"Bad presidents happen to good people"

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Why would the ruling of the SCOUSA have prevented the state of Florida from doing a statewide recount? At the time, I felt that is what should have been done because it semed the only fair option, but it never was?

The SCOUSA stated that the type of recount that the Florida Supreme Court authorized was unfair.

The recount should apply to the whole state, not the cherry picking that Gore wanted.

Then the state had a existing requirement that the final counts had to be in by a given date. Counties felt that they could not accomplish this. therefore that last statewide tally stood for the electoral college.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Why would the ruling of the SCOUSA have prevented the state of Florida from doing a statewide recount? At the time, I felt that is what should have been done because it semed the only fair option, but it never was?

The SCOUSA stated that the type of recount that the Florida supremem court authorized was unfair.

The recount should apply to the whole state, not the cherry picking that Gore wanted.
Then the state had a existing requirement that the final counts had to be in by a given date. Counties felt that they could not accomplish this.

Yes, I'm begining to remember some of that now. It does seem strange to me that the state of Florida didn't start doing a recount on it's own, irregardless of what the SCOTUSA decided. It such a close election it almost should have been done automatically??

Perhaps the time frame invloved had something to do with Gore only requesting a recount in the counties he assumed he had the advantage in?

Hey, I'm not crying over spilled milk, I've just never been real clear on exactly what happened and why? If this happened in my state I would expect a full recount. That would be the only fair thing to do and I fail to understand why it wasn't done?

 

[EagleKeeper]

The statewide recount would only be required based on a "closeness" value (percentage difference).

Because the overall difference was not close enough, there was no automatic trigger.

When it came to light that some heavily Dem counties came it with a lower percentage lead than anticipated; the Gore camp started digging.

As discrepencies came to light, other issues started to surface.
That is when the legal battles started.

Remember that there was less than 2 months between the election and the electoral college and it took 2-3 weeks for the "issues" to be "properly" identified

 

[Craig234]

Eaglekeeper, you are posting misinformation by leaving out the key issues from your comments.

The issue was the deadline from the Supreme Court prohibiting a statewide recount - a deadline which a good case was made should have been extended because of the more pressing need for the vote to be accurate - see the books by Alan Dershowitz or Vincent Bugliosi for arguments on that side.

But what most have forgotten is the scandal of the republican party in Florida, who clearly put their desire for power before democracy itself, by voting to say that if any recounts found Gore had won, they would exercise their constitutional power to take the vote out of the hands of the voters, and declare the electors for Bush.

Most don't realize the constitution does not guarantee the public any right to vote for president; the state governments get to decide how to allocate the electoral votes, and the republicans were on record that they would do the above, something the Supreme Court saved them from having to do.

(By the way, for the record, the Gore camp did at one point suggest a statewide recount, and the Bush camp refused).

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The statewide recount would only be required based on a "closeness" value (percentage difference).

Because the overall difference was not close enough, there was no automatic trigger.

When it came to light that some heavily Dem counties came it with a lower percentage lead than anticipated; the Gore camp started digging.

As discrepencies came to light, other issues started to surface.
That is when the legal battles started.

Remember that there was less than 2 months between the election and the electoral college and it took 2-3 weeks for the "issues" to be "properly" identified

Um, just out of curiousity, what was the threshold % if 527 didn't qualify?????????

 

[Pacemaker]

Originally posted by: Craig234

It is still not known, and never will be known, how many votes Bush lost in the panhandle when the media "called" the state for Gore before the polls there closed. The media blew that big time, the polls on the eastern part of the state close at 7pm(EST) while the ones on the panhandle, which is very Republican, closed at 8pm(EST)

It would seem that keeping polls open an extra hour in a 'very republican' area is unfair itself.

It's a different time zone. People need the same amount of time after work to vote to be fair. In actuality if they made it 7pm EST for everyone the panhandle would have to vote by 6pm CST, which only gives them an hour or less after work (assuming the average person works until 5).

 

[forfor]

Originally posted by: Pacemaker

Originally posted by: Craig234

It is still not known, and never will be known, how many votes Bush lost in the panhandle when the media "called" the state for Gore before the polls there closed. The media blew that big time, the polls on the eastern part of the state close at 7pm(EST) while the ones on the panhandle, which is very Republican, closed at 8pm(EST)

It would seem that keeping polls open an extra hour in a 'very republican' area is unfair itself.

It's a different time zone. People need the same amount of time after work to vote to be fair. In actuality if they made it 7pm EST for everyone the panhandle would have to vote by 6pm CST, which only gives them an hour or less after work (assuming the average person works until 5).

I am pretty sure on this, but correct me if I am wrong: I thought the Federal Law allows employees to take off from work to vote, and employers cannot stand in the way? Maybe I am thinking of back home... but that should be how it is here in the U.S. too.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: straightalker
Representative Katherine Harris (up for election this November for the Senate) says God chooses and installs our elected representatives.

