By now you will probably have to pay them a couple of bucks to read it from the archives but if you’re really interested in the subject, it’s a fascinating article.
Here is the first paragraph, “If Al Gore wants to appreciate the forces that defeated him in Florida over the past six weeks, he need not look much beyond the scene on Monday morning in the Senate chamber in Tallahassee: Gov. Jeb Bush and the state’s entire Republican leadership presiding in triumph as Florida’s 25 electoral votes were finally delivered to George W. Bush.”
There are enough inconsistancies in any election for either side to raise the “RED FLAG”. The fact that this race was as close, especially in Florida with all the additional problems (Grisham could not have done it better ) will bring it all to the front that much quicker.
Either side can bring evidence forward. The fact remains that ALL the ballots were counted at least twice (with the exception of the military ballots that the Gore team succeeded in invalidating). The “NORMAL” reason for doing a hand manual recount is to try to establish the winner in an extremely close local election. The Gore team picks counties where Gore won by HUGE margins and then uses a shifting standard to try to generate the votes needed to put him ahead. The USSC said that you can’t do this! Period!
Gore would have won the election based on the popular vote if that were the criteria…but it was not. Gore won only in the heavily populated urban centers (com’ on even Tennessee voted for Bush) and quite frankly, those of us who don’t live in the big cities and have a totally different lifestyle/viewpoint than you, find the electorial system suits us just fine…along with less government intrusion.
Back to the OP…Bush WAS elected!! BTW, as noted, Ford was not.
Phil_15, Your link was hilarious but also completely irrelevant. For those who haven’t looked at it it alleges that the c. 19,000 double-punched ballots in West Palm Beach were punched on purpose in a deliberate act of fraud by the Democrats. (Why the Democrats would do this rather than, say, double-punch ballots for Bush is not explained).
Obviously, you didn’t bother to read the link that I suggested you look at. Otherwise you would realize that it doesn’t “bring evidence forward”; it offers an analysis of the Supreme Court decision. If you had read it, or if you knew what you were talking about from any other source, you would realize 1) that the double-punched (“over-voted”) ballots were not at issue, and 2) that the majority on the US Supreme court ruled that the uncounted ballots (which were in question), were eligible for manual recounting.
Look, Phil, if you are bored of this topic and satisfied with the result of the election I have no problem with you. You are welcome to believe that everything is relative, and welcome to refuse to consider anything that might convince you otherwise. But since your professed position is one of complacent relativism, please refrain from complaining about the “griping” of anyone who is actively engaged in weighing both sides.
First of all you must have failed to read the entire analysis…in that if the illegal stylus/wire/whatever was inserted thru the stack of ballots in hole 5 (or whatever Gore’s position mark was) and the ballot had been for Gore then the ballot would have remained a good ballot for the vice-president while any other vote would have been nullified for the presidential race due to the double hit. Wheither this happened or not is meaningless. My point was that there are considerable circumstances on BOTH sides that can raise eyebrows! (BTW, I did read your url and found the conclusions to be somewhat different than others I have heard )
However, it’s like a little league game where the ump calls your kid out after he safely slides into second. You know he’s safe, the kid knows he’s safe, and the opposing player knows he’s safe…but the record of that game will forever reflect the call of the ump.
My final point is that one side has won and it don’t matter at this point if anyone thinks it was “fair and square” or was by “hook or crook” or even “bad by chad”. BUSH DID WIN and Hazel was not stating the facts correctly.
This purports to be a statistical proof that there were somehow 15,000 manufactured Gore votes in PBC. It then goes into the same ozone layer as the “Hillary had Vince Foster killed to keep him from testifying on Whitewater” kind of stuff that you’d normally find on that kind of site.
Without going into a full, boring statistical analysis (don’t start; I have more background in the subject than the guy who wrote it), I can summarize it with a single, dismissive word. Take your choice.
I can’t get the article without paying. The part you quoted simply says that he presided over the electors as they met and voted. This doesn’t answer my question of what he did that was wrong. What did Jeb Bush do that was, in any way, inappropriate? I’m not interested in the subject, I just want people to mention a specific ac he did when accusing him of being in a conspiracy.
I’d like to argue that Jeb is in the clear, but it is impossible if no one tells me what he is accused of. I find it rather intellectually dishonest to argue that he did something wrong, but never say what it was. Any reasonable person would simply ignore those claims.
Really? I think any reasonable person would conclude that either you are dead broke or too cheap to pay $2.50 to read the article I referred you to. The article in question is 8-pages long and it is full of very specific reportage, much of which involves the Jeb Man. Here is another sentence to whet your appetite, courtesy of my typing skills.
