagar, the summer capital of Kashmir. “Sir, why are there two laws in this world, one for America and one for the rest of us?” the reporter asked. “When terrorism hits America, you go halfway across the world and make war in Afghanistan. But when we suffer terrorism, you ask us to be restrained. Is an Indian right less precious than an American right?” > > Bush replied: “I think there is one universal law, and that’s terrorism is evil, and all of us must work to reject evil. Murder is evil, and we must reject murder. When the terrorist attacks took place on October the 1st, I strongly condemned them, and I will continue to condemn them.” These kind of answers don’t bring nay honor or dignity, THEY MAKE US LOOK LIKE IDIOTS! Since he is our figurehead, people look at him and see America how embrassing. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-liked-bush-but-the-shrub-grows-on-ya/92109/142 "2001-11-13T20:56:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by rjung \* > > I’ll have to simply disagree with you on this point – when Bush kept talking about “return[ing] honor and dignity to the White House,” I (and many others) interpreted it as saying that he was going to be a sterling role model for the job. > > And here we get to the root of the problem. You aren’t concerned with what he _said_, you’re concerned with _your interpretation_ of what he said, and getting pissed off because he isn’t behaving in a manner consistent with that interpretation. Seems like you just described all of your misinterpretations of my posts in this thread right there. In any case, don’t get huffy with me just because my interpretation of the matter disagrees with yours – since there’s no clear-cut explaination of his intent, my interpretation merits as much validity as yours. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > For the record, I used the word “you” as a reference to the generic Man, the Everyman, the Anyone. > > So, although the entire discussion – indeed, the entire thread – is about George Bush, you dragged out this hypothetical Everyman because . . . ? It had **nothing** to do with Bush at all? Nope, because this is a policy I apply to everyone. > [@](#): > > you’re getting a Pit thread today on how it’s not nice to be disingenuous or to assume that everyone else is dumber than you are. I try not to, but in your case I’m ready to make an exception. 🙂 I am not sure if I should bother, though, since you seem less concerned with discussing the issues and more interested in nitpicking and misinterpreting my viewpoint to set up some straw men, then knock them down and congratulate yourself. I’ve got some Absorbine Jr. if your arm is getting sore. > [@](#): > > I have never – **never** – seen you answer a question about Clinton with anything other than, “They did it too!” And what’s wrong with that? I don’t believe in discrimination, either by race, gender, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, or political party. If the Republicans think a multi-year million-dollar investigation into a President’s personal life is a legitimate way to conduct government business, I merely ask that they apply the _same_ standards when the shoe is on the other foot. If you feel that discrimination based on political preferences is acceptable, that’s your business. > [@](#): > > Are you under some misguided impression that I’m a Starr supporter or something? No, I just think you have some personal issues that need to be worked out. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-liked-bush-but-the-shrub-grows-on-ya/92109/143 "2001-11-13T21:39:19Z")
Just curious about this bit: > [@](#): > > Then Gore refuses to roll over and die in the polls and finally battles him to a tie, the result of which give Bush the nod but under a disreputable-smelling cloud of inauthenticity. I favored neither Bush nor Gore. My only question is, why wouldn’t there have been a “disreputable-smelling cloud of inauthenticity” either way? I mean, if Tweedle Dee had gotten the court decisions instead of Tweedle Dum, would that somehow have made the mess reputable-smelling? If so, please explain. ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2001, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-liked-bush-but-the-shrub-grows-on-ya/92109/144 "2001-11-13T21:43:11Z")
OK, Robert. You go into the “Too Reactionary and/or Dishonest To Bother With” box with ElvisL1ves and december, among others. And, for the record, I **did** address the issue: I stated explicitly to what degree I felt that possible cocaine use by Bush 20-30 years ago was relevant. Your claiming that I did not is simply further evidence of your continuing dishonesty. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-liked-bush-but-the-shrub-grows-on-ya/92109/145 "2001-11-14T01:17:32Z")