Dear lord we need to clense to gene pool. Somebody gimmie an easy button to cause everyone like her to instantly die.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Oh God... chads... Diebold...

I'm fresh out of tin foil. I can't wait for the next election/next excuse. Sometimes it still blows my mind that people still want to argue about the 2000 election. LOL

Dave will hook you up with the requisite tin foil. :laugh:

Arguments over the 2000 election come from frustrated liberals who seem to forget about the 2004 election (or want to )

The whole thread is moot, water under the bridge rediculous.

If Americans don't like it, revolt.

 

[Craig234]

It's a different time zone.

Thanks for the info. One issue removed.

The whole thread is moot, water under the bridge rediculous.

If Americans don't like it, revolt.

It's neither moot nor water under the bridge. The crooks are still in office and have yet to be held accountable.

By spending the time to post the facts, it is a form of revolt. What are you suggesting as a form of revolt?

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
The statewide recount would only be required based on a "closeness" value (percentage difference).

Because the overall difference was not close enough, there was no automatic trigger.

When it came to light that some heavily Dem counties came it with a lower percentage lead than anticipated; the Gore camp started digging.

As discrepencies came to light, other issues started to surface.
That is when the legal battles started.

Remember that there was less than 2 months between the election and the electoral college and it took 2-3 weeks for the "issues" to be "properly" identified

Um, just out of curiousity, what was the threshold % if 527 didn't qualify?????????

That would be my next question. I found this at wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000

The outcome of the November 7 election was not known for more than a month after the balloting, because of the extended process of counting and then recounting of Florida presidential ballots, which would ultimately decide the election. State results tallied on election night gave 246 electoral votes to Bush and 255 to Gore, with New Mexico (5), Oregon (7), and Florida (25) too close to call at the time. Since 270 electoral votes are required to win, Florida would put either candidate over the top, and the other two states were irrelevant. (Both New Mexico and Oregon were declared in favor of Gore over the next few days, making it 246?267.)

Bush won the election night vote count in Florida by a little over 2,000 votes. Florida state law provided for an automatic recount due to the small margins. There were general concerns about the fairness and accuracy of the voting process, especially since a small change in the vote count could change the result. The final (and disputed) official Florida count gave the victory to Bush by 537 votes, making it the tightest race of the campaign (at least in percentage terms; New Mexico was decided by 363 votes but has a much smaller population, meaning those 363 votes represent a 0.061% difference while the 537 votes in Florida are just 0.009%). Most of the reduction in the ensuing recount came from Miami-Dade county alone, a statistical anomaly.

Once the closeness of the election in Florida was clear, both the Bush and Gore campaigns organized themselves for the ensuing legal process. The Bush campaign hired George H. W. Bush's former Secretary of State James Baker to oversee their legal team, and the Gore campaign hired Bill Clinton's former Secretary of State Warren Christopher.

The Gore campaign, as allowed by Florida statute, requested that disputed ballots in four counties be counted by hand. Florida statutes also required that all counties certify and report their returns, including any recounts, by 5 p.m. on November 14. The manual recounts were time-consuming, and, when it became clear that some counties would not complete their recounts before the deadline, both Volusia and Palm Beach Counties sued to have their deadlines extended. The Bush campaign, in response to state litigation in the case of Palm Beach Canvassing Board v. Katherine Harris, filed suit in federal court against extending the statutory deadlines for the manual recounts. Besides deadlines, also in dispute were the criteria that each county's canvassing board would use in examining the overvotes and/or undervotes. Numerous local court rulings went both ways, some ordering recounts because the vote was so close and others declaring that a selective manual recount in a few heavily-Democratic counties would be unfair. Eventually, the Gore campaign appealed to the Florida Supreme Court which ordered the recounting process to proceed. The Bush campaign subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) which took up the case Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board on December 1. On December 4, the SCOTUS returned this matter to the Florida Supreme Court for clarification due to their "considerable uncertainty" as to the reasons for certain aspects of the decision. The Florida Supreme Court clarified its ruling on this matter while the United States Supreme Court was deliberating Bush v. Gore.

At 4:00 p.m. EST on December 8, the Florida Supreme Court, by a 4 to 3 vote, ordered a manual recount, under the supervision of the Leon County Circuit Court, of disputed ballots in all Florida counties and the portion of Miami-Dade county in which such a recount was not already complete. That decision was announced on live world-wide television by the Florida Supreme Court's spokesman Craig Waters, the Court's public information officer. The Court further ordered that only undervotes be considered. The results of this tally were to be added to the November 14 tally. This count was in progress on December 9, when the United States Supreme Court 5-4 (Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer dissenting) granted Bush's emergency plea for a stay of the Florida Supreme Court recount ruling, stopping the incomplete recount, which had an unofficial lead of only 154 votes for Bush.

