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.
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.
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.
Nope, because this is a policy I apply to everyone.
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.
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.
No, I just think you have some personal issues that need to be worked out.
Just curious about this bit:
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.
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.
Hamasex Said:
Okay, so you are President Bush standing there. How would YOU answer this question?
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. 
)
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.”
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…
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
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.
Sigh … no, you ain’t worth the time.
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.
Link to some corroborating thoughts of mine in another GD thread:
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:
**________________________________________
It was not humanly possible to determine vore intent on punched butterfly ballots.
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.
IMHO, it was not humanly possible to avoid ruining the paper ballots by repeated handling and movement.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Actually, the first lawsuit 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 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 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.
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.
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’.”
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!
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