Hamasex Said: > [@](#): > > I hope this isn’t against the rules it is just a portion of the article. > > ## quote: > > The first reporter from India asked Bush about a suicide truck explosion last month that killed 38 people at the state legislature in Srinagar, the summer capital of Kashmir. “Sir, why are there two laws in this world, one for America and one for the rest of us?” the reporter asked. “When terrorism hits America, you go halfway across the world and make war in Afghanistan. But when we suffer terrorism, you ask us to be restrained. Is an Indian right less precious than an American right?” > > Bush replied: “I think there is one universal law, and that’s terrorism is evil, and all of us must work to reject evil. Murder is evil, and we must reject murder. When the terrorist attacks took place on October the 1st, I strongly condemned them, and I will continue to condemn them.” > > * * * > > These kind of answers don’t bring nay honor or dignity, THEY MAKE US LOOK LIKE IDIOTS! Since he is our figurehead, people look at him and see America how embrassing. Okay, so you are President Bush standing there. How would YOU answer this question? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-liked-bush-but-the-shrub-grows-on-ya/92109/146 "2001-11-14T05:56:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > OK, Robert. You go into the “Too Reactionary and/or Dishonest To Bother With” box with ElvisL1ves and december, among others. Gosh, such a fate will weigh heavily on my shoulders until the end of this sentence. (And IMO **ElvisL1ves** is super-cool. They don’t call him the King for nothin’, y’know. 😃 ) > [@](#): > > And, for the record, I **did** address the issue: I stated explicitly to what degree I felt that possible cocaine use by Bush 20-30 years ago was relevant. It has as much – or as little – relevance as the Clinton’s real-estate deals in Whitewater, or Clinton’s experiments with marijuana in college. Again, applying the no-discrimination-on-political-viewpoint rule, I would expect to see _some_ similar concern about Bush 2.0’s “reckless youth.” > [@](#): > > Your claiming that I did not is simply further evidence of your continuing dishonesty. Ah, name-calling – always good to have something to fall back on, eh? it’s certainly easier than admitting you completely mangled and misread my earlier posts, but I hold no delusions that you’d admit to any such thing… ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-liked-bush-but-the-shrub-grows-on-ya/92109/147 "2001-11-14T06:45:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\* I mean, if Tweedle Dee had gotten the court decisions instead of Tweedle Dum, would that somehow have made the mess reputable-smelling? > > If so, please explain. \*\* You ask this question as though it would have come down to the court picking Gore or Bush, and it wouldn’t. The court picked Bush, and knew for a fact it was picking Bush. Had it declined the case, or ruled against Bush, Gore would not have then automatically won. It would simply have permitted some version of what the law, good sense, and morality all demanded: that the votes be counted to the absolute best of our ability to do so, according to the systems and rules already available to achieve that. Either one may have prevailed in that case. Big damn difference. stoid ---
**Author:** ![Ace\_Face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/858c86/32.png) [@Ace\_Face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ace_Face)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-liked-bush-but-the-shrub-grows-on-ya/92109/148 "2001-11-14T06:46:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rjung \* > Again, applying the no-discrimination-on-political-viewpoint rule, I would expect to see _some_ similar concern about Bush 2.0’s “reckless youth.” I’d say the “reckless youth” stuff is even worse in Bush’s case than Clinton’s (and I’m no big fan of Bubba). At least Clinton didn’t align himself with the religious right. But at a politically expedient time, during the rise of the fundamentalist nutcases in his state (and after he’d sowed enough oats to give Quaker a run for its money), Bush was “saved.” Now he’s comfortable preaching to teens about abstinence and just saying no. How convenient. Same with the draft dodging – Clinton was at least on record as opposing the war (if tepidly). Bush OTOH supported the war while artfully dodging it (and please, don’t try to pretend otherwise), while thousands of less- well-connected Americans were not so fortunate. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-liked-bush-but-the-shrub-grows-on-ya/92109/149 "2001-11-14T14:01:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pldennison \* > **OK, Robert. You go into the “Too Reactionary and/or Dishonest To Bother With” box with ElvisL1ves and december, among others.** Sigh … no, you ain’t worth the time. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-liked-bush-but-the-shrub-grows-on-ya/92109/150 "2001-11-14T14:17:58Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Libertarian \* > My only question is, why wouldn’t there have been a “disreputable-smelling cloud of inauthenticity” either way? I mean, if Tweedle Dee had gotten the court decisions instead of Tweedle Dum, would that somehow have made the mess reputable-smelling?