No pardon for you, Bill

[jshore]

*Originally posted by Milossarian *

Clinton got caught being very undignified, dishonorable and unpresidential. The unspoken rules of past presidencies indicated he should have resigned. He thumbed his nose at this and didn’t.

The unspoken rules then said he should resign rather than drag the country through an impeachment and its hearings (particularly when the impeachable act is not in question, only whether you should be kicked out for it). Again, he decided his grip on power was more important, and thought of himself.

Is this Milo’s unspoken rules we are talking about or some larger one? I can argue just as persuasively that the Congress broke an unspoken rule when they elevated an issue that, while personally dishonorable, did not constitute an impeachable offense for partisan political reasons.

Clinton’s lowered the bar. Terms like “honor,” “integrity” and “responsibility” don’t seem to matter all that much to him.

Ah…the bar was already lowered by others. I won’t even bother to bring up things like Iran-Contra, etc. Let’s just say that there is little “honor,” “integrity”, and “responsibility” left in politics anymore (if there ever was). Clinton’s violation of this that you speak of is basically in the personal realm…yeah, the guy is a pretty unpleasant conniving character in many ways. Actually, if you want to argue about how he has lowered honor and integrity, I think you can make a much stronger case, as some liberal commentators have, by citing how he has, for example, abandoned his friends for political gain. So, in some ways, I might end up agreeing with you but for very different reasons.

[ElvisL1ves]

After the Bush family’s performance in Florida, do we REALLY have to keep hearing from the right wing about Billanhillaryanalgore’s “complete, consuming lust for power, their willingness to do anything to get and keep the White House, no principle is higher to them” and so forth?

[Scylla]

No, I think you summed it up adequately.
If it bothers you though, there are other threads to click where doubtless you’ll find the intellectual stimulation you seek.

[tbea925]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**I though Bill Clinton’s comment that “The Republicans one because they got the counting stopped,” was unnecessarily divisive and stupid on a number of levels.
**

The issuance of unnecessarily divisive and stupid utterance is not restricted to any particular party or person.

I find the rantings of our own MO Sen. Bond downright humorous, expecially when railing against the evil democrats who kept the polls open in St. Louis due to the ineptitude of the local election commision. Granted, an illegal tactic, but worth it for nothing else than the entertainment factor. As an aggregate, the republican blood pressure rose by 2,000,000 points that day.

Dubya’s comments about the “warning signs on the horizon” for the economy are similarly stupid and divisive. The economy, like the dollar, is worth something primarily because people think it so. IMO.

There is one way to find out who one (sic) in Florida.

Count the votes, consistently and accurately according to Florida law. Maybe that is not an acceptible course of action to you.

Hmmmmm?

[elucidator]

*Originally posted by Milossarian *
elucidator, the almighty intellect, the Great Debator, doesn’t like me? How ever shall I survive?

Do I detect a note of sarcasm? Just faintly, mayhaps. Nah, its an expression of awe and wonder, as his argument crumbles before my wit and probity. As to how shall he live? I see no threat there, been utterly wrong for months now, hasn’t put him off his feed. Still, might be best to be a bit easier with him for a while, don’t want to get a reputation for picking on poor, defenseless ol Milo.

All that said, is anyone really surprised that Clinton is being unpresidential in his comments regarding his successor?

I’m sure he’ll lower the bar on being an ex-president as well.

Presidential, jo mamma! “Landslide” George has degraded the office and himself by the shameless pursuit of it. Nothing Slick could say denigrates the office nearly as effectively as the greedy, desperate methods used to seize it.

[Sterra]

I don’t understand that comment “shameless pursuit of it”. Or maybe you just have a memory problem and switch the names Gore and Dubya.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by tbea925 *
**
Dubya’s comments about the “warning signs on the horizon” for the economy are similarly stupid and divisive. The economy, like the dollar, is worth something primarily because people think it so. IMO.*

Bullshit. There’s a little bit more to the economy than consumer confidence. Bush’s comment is in no way self-fulfilling. Quite the contrary. Forewarned is forearmed and allows one to take steps to rectify the situation. The “Head in the sand, pretend everything is ok” policy didn’t work to well in Japan, you’ll notice.

So clearly the comment isn’t “stupid,” at least by your criteria. You didn’t bother to explain how it was divisive.
**

There is one way to find out who one (sic) in Florida.**

Cute.

