No. He challenged absentee votes that were postmarked after Election Day. Now, pause for a moment and consider why that’s a problem, and tell us what you come up with, hmm?
The spin that he was flatly challenging “military ballots”, without that little detail, was spread by your party and is believed even today by, well, such as you.
Joe Lieberman’s being truly a Republican made him say that, and his continuing to use the Democratic label made telling the truth politically unwise for them.
Actually, they did not challenge votes postmarked after Election day. They challenged votes that didn’t have a postmark at all, which is not the voter’s fault.
And of course those unpostmarked ballot envelopes could not possibly be from those voting after an election and trying to overturn it, assisted by postal employees who would know that postmarking such an envelope would disqualify it. No potential for mischief there, nosiree!
Is that as close as you can get to taking back your false claim, or can you do better?
It wasn’t a false claim. The Gore campaign was very aggressive in trying to get ballots likely to be pro-Gore treated as forgivingly as possible while advocating that the absolute letter of the law be followed in the case of ballots likely to be pro-Bush.
That must be why they wanted a recount of the whole state, huh?
The absolute letter of the law? Heaven forfend!
IOW, nope, try again.
Actually, they wanted a recount in a few counties where they were likely to pick up votes.
Don’t even go there. Democrats have been resisting the letter of the law ever since the Help America Vote Act was passed. The act requires ID for first time voters, and regular purges of voter databases. Democrats for some reason voted for this bill, but get pretty peeved when states actually obey the law.
Then there’s all the states that STILL can’t get military ballots out on time, most of which just happen to be blue states. I mean, we’ve had a military for quite some time, almost as long as we’ve had elections. They should have this down by now.
Was this rectum-derived as well, or do you actually have some evidence?
There are some Republican states that have struggled, but most of them are blue states, and especially the biggest ones, like California and New York.
I notice Texas wasn’t too challenged and they must have the most ballots to send out of any state I’d bet.
This cite says nothing that even implies voter suppression. Crappy bureacracy, sure – but nothing close to the evidence that some Republican officials wanted to suppress minority votes, which you said were equivalent.
They are not equivalent.
It’s as much proof as Democrats offer of GOP voter suppression. Unless you want to admit that blue states are more incompetent in their administration than red states.
And mind you, I wasn’t saying that the SUPPRESSION was equivalent, only that the evidence presented to prove the suppression is equivalent. Democrats on SDMB, but really most places, demand ironclad evidence of Democratic wrongdoing but accept the barest hint of evidence of GOP wrongdoing.
No it’s not. It’s no proof – it’s not even evidence. Why insist on this false equivalence? Why not just admit that yes, some Republican officials (not all!) have admitted that they support Voter ID laws because they believe it will prevent some people from voting Democratic?
Non-sequitir goalpost-shift attempt. Does not compute.
Huh? One side has officials saying “this will help us win elections”, and the other side has… nothing. You’ve offered no evidence. Some states’ crappy bureacracy is not evidence – equivalent evidence would be some Democratic state official saying something like “sending out military absentee ballots late will help us win elections”.
That would be equivalent evidence. You have no such equivalent evidence.
The only evidence offered is one state legislators’ statement. That would be laughed out of the forum if a conservative tried that. You guys still latch onto McConnell’s “one term President” statement to prove all manner of GOP perfidy as well.
We do actually have quite the double standard here when it comes to evidence. I actually demonstrated that the Gore campaign did try to get military ballots thrown out at the same time that they tried to get invalid in person ballots counted. They wanted to look at the “intent” of the voter even if under the law, they had invalidated their ballot by for example, double voting.
But military ballots, gotta follow the law to the letter on that one.
To be fair, it’s more than just Turtle Man’s “one term president” statement. There is the little matter of how top Republicans met on Inauguration Night 2009 to vow to kill the Obama presidency in its crib.
There is also evidence that they’ve cooperated with the President on a number of issues. Trying to defeat a President is not unusual. The claim that has to be satisfied is whether what the Republicans did was extraordinary compared to say, what they did with Clinton or what Democrats did with Bush.
Anyway, interesting poll today in the Tea Party vs. GOP saga:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
Thad Cochran may be toast in Mississippi. Which is fine, he’s a big time porker. We need to remove those guys from the party.
Wrong again. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Multiple Republicans are on record for having said that the point of Voter ID laws is to help Republicans win elections.
No we don’t. One side in this debate actually has evidence. Your side does not. You are wrong again.
They wanted to look at ballots without a postmark. There is zero evidence that the Gore campaign tried to throw out legitimate military ballots.
Just stop. You’re wrong here.
There’s no evidence that REpublicans want to disenfranchise legitimate voters. The key word here is “legitimate” which apparently only your side is allowed to use.
Of course there is, that’s the whole point.
On that one I can confidently say you’re wrong. A legitimate voter, by definition, is one who can demonstrate that they have the right to vote. If one cannot do that, whether or not they are legitimate is a guess.