“From the morning after the election, Jeb Bush took an intense and passionate interest in the battle to make his brother president, according to interviews with several state and Republican officials, notwithstanding his effort to strike a low public profile.”
Now pony up or quit accusing anyone of intellectual dishonesty.
When searching the archive it may help you to know that the authors are Adam Nagourney and David Barstow; the date 12/22/00.
I’m not paying money to find out what your arguments are. I am both dead broke and too cheap. Hell, I don’t even have money available to pay for articles I agree with, much less ones that would just exhonerate you.
I’ve seen several people being dismissed because their argument consisted of links, and those were free. You make your case or shut up about it. Links are good for reference and additional material, but here in Great Debates people generally have to actually debate.
Awww, jeez…you are kidding, right? Since WHEN? People can argue their hearts out for page after page, filled with facts and figures and analysis, and what they’ll get slammed with is a dozen posters saying some variation of :
“Cite?”
“Cites?”
“Got a cite for that?”
“You wouldn’t have any proof other than your own lame ass opinion, would you? you know, a fact or two?”
“Can you prove it?”
“oh, you ‘read it somewhere’- Forgive me if I don’t get too choked up about your vague assertions about something you read ‘somewhere’”
I mean really, waterj…this was * ** weak ** *. I admire your gall in even trying it, though.
Oh, and what makes it even more astonishing, is this:
“much less ones that would just ** exonerate ** you.”
(bolding and corrected spelling mine) I mean…what the hell is it you are trying to say here, anyway? "Whatever you say is bullshit. Any sources you offer that show that it is not bullshit I will not examine, * especially * if they show that what you say is not bullshit. Additionally, I have changed the normal rules of SD debate for this instance, and the new rules are that no outside proofs are acceptable for supporting your arguments. And since I don’t respect or agree with your arguments…** I WIN! ** Ta da!
Governor of Florida - Jeb Bush, brother of the Shrub.
Secretary of State and, therefore, overseer of the entire count - Katherine Harris, co-chair of the Bush campaign in Florida
From the site analyzing the Supreme Court decision above:
Now, specifically, what could be done by Jeb:
There are a thousand million billion ways Jeb could have ensured that his brother made it in without having to resort to anything so tacky as having to actually break a law in plain sight. Such as?
Well, recalling articles I read for which I have no cite because they are New York Times articles and you’ve got to pay for them, the following emerges:
Jeb paid a firm to scan the voter registration lists looking for felons. Said firm did so, and delivered a list of tens of thousands of people in which people who had only had misdemeanor violations were mixed in with felons. This huge list was sent to the counties, and they were then told to reject the felons. The counties, not having the resources to look through such a huge list to figure out who was and was not a felon, simply rejected them all. Jeb then sent laptop computers with complete voter registration lists online to some precincts - precincts which uniformly voted Republican in the previous election. Thus, if a voter found himself knocked off the list in one of these precincts, he could refer himself in some cases (not all Republican leaning precincts had these laptops, just some. No Democratic precincts had one, though.) to an official who could quickly figure out if he was on the master list, thereby expediting the voter’s appeal. Nothing even remotely illegal about this, just a way of making sure more Republicans than Democrats could get around any problems in the voter registration lists.
And yes, Jeb recusing himself made for a great public show of impartiality. But the second he did it I laughed out loud while I was watching the news. Without even knowing about who Katherine Harris was yet, I figured he had to have all kinds of operatives lower down who knew, as surely as they knew that night follows day, just who the Guv wanted for Prez.
I mean, if your brother were running for President and you were the governor of a crucial state, you’re going to tell me that you’re going to act in a completely fair and impartial manner in that election? Human beings are and always will be human beings, and will do things in a corrupt way unless they are watched and forced to act fairly by strong laws. And having an archaic system in place that leaves the entire process of voting up to the states doesn’t qualify as such a law. Which is, I believe, the OP’s point.
Thank you pantom for detailing some of the specific allegations against Jeb. And thank you Stoidela for your spirited defense.
waterj2, may I remind you that you asked about Jeb Bush and I merely replied. You are way out of line accusing me of being unprepared to spend the time recapitulating an argument that you yourself initiated. Since you were interested, I thought you’d be willing (if able) to shell out 2.50 to read a long article from the nation’s most reputable newspaper. That said, as a liberal I simply can’t resist giving some sort of handout to a guy who’s dead-broke ;).