**Count the votes, consistently and accurately according to Florida law. Maybe that is not an acceptible course of action to you.
Hmmmmm? **

Gee, what an original and constructive rebuttal!

Of course it’s not acceptable. I’m an evil Republican and we stole the election by falsifying everything.

[elucidator]

*Originally posted by Scylla *

**
Of course it’s not acceptable. I’m an evil Republican and we stole the election by falsifying everything. **

The charge is not falsifying the truth, but preventing the truth from being known.

As to “stole” well, maybe not. If the Supremes hadn’t knifed Gore, the Florida leg was warming up. So, the burglary tools were assembled, the lookouts posted, but the safe door fell open. You could say, then, that no actual burglary was commited.

If BushCo had come out from the git-go, saying, “OK, this is too important to screw up, we’ll negotiate some standards for counting the undervotes, take the time and do it right, and chips fall where they may” they might very well have won, we don’t know and that is the problem!

If they had done, this ghastly pallor of illegitimacy would not exist, and we would have no real argument. The risk was too much for them, they saw a sure winner in a stalling game, and went for it. Shame on them. Shame on us for letting them get away with it.

[Sterra]

I think a better comparison would be the florida legislature getting ready to steal but being knifed by the SC.

But they didn’t get away with stalling it. From the get-go I don’t think Gore would have agreed at all with the undervotes being counted. If you remember Gore wanted democratic counties counted. While trying to get rid of supposedly republican votes. I don’t think he would have been in favor of a fair recount. IMHO not stalling or fighting that would be unethical.

[jshore]

*Originally posted by Asmodean *
But they didn’t get away with stalling it. From the get-go I don’t think Gore would have agreed at all with the undervotes being counted. If you remember Gore wanted democratic counties counted. While trying to get rid of supposedly republican votes. I don’t think he would have been in favor of a fair recount. IMHO not stalling or fighting that would be unethical.

Well, Asmodean, while it is fun to hear all of your amusing opinions, do you actually have any evidence that Gore didn’t want the rest of the state counted? I apparently missed the brief of protest that Gore filed after the FSC ruled (in their second ruling) that the undervotes in all the counties were to be counted. I also missed the point (when the Supreme Court specifically asked the Republicans in the arguments before their first decision if an acceptable remedy would be to have the whole state recounted) when the Democrats objected to this possible remedy. God, I must have not been keeping up-to-date enough with the news from websites such as http://www.reagan.com

[Milossarian]

If BushCo had come out from the git-go, saying, “OK, this is too important to screw up, we’ll negotiate some standards for counting the undervotes, take the time and do it right, and chips fall where they may” they might very well have won, we don’t know and that is the problem!

Be prepared to be afraid, be very afraid, elucidator. But we come very close to agreeing on this point.

Where I disagree with you (and jshore), however, is with the idea that “BushCo” or “GoreCo” got to decide how this process would continue. Of course they didn’t. It had to be handled according to Florida law. And Florida law proved highly inadequate for the particular problems this vote posed.

The Florida Supreme Court chose to take a tack similar to the one you two seem to support: “Well, we’ll just fix the problems and do what we feel is necessary.” It doesn’t work that way. That approach was, rightly, shoved right back in their collective ear by SCOTUS.

And, if you want to say that was a partisan decision, you are being disingenuous. Seven of nine justices said the hand-counts as they were progressing weren’t right. EIGHT, if you count Ginsberg’s idea that, “Whether it’s wrong or not, it’s Florida’s decision to resolve.” [paraphrase] Two other justices said, “Let’s give the Fla. SC another opportunity to try to get it right,” [paraphrase] and the majority said, “There is no way to get it right,” and/or “There isn’t enough time under our Constitutional deadlines to even try.” [paraphrases]

[jshore]

*Originally posted by Milossarian *
And, if you want to say that was a partisan decision, you are being disingenuous. Seven of nine justices said the hand-counts as they were progressing weren’t right. EIGHT, if you count Ginsberg’s idea that, “Whether it’s wrong or not, it’s Florida’s decision to resolve.” [paraphrase] Two other justices said, “Let’s give the Fla. SC another opportunity to try to get it right,” [paraphrase] and the majority said, “There is no way to get it right,” and/or “There isn’t enough time under our Constitutional deadlines to even try.” [paraphrases]

Well, it was the 5-4 part on the “no-time left” that struck me as being most partisan (along with the 3 in the majority in particular who were most vehement and wrote an additional separate opinion)…Although, I hasten to add that I don’t think that it was overtly partisan in the sense that the justices were consciously deciding it on the basis of who they wanted to win. I am pretty sure they felt they were deciding the case on its virtues. But, I think in some subconscious sense, they were influenced. It was hard not to be so influenced. I am willing to admit that I had trouble separating the principles from my partisan desires in this case; I thought maybe the justices would be better than me at this, but the way the case split makes this appear rather unlikely.