About 10 p.m. EST on December 12, the United States Supreme Court handed down its ruling in favor of Bush by a 5?4 vote, effectively ending the legal review of the vote count with Bush in the lead. Seven of the nine justices cited differing vote-counting standards from county to county and the lack of a single judicial officer to oversee the recount, both of which, they ruled, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.

The crucial 5 to 4 decision held that insufficient time remained to implement a unified standard and therefore all recounts must stop.

The SCOTUS stopped the recount and then comes back and says there is insuffiecent time to fisnish the recount??

LOL, talk about a little foresight into democracy at work under a Bush!!

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Oh God... chads... Diebold...

I'm fresh out of tin foil. I can't wait for the next election/next excuse. Sometimes it still blows my mind that people still want to argue about the 2000 election. LOL

might have something to do with the fact that its impossible to actually tally the numbers from back then because of the lack of paper trail...i find anyone who thinks this is a good idea to be a fool

If that is true then how did the all the newspapers do their recount in Florida? Could it be that spent time actually counting every ballot in the state by hand?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yup, Wikipedia reports correctly that of all legal ballots cast state wide Gore won. That is what you count to determine who wins, the actual legal votes state wide. The Supreme Coup stole the election for Bush with all states rights conservative justices on the court experiencing a sudden and violent conversion in judicial philosophy by voting against the right of the Florida's State Supreme Court determining the legality of the election. They put in office the greatest disaster in American history.

Moon you are mischaracterizing the basis of their decision. They ruled that the recount of only a few selective counties, ones that were more likely to lean to Gore, was a violation of the 14th amendment. Had Gore called for a recount of the entire state then maybe the court would have been less likely to rule the way it did. Gore's decision to ask for a manual recount only in places where he was likely to pick votes was a calculated political effort to sway the election his way without regards to treating ALL the people of Florida the same.

 

[Craig234]

If that is true then how did the all the newspapers do their recount in Florida? Could it be that spent time actually counting every ballot in the state by hand?

The media hired an organization to do the recount. I don't recall the number of electronic machines in 2000, but it was generally a paper ballot election.

The 'hanging chads' issues led to the call for 'reliable' electronic machines, like Diebold. The chairman of Diebold then wrote a letter pledging his commitment "to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President."

Read Greg Palast's "Armed Madhouse" for info on the result.

 

[moshquerade]

have the good people ever had a good president?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

It would seem that keeping polls open an extra hour in a 'very republican' area is unfair itself.

You are aware that the polls there open an hour later as well?
This not about keeping the polls opening longer in a Republican area, this is because the state of Florida had two time zones in it, only state in the country like this I believe. Therefore the polls on the east side open at 7am? local time and close at 7pm local time, which is the same way for the western part of the state.
The problem is that the news media at 7pm Eastern time announced that the polls in Florida had closed, when in fact they did not, as they were still open for another hour in the western central time zone part of the state.
The study I linked to in my post pointed out that the turnout for the entire state of Florida was 68%, but in the western Central time zone areas the turnout was only 65%. They believe that the 3% difference could be a result of the media saying that the polls in Florida were already closed. In comparison to the entire vote 3% is a very small amount and it is not too much of a stretch to think that 3% difference was because people were told the polls were closed.
The only reason that matters is because that 3% difference in turnout amounts to 15,000 people, and with Bush winning the vote in the western part of the state by a 2-1 margin that 15,000 extra votes would have added 5,000 extra votes to the Bush count, and therefore would have made his victory a rock solid victory and all the recounts and hanging chads would not have mattered.
I can't find turnout figures for 2004 by county or else we could compare the 2000 turnout to the 2004 turnout and see if there was a difference that may have been caused by the announced closing of the polls.

 

[Aisengard]

I tend to think Eisenhower was an excellent president.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Craig234

It's a different time zone.

Thanks for the info. One issue removed.

The whole thread is moot, water under the bridge rediculous.

If Americans don't like it, revolt.

It's neither moot nor water under the bridge. The crooks are still in office and have yet to be held accountable.

By spending the time to post the facts, it is a form of revolt. What are you suggesting as a form of revolt?

The level of hatred seen here is that of a civil war. The only difference is this one has been political thus far.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Craig234

If that is true then how did the all the newspapers do their recount in Florida? Could it be that spent time actually counting every ballot in the state by hand?

The media hired an organization to do the recount. I don't recall the number of electronic machines in 2000, but it was generally a paper ballot election.

The 'hanging chads' issues led to the call for 'reliable' electronic machines, like Diebold. The chairman of Diebold then wrote a letter pledging his commitment "to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the President."

Read Greg Palast's "Armed Madhouse" for info on the result.

Come on now Craig, how many times do we hear people say they are going to help "deliver" their states votes to their candidate of choice? Are we to assume that every time someone males that statement that they intend to commit fraud? If that was true we would have to arrest everyone who goes to the nominating conventions since they all claim they will ?deliver? their states votes.

