Pointed questions for Bush supporters

[Spiritus_Mundi]

ExTank:
Wothout implying any dishonesty on the part of Mrs Harris, it just might be that her position as co-chair of Bush Florida campaign is seen by some as a bit more likely to cause undue influence than a simple membership in a political party.

Also:

[quote]

They even got a by-hand recount of select counties. They asked for, and a second hand recount, was begun.

[/quotes]

These statements are incorrect. What was completed was a sample recount of 3 precints each in selected counties. Two of those counties (Volusia and Palm Beach) announced the intention to conduct a full hand recount. One of those counties began the process, though I do not believe they completed it before the certification deadline. The other county had not yet begun the recount, after receiving instructions not to from the same Mrs Harris.

So why are the Democrats bitching about ballots that were approved by their local party officials?

Because those ballots created a recognizable bias in teh election results. Now, I disagree with any proposals I have heard to remedy that situation in this election, but the ballots certainly deserve criticism. Such criticism, IMO, should be directed at ensuring such a biased instrument does not mar future elections.

now that, by the Laws of the State of Florida, duly interpreted by a Judge of Law and duly exercised within the letter of said law by the duly elected Secretary of State, their third recount is going to be ignored and their official tally is being entered into the records, whisperings of “partisanship” and “impropriety” are being circulated.

You are substantially correct, though I strongly suspect that a court will be forced to decide whether the SOS’s actions were indeed within the letter of the law. Had the official in question desired to head off any such whispers, she perhaps should have looked more to the spirit of the law in exercising both her discretion and her authority to disallow the Palm Beach County recount before the certification deadline had passed.

I do not believe her actions violated teh letter of the law. I also do not believe they expressed teh spirit of teh law to her fullest ability. I certainly do not feel that she has conducted herself in a manner which would discourage whispered criticisms by avoiding even an appearance of impropriety.

If there are improrieties, investigate. Someone come forward and make a claim. Let it be investigated. If it’s based on any kind of factual evidence, prosecute.

I have heard no evidence of impropriety.

But how can you claim partisanship on the part of SoS Harris for following the letter of the law?

When a law allows for discretion, partisanship is always possible. The law in question not only allows for discretion, it demands discretion.

Sour grape accusations are a poor basis for dragging this out, and do more harm than good.

I agree.

If it keeps up, there will be riots and shooting in the streets.

I disagree.

And claiming that VP Gore has won the popular and electoral vote when the friggin’ election isn’t even over yet is…is…asinine!

Agreed. As is claiming that Bush won the electoral vote of teh popular vote in Florida.

If VP Gore is declared winner, W. will gracefully congratulate him on a race well run, and go home to Austin.

I hope so.

I believe that if W. wins, ex-VP Gore, or his followers on his behalf, will parse verbage, imply, insinuate and outright accuse the GOP of rigging the election, and eventually incite people to riot and acts of civil disobediance.

I hope not. I take some comfort in the realization that your belief seems untarnished by objecticvity.

[ExTank]

My beliefs are untarnished by objectivity? :rolleyes:

I’m not the moderators thwacking conservatives who defend themselves against personal attacks.

I’m not the uber-Liberal outright accusing the GOP of rigging the elections without a shred of evidience to substantiate my claim.

I’m not the one advocating civil disobediance/insurrection if VP Gore loses the election.

If Katherine Harris exercises any discretion in extending the deadlines, where is it going to stop? Only when VP Gore’s declared winner?

VP Gore is an arrogant, patronizing, intellectual, elitist snob who finds it impossible that he wasn’t the landslide winner, and will pick and pick and pick until he gets his way, and drag his feet and rumor-monger if he doesn’t.

“Appearance of Impropriety”? Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. Make a case on something other than partisan politics, and I’ll listen, objectively. Until then, I’m more than entitled to my “partisan opinion”.

ExTank
“Mostly Harmless :p”

[ElvisL1ves]

ExTank, there is indeed no “evidence” of Harris’ partiality other than her own actions. I agree. Calm down.

But tell me this: Imagine the FL SoS to be a Democrat who co-chaired the FL Gore campaign, and served as one of his delegates at the Dem convention. How do you feel about this person being in charge of the process of deciding the next President?

Next, tell me how history would view the circumstances of Bush’s winning the election: Trailed the popular vote, trailed the electoral vote in 49 states (granted these numbers aren’t final yet, but they look like it, OK?), slipped past by a minuscule margin in a state where his own brother was Governor and the election count was supervised by one of his own campaign people, decisions made without explanation to invalidate disproportionate numbers of his opponent’s votes. How will that look a hundred years from now? Will it be something for the country to be proud of, or embarrassed of?

I’m surprised to have to explain the concepts of conflict of interest, and appearance of possible impropriety.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

My beliefs are untarnished by objectivity?

On this issue? Apparently.

I’m not the moderators thwacking conservatives who defend themselves against personal attacks.

Nor am I. Nor is this an accurate description of this thread Nor is anything that happened in that thread germane to your posts in this one.

I’m not the uber-Liberal outright accusing the GOP of rigging the elections without a shred of evidience to substantiate my claim.