In fact, I can’t say exactly where I would have come down personally amongst the four who were in the minority … I.e., I do believe the FSU erred in not setting some sort of uniform standard. (This error occurred, probably, because the Bush legal team had them in a possible damned either way scenario where they would complain about the lack of a standard if one wasn’t specified and about the court writing the law if any was.) I go back and forth about the issue of what SCOTUS should have done about this because I find the equal protection argument to be just plain weird, given the wide disparity in the rate at which ballots were disqualified in the different counties due to the very different voting systems. My belief is that the violation in equal protection that occurred is greater by SCOTUS’s actions than it would have been if they had let the FSU decision stand.

So, in fact, most of my anger is not at SCOTUS which, by the time the case got to them the second time, was really put between a rock and a hard place. Rather, it rests with the Bush camp who just tried to run out the clock rather than responding to any of the overtures made by the Gore camp to discuss the issue, and who would stand for no remedy except a complete stoppage of any attempt to hand count the votes.

[jshore]

*Originally posted by Milossarian *

Where I disagree with you (and jshore), however, is with the idea that “BushCo” or “GoreCo” got to decide how this process would continue. Of course they didn’t. It had to be handled according to Florida law. And Florida law proved highly inadequate for the particular problems this vote posed.

I guess I didn’t directly address this. Well, okay, you are true in a very technical sense, but I think it is somewhat disingenuous to believe that the two camps didn’t have some say in how the vote counting got done. For example, the Bush people could have replied when asked by the FSU that they would accept a remedy for the hand vote counting that satisfied certain objections they had about the counting.

Or, the Gore and Bush could have had a personal meeting, as Gore suggested, and maybe could have come to some agreements that would have changed the nature of the whole litigation process.

We’ll never know.

[Sterra]

Hmm jshore, got any arguements against mine? Last I heard strawmen and ridicule weren’t arguements. Honestly we really had enough of that during the election. You don’t have to keep acting like you have a arguement.

Its funny though, Gore gives a offer that he knows he can’t back up and there are people vaguely alluding to it being more than nothing.

[rjung]

*Originally posted by Asmodean *
**I don’t understand that comment “shameless pursuit of it”. Or maybe you just have a memory problem and switch the names Gore and Dubya. **

I don’t have any memory problems. Gore was the guy who wanted to take the time necessary to count the ballots and determine the true will of the florida voters. As he said publically several times, he was ready to accept the outcome of a full recount no matter who it was.

Dubya, on the other hand, was the guy who consistently tried to block and stop any and all recounts, using tactics ranging from lawsuits in Florida court(*) to hiring out-of-town protesters to harrass and assault the people performing the recounts. Dubya also insisted that machines were more accurate than humans, giving lie to his “I trust people” campaign hype while giving big bellylaughs to anyone who’s ever had an ATM or credit card error.

(* = I personally found it amazing how James Baker kept accusing the Gore camp of trying to “have the election settled in the courts,” while it was the Bush camp that filed the first Florida lawsuits in an attempt to block manual recounts. And, of course, the final decision for Dubya came directly from a partisan court decision, not the will of the people…)

“Shameless pursuit”? Yeah, that wacky Al, how dare he try to find out what the voters really wanted? Better to just let Jeb and Katherine rig the election results and quietly sweep the evidence under the rug…

[elucidator]

Naw, lets just stick to the flagrant stuff.

Flagrante politico numero uno

Ms. Harris is advised by the Florida Supreme Court that she is accept the recount numbers on Monday, or Sunday if the Sec. of States office is open on Sunday. Well, by golly, they are open on Sunday. Quite the coincidence! She could have taken the results on Monday, it was her choice to be open on Sunday and to insist that hand counts had to be in her hands right then.

Then county election guys call, ask for one more hour to finish thier count. No dice, says Ms. Harris. Gotta follow the law, you know. Only a partisan would find such behavior partial and biased, intending to serve a “run out the clock” strategy.

Her behavior was partial, biased, and clearly intended to serve the “run out the clock” strategy.