_\* No, but you’re not asking the right question (and neither is our wannabe-an-American-but-not-getting-it-yet, Sam). You’re already working under the impression that an election is properly decided by the courts rather than the people, and that’s plainly and irresponsibly wrong. Civics 101: In a democracy, that’s the job and the right of the people. The candidate with the most votes, cast according to the rules (i.e. no late postmarks), counted as fairly and accurately and completely as reasonably and humanly possible, gets the office. In a fixed period of time, we can get rid of the person if we so desire. Preserving that principle is more important than who wins. Democracy and its associated principles can withstand any abuse of office by an elected official, but cannot withstand a direct assault on its own legitimacy, or even passive apathy like that which you’re hinting at. The system and the principles are the fundamentals and must be preserved above all other political considerations. If you don’t agree, then _you_ please explain. That said, if the process of determining which votes were valid and counting them all had been followed, then the winner would not have faced any question about his legitimacy. We accept close results as long as we can be convinced they’re legitimate, the conclusion of that process. But the 2000 election was just the opposite. Good faith was not present on both sides. The understanding that the system and its legitimacy mattered more than the win did not exist on both sides. There was an active legal effort by one participant to avoid following the process, and a poltical campaign to actually discredit it. If _both_ candidates, and the Supreme Court 5, had put the nation’s principles above themselves, there would be no argument today - and it would have taken only a few days, _given good faith_. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-liked-bush-but-the-shrub-grows-on-ya/92109/151 "2001-11-14T15:38:48Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > Civics 101: In a democracy, that’s the job and the right of the people. The candidate with the most votes, cast according to the rules (i.e. no late postmarks), counted as fairly and accurately and completely as reasonably and **humanly possible** , gets the office._\* Link to some corroborating thoughts of mine in another GD thread: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=98543&pagenumber=2](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=98543&pagenumber=2) I think that after the second machine recount, the “fairly and accurately as humanly possible” requirement was satisfied because: \*\*\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ 1. It was not humanly possible to determine vore intent on punched butterfly ballots. 2. IMHO, it was not humanly possible to count the repeatedly-handled punched ballots – designed to be read but machine – with equal or greater accuracy than that of the counting machines. 3. IMHO, it was not humanly possible to avoid ruining the paper ballots by repeated handling and movement. 4. The counting machines have no political leanings. Their fairness cannot be compromised, short of swiping votes before they get counted. \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\*\* Now, after humanly possible measures were exhausted (IMO), Bush had a very slight lead. I’m talking about right after the second machine recount (_ergo_ the third count overall), which took place within a week or so after Election Day. IMHO, the vote counts weren’t going to get any “better”, fairer, complete, or more accurate than that. Perhaps both candidate’s teams figured the same thing – which meant it was time to backtrack a bit and look at whether votes were cast “according to the rules”. Gore’s team then asks for a selective hand recount. Bush’s team counters with a lawsuit to counter Gore’s selective hand recount. Then, the race was on in the courtroom – where it really **had** to remain because the winner of the election was not humanly determinable, IMHO. Heck, by the end of it all, there still really wasn’t a solid definition of just what constituted a “vote” and what did not. Once a significant number of the paper ballots were damaged by repeated handling, things were further confounded. Therefore, counting votes (especially by hand) well after the election really would determine nothing – again, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-liked-bush-but-the-shrub-grows-on-ya/92109/152 "2001-11-14T15:48:45Z")
Just how would it have taken a few days? To recount the entire state? The media recount took MONTHS. You gonna wait that long? And, there’s a big difference between the media recount and what would have actually happened - the media recount used a uniform standard across the state. In the real election, each voting district used its own standards. So the result they would have gotten would have been much different than what the media recount found. Is that still ‘determining the intent of the voter’? Also, the media recount first tabulated all the cards into categories ("Hanging chad - 1 corner. Dimpled chad. Hanging chad - 2 corners. Etc). They then applied different formulas to see what would have happened under each different type of standard. Depending on which one you chose the result changed. NOW which one represents the true intent of the voter? Then there’s the problem that even under the media recount, Gore only won by 171 votes if the entire state was recounted. Should Bush have just accepted that number and given up if the statewide recount was done? If so, why didn’t Gore accept the results of the first machine recount which showed Bush leading by something like 5 times that amount? What standard are you using to judge these actions? Why can’t you accept the fact that the election was too close to call? There was NO fair way to determine the real intent of the voters, because the result closer than the possible maximum accuracy of vote tabulation. And your whole argument that it’s votes that count and not courts is a simple denial of reality. If the courts were never supposed to matter, then you wouldn’t have laws outlining how to deal with election anomolies in court. The court is there PRECISELY for this kind of situation. It was the proper avenue for remedy. It could order recounts (and did), or it could declare that all efforts should stop (and did). Oh, and stop by a Canadian chat board some time and post a few thousand messages to it. See if you don’t accidentally use ‘us’ a few times. It’s pretty easy to forget your borders in a chat room. So kindly back off. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-liked-bush-but-the-shrub-grows-on-ya/92109/153 "2001-11-14T15:50:48Z")
Just how would it have taken a few days? To recount the entire state? The media recount took MONTHS. You gonna wait that long? And, there’s a big difference between the media recount and what would have actually happened - the media recount used a uniform standard across the state. In the real election, each voting district used its own standards. So the result they would have gotten would have been much different than what the media recount found. Is that still ‘determining the intent of the voter’? Also, the media recount first tabulated all the cards into categories ("Hanging chad - 1 corner. Dimpled chad. Hanging chad - 2 corners. Etc). They then applied different formulas to see what would have happened under each different type of standard. Depending on which one you chose the result changed. NOW which one represents the true intent of the voter? Then there’s the problem that even under the media recount, Gore only won by 171 votes if the entire state was recounted. Should Bush have just accepted that number and given up if the statewide recount was done? If so, why didn’t Gore accept the results of the first machine recount which showed Bush leading by something like 5 times that amount? What standard are you using to judge these actions? Why can’t you accept the fact that the election was too close to call? There was NO fair way to determine the real intent of the voters, because the result was closer than the possible maximum accuracy of vote tabulation. And your whole argument that it’s votes that count and not courts is a simple denial of reality. If the courts were never supposed to matter, then you wouldn’t have laws outlining how to deal with election anomolies in court. The court is there PRECISELY for this kind of situation. It was the proper avenue for remedy. It could order recounts (and did), or it could declare that all efforts should stop (and did). Oh, and stop by a Canadian chat board some time and post a few thousand messages to it. See if you don’t accidentally use ‘us’ a few times. It’s pretty easy to forget your borders in a chat room. So kindly back off. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-liked-bush-but-the-shrub-grows-on-ya/92109/154 "2001-11-14T15:54:54Z")
> [@](#): > > Civics 101: In a democracy […yadda yadda blah blah blah…] Y’know, I can’t imagine why you believe I need a lecture from you on civics, particularly when you yourself have confused a democracy with a republic. You claim I’ve asked the wrong question. Bullshit. I asked the question I wanted to ask. The question isn’t wrong. Questions aren’t wrong. Answers — like yours, for example — are wrong. The election got to the courts because that’s where Gore took it. Gore. Not Bush. Not the people. Gore. Gore took the election to court. Gore lost. Based on your nonresponse, I suppose the answer to my question is what I suspected anyway. It was unfair because you lost. Had you won, it would have been fair. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-liked-bush-but-the-shrub-grows-on-ya/92109/155 "2001-11-14T16:15:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > **The election got to the courts because that’s where Gore took it. Gore. Not Bush. Not the people. Gore. Gore took the election to court. Gore lost.** I’m not sure this is factually accurate – however, I concede that I may be mistaken. In my post on this page: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=98543&pagenumber=2](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=98543&pagenumber=2) I cite Bush attorney Ted Olson, who seems to suggest that Bush’s team filed the first lawsuit. However, I have no problem with the opinion that Gore’s team’s call for a selective hand count (as opposed to a state-wide hand recount) forced Bush’s team into going to court first. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-liked-bush-but-the-shrub-grows-on-ya/92109/156 "2001-11-14T16:39:21Z")