Nor am I. Is this your “objective” opinion of those who disagree with you on any aspect of this situation?

I’m not the one advocating civil disobediance/insurrection if VP Gore loses the election.

No. You are the one predicting civil disobedience/insurrectin if Gore loses. I do not share that view. Neither do I think your prediction is warranted. Nor do I think that prediction is based upon an objective evaluation of the current situation.

If Katherine Harris exercises any discretion in extending the deadlines, where is it going to stop? Only when VP Gore’s declared winner?

I cannot predict her actions. I have seen no request that she exercise her discretion beyond allowing lawful recounts to be certified even if they take longer than teh 1 week deadline to complete.

Personally, I wish she had found her dedication to objectivity and dispassionate discretion several months ago. She then might have seen that taking a part in actively campaigning for a candidate in a race over which whe might exercise such a determinant role represented a clear possibility of conflicted interests. Unfortunately for all of us, she lacked that foresight and commitment to the impartiality of her office. She also lacked sufficient concern for he conflict of interest to recuse herself from exercising a discretion that might have profound implications for the outcome of this race.

I do not say that she failed to act impartially. I say that she has a conflict of interest and she has failed in the past to demonstrate a commitment to the apearance of impartiality in her office.

Both of those facts are clear.

VP Gore is an arrogant, patronizing, intellectual, elitist snob who finds it impossible that he wasn’t the landslide winner, and will pick and pick and pick until he gets his way, and drag his feet and rumor-monger if he doesn’t.

Neither side in this situation is innocent of manipulation of both the legal process and the “court of public opinion” in pursuit of self-interest.

Make a case on something other than partisan politics, and I’ll listen, objectively.

I have done so. I pointed out fatual errors in your first post, which you ahve ignored. I have pointed out that the reasons to question Harris’ decisions to not recuse herself go beyond siple party affiliation, which you have also ignored. You appear to place little value o the “appearance of impropriety”. I have no idea why. It is an important element in our judiciary and our elected officials maintaining the trust of the elctorate.

I can only assume that Ms Harris shares your disdain for the appearance of impropriety. I do not. I desire a higher standard of behavior from public officials. Form your diatribe against Gore I can only assume that you also desire a higher standard of conduct, but only of some officials.

No doubt you feel that you apply this double standard objectively.

Until then, I’m more than entitled to my “partisan opinion”.

Absolutely. But when you allow your partisanship to override your objectivity on this board, I am entitled to call attention to that fact.

[Milossarian]

But tell me this: Imagine the FL SoS to be a Democrat who co-chaired the FL Gore campaign, and served as one of his delegates at the Dem convention. How do you feel about this person being in charge of the process of deciding the next President?

If this hypothetical, Democratic SoS followed Florida election law to the letter, as Mrs. Harris has, it wouldn’t leave much for anybody to complain about.

Well, except for people that think the rule of law can be flexed any which way until it benefits them. Those that feel that way can have their day in court (times 24), but in the end, will lose. No impartial court is going to want to get involved in this; particularly a federal court. It’s a state matter. Harris is the duly elected legal authority over elections in the state of Florida. She has followed the law to the letter. What court is going to overturn this, and why?

[Spiritus_Mundi]

milo:
I have no idea whether the Supreme Court will overturn Harris’ decision. I have heard no evidence yet that would justify such a decision.

You seem, however, to be denying that there is any possible merit to questions about Harris’ decisions. Why?

You speak about the letter of the law, apparently ignoring the fact that the letter of this law requires the Secretary of State to exercise judgment. Certainly the citizens of florida have a right to expect that judgment to be fair and impartial. Harris may indeed have acted fairly and impartially, but her past decisions have cost her any presumption of objectivity. Indeed, she has been an active and official campaigner for one of the candidates.

Her decision has followed the letter of the law. Her decision might even follow the spirit of the law. But in choosing to act impartially during the campaign while maintaining her office she created valid questions about whether she is acting impartially now. Certainly, she has not taken any actions which might reassure the voters that she has forsaken her earlier partisan interest and rediscovered the objectivity of her office.

Is this enough to overturn her decision? Not in my opinion. But it is certainly enough to justify criticizing both her ethics and her judgment.

I do not think her decision should be overturned, barring new information. That does not mean there is nothing in her actions to complain about.

(Actually, I see one area for potential legal interpretation. Harris listed the reasons she would consider valid/invalid for a late submission. If the SC of Florida finds those reasons not in accordance with their interpretation of the applicable laws, I can see them instructing her to re-examine teh question according to different criteria. I think this unlikely, though.)

[wring]

late breaking news from CBS:

http://cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,249613-412,00.shtml

the Florida Supreme Court has stated they “see no reason the recounts can’t go forward”

while this falls short of overturning Ms. Harris’ decision to not accept the ballots, it does allow the counting to continue. So, the count will be done, and either it would change the status quo or not (ie that Bush leads in votes in FL).

If it doesn’t change that result, I still feel it will lay to rest any speculation about “what if”, and we’ll all be better off.

If it DOES change the results, then I would hope that some decisions would also change.