Flagrante Politico Numero Two-o

Oyez, oyez, now comes Antonion “Big Tony” Scalia (as played by Joe Mantegna). Shrub’s entreaty to court has found a compassionate heart. The case will be heard, for fear that BushCo will meet irreversible and irreperable harm if the count proceeds. And precisely what harm would that have been? If the count proceeds, and the Supreme says ixnay after the fact, what legal harm has occured? None. Zero. Zilch. I beg our illustrious posters from the Dark Side of the Force, point out to me what that dreadful, and most importantly, irreversible harm would have been. The truth, mayhap?

Then the unspeakably bogus result: to be fair and just, uniform standards must be established, the ones set by the Florida legislature are no good. But anyway, fair standards must be established, then the counts can proceed. However, they must be completed by midnight. You got two hours, good luck.

Its the much-revered legal principle of tempus fugit, “times up, you’re fugited”. It would be partisan to suggest that the Supremes sold thier dignity to get thier man where he need to get.

The Supremes sold thier dignity to get their man where he needed to get.

[Scylla]

elucidator:

Yeah, Harris is a partisan bitchette, big deal. I think she could have done things better for both parties. She had a lot of discretion in her hands early on, and could have become the leader in bringing the election crisis to a quick, fair and nonpartisan resolution.

But she didn’t.

In the incident you mention though, she is blameless. The Florida Supreme Court had taken away most of her discretion and issued a deadline. Eiter Sunday night, or Monday Morning. She didn’t have the discretion to legally allow an extra hour, as lawyers on both sides pointed out, even if she wanted to (which is doubtful.) There are so many legitimate things to blame Harris for why harp on something that wasn’t her fault. The blame for this particular fiasco lies squarely on the shoulders of the Florida Supreme Court for the inflexibility of their decision.

On the other issue, as everybody who looks at this thing with the barest lip service has to recognize as that the Republican problem with recounts consisted of three arguments:

1. There had already been 2 full counts, and in some cases three or four. You don’t get to keep counting until you get the result you like.

2. Were votes being simply counted, or were they being created after the fact? The more those votes get handled, the more chance there is for them being altered. Becuase they are those dumb ass punch cards so often, their is a lot of room for mischief, or pure accident. After so many handlings, the votes were tainted. There were quite a few cases of partisanship in the counting room.

3. Selective and subjective ('nuff said)

Finally, the Gore move to disqualify the absentee ballot showed the exact same hypocrisy, as the Bush campaign to include it. Neither party was playing to be fair, and anybody who beleives they were is an idiot. They were playing to win.

There is no room for anybody to be on a high horse after this fiasco.

Where should the blame be placed? On the crappy design of the election system, and everybody involved shares that blame, because there was plenty of time to make your objections and fix it beforehand.

Why did Bush win? Because he won the initial count and the recount, and his fight was to retain the status quo. Gore’s was an uphill battle, and it was the harder of the two.

Who really won? Who knows? We will never know. The results were within the statistical margin for error of the process. All the counting or political manuevering will not change that fact.

Everybody involved in the process understands this last. It sucks, but Gore did the right thing, both in fighting it as he did , and in conceding as he did. He ended the bitter fight honorably and with a call for unity.

Clinton understands that it was a battle well-fought, and lost, as well. His cry of foul is disingenuous, divisive, and showed poor judgement.

You know, I started this thread to discuss Bill Clinton’s comment, whether it was merited or not. That’s it. I didn’t want to rehash the whole election, and I am surprised and disapointed at the simplistic partisan rhetoric, and rehashing of tired, lopsided, and faulty arguments that have resulted.

[elucidator]

Well, jeeez, Scylla, you go on for two hundred ninety eleven paragraphs and then say you dont want to rehash?

Yeah, right…

Now, about the ballistic chad issue…

[Scylla]

It’s not like I didn’t try to get people to talk about the OP before.

I was hoping to sum up reasonably.

I’m getting the idea that people don’t want to debate or have a discussion. They just go for the quick point, or the cheap shot.

[tbea925]

OK, OK, point taken. Bill’s comments were certainly inflammatory, whether or not they were stupid.

Now the Dems are talking about using Ashcroft to define a boundary for future Bush appointments (i.e. Supreme Court).

Feh.

Methinks there is going to be a lot of baiting and shoving for the next few years. Unfortunately, there is not much moderation in Washington right now, but two extremes that have little common ground. Not a very good situation for legislative progress, I fear.