Honestly, the Times article is too detailed to summarize. May I suggest that at some point you make it over to your taxpayer-supported public library and read the article there? But here, for your immediate gratification, is something in addition to what you’ve already learned. The article makes clear that Jeb and Co. hired 29 lawyers and 11 paralegals from a pricey law firm to aid Katherine Harris and the Republican party in delaying and obstructing the counts, and challenging them in court: "These lawyers, billing Florida’s taxpayers $175 an hour, pulled out all the stops, routinely clocking 16-hour days, sometimes working in shifts to crank out briefs 24 hours a day, sometimes sleeping on conference tables. They rented a private plane to fly to Washington for arguments in the Unitd States Supreme Court. So far, Mr. Klock’s firm has submitted bills for $627,280 in legal work and $54,986 in expenses."
Ah well. Here is a little treat gratis. The article is on the subject of all the things that could have gone differently with the election; but the author also muses on a pre-election matter that was never reported, involving Jeb’s son Jebby. It’s a bit of a sleazy story, but I thought, being broke and all, you might enjoy it.
Exactly, you use cites to back up your claim, not to make your argument. In having a debate, you can’t just provide cites, you have to argue as well. I remember when SingleDad was around, whenever someone tried to do that, he would simply reply with a link that he claimed contained his case. The link was always to the Encyclopedia Brittannica’s main page.
I’m not paying to see something so that I can argue against it. Period.
What I’m trying to say that I have much more important things to spend my money on than seeing if, in fact, you might be right. Things like my own food and rent and entertainment.
I have changed nothing. This is the way it has always worked. I’m not saying I don’t accept the article, just that I haven’t read it, am not going to spend money to read it, and you won’t tell me what it says. I’m not even claiming to “win” anything, just that in order to get me to believ anything to be less than pure bullshit, you’re going to have to argue the point, not just refer me to something I can’t even see. How can I not agree with your arguments if you won’t tell me what they are?
“Jeb Bush acted improperly in the election”
“where?”
“Here’s an article that makes it clear.”
“That costs money. What points does it make?”
“You’re just cheap, read it yourself.”
“No, you tell me what it says, then I can respond.”
“Stop making up new rules.”
I see Pantom has tried to make a case, which I appreciate, but nothing he says seems to require any wrongdoing on Bush’s part. I tend to believe that if something is just as well explained by incompetence and stupidity as it is by malfeasance, the first option is the more liekly one. Even if there was any wrongdoing, there is nothing that says that it actually involves Jeb Bush.
He also claims that Supreme Court justices with minor ties to Bush should have recused themselves from the case. I would respond that those ties were no more influential than two justices having been appointed by the Clinton/Gore administration. All the justices showed their partisan leanings (well, maybe not Stevens, if you consider him a Republican).
If Harris should have recused herself, so should Butterworth.
Mandelstam, you expect someone to pay money then read 8 pages of stuff as your arguement. Why? No reasonable person would do this. Cites are the lazy mans arguement:)
Asmodean, I think I’ve already made it clear above though I suspect that waterj2 missed reading my reply before he posted his latest. Waterj2 asked for information about Jeb Bush. I didn’t bring up the subject; he did. I’ve also checked out his webpage and he’s a college student–in other words, able to read The New York Times free of charge at the college library. Even if he’s off for Winter Break, he can go to a public library if he likes. The New York Times is the paper of record; not some bizarre publication for zealots of any particular kind. If waterj2 is genuinely interested in the subject of Jeb Bush, he now knows what to do. If he isn’t that’s not my problem. And I’ll thank you and him very much to refrain from calling me lazy when he can’t be bothered.
I was never interested in Jeb Bush. It just seemed to me that people were accusing him of all sorts of bad things without bothering to specify what they were. While I still think it’s bad form to accuse someone without any real proof, I’ll accept that you have seen articles that have convinced you that he did something wrong.
I was merely responding to unfounded name-calling and vague accusations. In my opinion, it was you people that brought these things into the argument. You seem to think otherwise. Whatever, I don’t really care.
The Florida taxpayers have to pay those hefty legal bills? That doesn’t seem right. If I were a Florida taxpayer I’d yelling about that, maybe looking into who to sue. Seems like the Bush campaign should pay.
Re the article to which you provided a link, I don’t get the part about little Jebby (son of Jeb). Two teenagers were caught screwing in a car parked in a mall parking lot at 10:00pm? So what? What was there for Gov. Jeb to quash? What law was being broken? What would normally have been done, if neither teen was the Governor’s son? I would think the security guard would just have told them to get dressed and go home.
) will bring it all to the front that much quicker.