Well, if you click on that link now, you’ll see that they’ve called off ALL recounting in Miami-Dade. They’re going to stand with the November 7 totals. (And that story is always updated by CNN, so there’s no telling what it will say later.)
But I don’t see how, since those are the totals that Gore contested.
**
Not quite - that was 1 of 2 alternatives; the other being that you’re a partisan ranter. I think that’s more likely.
Speaking of the amount of allegations, isn’t it just possible that many or most or all of them really ARE all substance-free smokescreens, just like virtually all the allegations raised by the GOP to try to discredit Clinton over the last 8 years have been? The same people are still in charge, ya know.**
You asserted that there ARE improprieties without specifying what they might be. If you have facts, present them. If you don’t, then admit it and lay off the accusations. The burden of proof always lies with the accuser.
You’re starting with the conviction and hoping a charge shows up. That’s a familiar tactic from the way the GOP right has treated the President for the last 8 years, of course, while all the time decrying partisanship. Making accusations without any facts to back them up is one definition of, yes, lying.
Sure.
That’s how campaigns work. This one is unusual only in that the result is not yet known. Now how do you get off blaming only the Democrats for that? And even if it is, how do you propose a fairer, more equitable way of reaching the real result of the election, other than what is actually happening (barring a complete statewide recount that Bush has repeatedly declined)?
Because the Florida Supreme Court, the final arbiter of Florida election law since the US Constitution washes its hands of it, says so. There’s something called the “rule of law” that the GOP right has been very preachy about in the last few years - defying it out of convenience undermines their own claim to legitimacy, doesn’t it?
more late breaking news:And much of this action coming after Dade County stopping their recount on the basis that they wouldn’t be able to finish before the deadline
Bush sends it to the Supreme Court
What frightens me is the level of unsubstantiated charges that have been prolific. To have people such as a Govenor (Engler -I quoted in another thread) making public statements without an offer of evidence that fraud or “stealing” of elections are going on - I can’t imagine a more divisive action to take - well, except for the calls for a legislature to determine the electors of a state (yes, even if it’s in concordance with their percieved winner) able to finish it in time.
Also, Cheney has surgery
You’re kidding, right? Please point to the law demanding a Sunday deadline. The specific letter and verse, if you please, that shows this legislated constraint on the certification process. Otherwise, we have an instance of legislation from the bench.
If you indicate that they were forced to do so by virtue of two laws in conflict–the deadline versus the right to a manual re-count–explain to me how these geniuses will deal with Miami’s decision to stop the re-count because they can’t meet the deadline, virtually the same situation each of the “re-count counties” were in prior to the last deadline.
Does this deadline stick? Why, if it prevents a re-count? Perhaps there’s another virtual law the courts can divine that will guide their actions. If not, at what point do we agree that this is supreme silliness? When the inauguration takes place on Easter?
Gore & his crew have asked that the military votes all be counted- if they are at least signed & dated, within limits. It NOT the Gore camp which is stopping the military votes- it is the Fla Law. You really should read the paper 1st. Again- the Gore camp has had nothing what-so-ever to do with the fact some military votes have been thrown out. NOTHING.
Just for the record, here are the charges that the Bush camp is taking to the Supreme Court:
[ul]
[li]The state justices violated the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers by determining electoral deadlines and a recount process that federal law invested solely in the Legislature.[/li]
[li]The court ruling and the alternating recount standards in the three counties violate a federal law that forbids changing election rules after the fact.[/li]
[li]The recounts are so selective and unevenly carried out that they violate both the equal protection and due process clauses of the Constitution.[/li][/ul]
I’m no constitutional expert, but several that CNN interviewed thought that the Bush case was actually fairly strong. The last point probably being the least strong of the three.
I disagree. Bush does not, nor has ever thought, that manual recounts are “inherently flawed”. He is against thenmsimply becuase they may cost him the election. Gore, equally, is in favor of hand-counts, primarily becuase they may WIN him the election. Both sides are argueing in favor of t he position that benefits them the most. At this point in time, it just so happens that the Gore postition appears to be more democratic- but that is not what is improtant to either side. They both want to win, and will do anything to get that win. For eg, Jeb & his assembly may possibly send their own set of delegates to the Electoral College- which means that the vote menas nothing.
that’s not accurate Daniel - when the votes were being checked, there were both Democrats and Republicans there with the ability to protest or challenge the ballot. IIRC, it was, in fact, the Democrat who pointed out that the ballots in question didn’t have postmarks etc.
so, while it may not have been **Gore’s ** camp personally, I don’t think there’s any doubt that the Repulican didn’t challenge them.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Dinsdale *
**To any who are characterizing the Florida Supremes’ decision as some clearly political act by a bunch of liberal, democrat-appointed activists, please observe that it was not 4-3 or even 6-1. A unanimous decision of 7 judges. Folks, that ain’t even close. And allow me to suggest that at least not every one of the 7 is a dishonest political hack who knows less about Fla law than you.QUOTE]
One of them is described as a 'rock ribbed conservative", and is thought to be a Buchanen supporter. So, it ain’t “7 democrats”
Bah, why even bother to argue? There are more rabidly partisan democrats than republicans on this board but probably only because there are more demos than repubs.