Actually, the [first lawsuit](http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/suit1.pdf) was filed on November 8 by Andre Fladell, Alberta McCarthy, and Lillian Gaines, protesting the butterfly ballots. Both Bush and Gore (and a slew of others) were defendants in that suit. The following day, Gore representatives requested recounts pursuant to Florida’s statute 102.166. On November 11, [Siegel v. LePore](http://www.law.emory.edu/11circuit/nov2000/00-15981.MAN.html) commenced, seeking to halt the manual recounts requested by Gore’s camp. Bush lost. From November 14 through December 11, there was a [flurry of litigation](http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electiontime.htm) from both sides, some of it going all the way to the Supreme Court, leading to Gore’s concession on December 12. Both parties sought remedy through the only available means. One of those means was not, as Elvis suggested, putting Bush and Gore out on the balcony a la Jesus and Barabas. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-liked-bush-but-the-shrub-grows-on-ya/92109/157 "2001-11-14T16:58:09Z")
Good info, **Lib**! Thanks! Well, since _Fladell et al_ – the butterfly-ballot lawsuit – was actually not initiated by either presidential candidate’s team, it seems that it can still be argued (FWIW) that’s Bush team fired the first legal salvo at Gore’s team with _Siegel_. The natural counterargument is that Bush’s team had good reason to go to court – with which I agree. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-liked-bush-but-the-shrub-grows-on-ya/92109/158 "2001-11-14T17:09:17Z")
I think invocation of the cited statue can be considered a legal salvo. Moreover, it _necessitated_ blocking litigation. As Will Smith’s character in _Men in Black_ told the giant cockroach, “Don’t staht nuttin’, won’t _be_ nuttin’.” ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-liked-bush-but-the-shrub-grows-on-ya/92109/159 "2001-11-14T17:41:47Z")
If the “intent of the voter” could be made manifest, what would have been the result? That is to say, if everybody who went to the polls that day had thier vote counted **as the voter intended** , who would be President? Clearly, the answer is Al Gore. Any debate on that? Now, what would I expect from Our Leader. Well, at the very least, some embarrassment. Something along the lines of “Well, technically, its mine, but I recognize that no clear mandate has been delivered, I occupy this position on flimsy grounds, and will act accordingly.” Did he? No such thing. The only reference I ever saw him make was a rather smug assertion that his strategy was focused on the Electoral results. Had the popular vote been decisive, he avers, the would have concentrated on that and won that way! Bollocks, balderdash, and tommyrot, Mr. Resident, sir! ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2001, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-liked-bush-but-the-shrub-grows-on-ya/92109/160 "2001-11-14T17:52:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by bordelond \* > \*\* > > 1. It was not humanly possible to determine vore intent on punched butterfly ballots. > > 2. IMHO, it was not humanly possible to count the repeatedly-handled punched ballots – designed to be read but machine – with equal or greater accuracy than that of the counting machines. > > 3. IMHO, it was not humanly possible to avoid ruining the paper ballots by repeated handling and movement. > > 4. The counting machines have no political leanings. Their fairness cannot be compromised, short of swiping votes before they get counted. > \*\* Wow, you just ate up everything the Bush propaganda machine was dishing out and asked for seconds, didn’t you? Too bad both Florida and \*\* Texas \*\* codified the idea that \*\* humans \*\* are in fact much better than machines at determining what a vote is. The minute George decided that the standard \*\* he signed into law \*\* didn’t apply to \* him, \* he lost any shred of credibility he might ever have demonstrated. IMO, of course. And why is this discussion happening in this thread? When I posted here last night I was sure I was posting in the “Gore won” thread. stoid [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-liked-bush-but-the-shrub-grows-on-ya/92109.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/never-liked-bush-but-the-shrub-grows-on-ya/92109.md?page=9)