Stoid and Tejota are the worst IMHO as ive noticed that they portray nothing good about Bush and everything good about Gore. That to me is the clearest sign of rabid partisanship than anything because Bush and Gore are almost identical except Bush trys to make it look like he has principles alot more than Gore does. And let us not forget patting people on the back who are republicans but can see the negative sides of Bush but also patting on the back people who are democrats but cannot see the negative side of Gore.
Is it pointless to argue with these people? I’ve noticed that on both sides the arguements get misinterpreted when one side reads half the post then ignores the other half to refute the arguement.
There is nothing good about Bush, so far as I’m concerned. That is not true of all Republicans. But it is true of Bush.
Not true, actually. But no, I’m not going to jump on the Gore-bashing bandwagon, he’s getting it plenty from others, doesn’t need it from me.
As I was watching half a dozen news stations today, and the pundits and politcos battling it out, it struck me as curious that neither side seems to be able to see the other’s argument as valid in the smallest degree. At least not publicly.
Can’t we get some Chinese monk to look at the facts here and render a decision on the logic of it?
stoid
sad
Danielinthewolvesden said:
One slight difference, Daniel–Bush won the first tally, and then he won the recount. Attempt to frame it as you like; the appearance is still that the Democrats are looking for an angle. That won’t go away, regardless of court pronouncements.
A completely unrealistic hope–the side that loses will portray the winner as an illegitimate president, and a lot of people will agree…especially since the hammering isn’t gonna stop. It’ll be a fun four years.
Daniel, I’m not sure that’s fair or accurate except in a very narrow sense. What we have found is that recounts tend to find unreported votes. Objective recounts (like machine ones) have not resulted in any allegation I’m aware of regarding a bias discovered for either candidate (I’m not referring now to categories like the famous disqualified PBC votes). IOW, you might expect the “found” votes to emerge with certain predictable percentages in a given county. Gore, then, selected counties for manual recount where any additional unreported votes, if they were in proportion to the votes counted, would be in his favor.
Bush did not ask for recounts even in counties where the same assumptions would have led him to expect a gain for himself. Why would we assume he has any other reason than his principles regarding manual recounts? The law he signed in Texas that is cited ad infinitum does not change the fact that he has not pursued this option, even where it may have benefited him, in this election. You can disagree with this belief, or argue it was foolish, but I think he’s been consistent at least in this election.
So, you’re half-right: Gore is for manual recounts in certain counties (any “offers” he had no authority to make notwithstanding) because they may win him the election.
Bush is against manual recounts because he finds them inherently flawed in that they lead to the sort of subjective nonsense we are currently witnessing.
I can easily see simple political positioning in it. His strategy has been to try to lock in the November 7 totals that gave him the lead, while trying to prevent anything that has a chance of working against that.
As for it being a “principle”, just ask how he’d be acting if the situation were reversed before you assert that. HIs signature on the Texas law answers the question about it being a principle or not, don’t you think?
Thanks for a carefully reasoned, thoughtful, and convincing argument.
They would have both sides agreed to hand counts if the TV hadn’t “given” Florida to Bush prematurely.
And who “gave” it first? Bush’s first cousin at Fox News!
I kind of wondered about the 42 pages myself. Who writes that fast, when they know it will be reviewed by the US Supreme Court, where they all hope to progress to?
I guess it must be just a lot of citations so they don’t look like they didn’t do their homework.
Sure looked like it to me. There was a LOT of white space and large fonts on the document. I think that’s industry-standard in that profession. I read the whole thing in about 5 minutes.
In fairness, the precedents and their case numbers were certainly in the lawyers’ briefs; the Court picked the ones they thought most applicable and just copied them. The amount of text that represented actual thought was pretty short.
As for the turnaround time, they knew the national and historic importance of the case and the tight window for a decision. Few other cases get that consideration, I’m sure.
No, no no. Bush is against “hand counts” as the machine count would give him the election, thus there is no reason to go for hand counts- “Quit while you’re ahead”. If he tried to say he was in favor of ANY handcounts- he could lose. No handcounts- he wins. Thus, ipso facto “hand counts are inherently flawed”. I am sure, and would not blame Bush a bit- that if Gore was ahead in the machine counts by some 300 votes- then Bush would ask for handcounts, and it would be Gore squealing that they are 'flawed".
The late Drum the drum said:
Drum has been drummed out, but I’m not letting this one go by. The networks (I’ll be damned if I think my television had anything to do with it) “gave” Florida to Gorewhile the polls were still open in the Central Time portion of the Panhandle. This being the case, I don’t think Bush’s relatives had a whole lot of influence on the situation.
Now that the Florida Supreme Court has rejected Gore’s demand that they force Miami-Dade to continue recounting, the Gore campaign has already announced they will file an election challenge in that county after Sunday night. More angles–these people are determined to look bad, and they are doing a fine job of it.