BTW: do you have a link to the actual letter so I can read it? I am sure I?ll be able to find a dozen or more letters and speeches with similar wording.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
I tend to think Eisenhower was an excellent president.

And he was a Republican!!! wooohooo

BTW: I am reading "D-Day" and it is amazing the amount of pressure on Eisenhower leading up to that day. The fate of 200,000+ men lay on his shoulder and the fate of the war.
(At least they thought it was the fate of the war since they had no knowledge that the atomic bomb would come along. Had D-day failed by summer of 1945 we would have been bombing Germany with atomic bombs and the war would have ended pretty fast.)

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Aisengard
I tend to think Eisenhower was an excellent president.

And he was a Republican!!! wooohooo

BTW: I am reading "D-Day" and it is amazing the amount of pressure on Eisenhower leading up to that day. The fate of 200,000+ men lay on his shoulder and the fate of the war.
(At least they thought it was the fate of the war since they had no knowledge that the atomic bomb would come along. Had D-day failed by summer of 1945 we would have been bombing Germany with atomic bombs and the war would have ended pretty fast.)

Too bad the Republicans of the first half of the century have pretty much nothing in common with the modern Republicans.

 

[Craig234]

I tend to think Eisenhower was an excellent president.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And he was a Republican!!! wooohooo

A republican who had the bulk of taxes paid by corporations in the reverse of today, a top tax rate of 90%, massive spending on the infrastructure, who was the enemy of the radical right wing of the republican party, who warned the nation of the threat of the military-industrial complex (he coined the term), and who said:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

I like that kind of republican.

I think he was broadly a good president; and that he had his errors, too. He sided with the English extorting cheap oil by Iran and replaced democracy with the dictator Shah, with the ramifactions lasting to this day as the shah was replaced by radicals we now consider a nuclear threat. He sided with the French over Vietnamese independants, paying up to 90% of the cost of the French war costs there and paving the way for the Viet Nam war, he left JFK the Bay of Pigs fiasco, etc.

 

[Lemon law]

On many social issues---I hardly think of Ike as a good President---but compared to many Presidents who followed---there are many things good to say about him. And also the last President who shouldered great national responsibility as a non-politician---and made sure that the vast infrastructure under him preformed when the chips are down---not many know that
Ike had penned a resignation letter in the event D-day failed---not many know that he averted a horrible epidemic in a training camp under his command by being willing to listen to outside medical experts----unlike other military commanders----Ike was actually---gasp---competent.

Certainly not perfect----but competent and not a mean spirited.

 

[Todd33]

We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Originally posted by: Craig234
I appreciate the nice response Straightalker. I'd just like to see the widely repeated but incorrect 'court stole the election' replaced with 'Gore won' and 'the election was stolen'.

The members of the right wing who deny the facts have lost any respect as people who are honest OR democracy loving Americans.

Liberals just can't accept facts.

Since you are the one poster here I've said gets things wrong in Every Single Post you make in politics, Pabster, you don't disappoint. Most liberals can accept facts, so of course, you got that wrong.

Gore lost, plain and square.

No, you are an ideologue, and therefore you you believe the answer that you want to, whatever the facts. You want Gore to have lost fair and square, so you simply say he did. You likely know next to nothing of the facts you just got done ironically pointing out are important. You certainly reflect no knowledge of them in your post.

What is hilarious is that he lost his own home state.

I still chuckle every time I see that mentioned. Ha, ha, hilarious. You are a bonehead.

Only George McGovern circa 1972 has had that dubious honor in recent times.

Define home state - birth state, or state of residence?

For example, both Bushes never won their home states (Sr. Massachussetts, Jr. Connecticut), but don't worry, Kerry did not win his either, Colorado. (Ha, ha, you are saying?)

Funny enough, Al Gore won his while Bush lost his.

But you meant state of residence, which you claim is some sort of outrageous, amazing thing.

What you fail to mention, whe you cite McGovern in 72 as the last previous example, is that in every election from 1900 to 1972 but five - that's 14 elections - at least one of the two nominees lost their state of residence.

Can you be any more misleading?

You are, of course similarly misleading in your selective quotation of the recount, mentioning only the "undercount" scenario.

A ballot in which the voter, for example, both checked Al Gore and wrote in his name, mistaking the instruction for write-in candidates, would not count as an undervote, but rather as what's called an "overvote". Overvotes are included in the count I described, all ballots where the intent was clear - and Florida law would count all such ballots.

Pabster, I find dishonesty offensive, and you are not looking good with the repeated false and misleading posts.

In fact, from the very source you cite but so selectively, click on the following link to see the pretty chart showing Gore winning three out of three recount scenarios:

Gore wins chart from Wikipedia

Basically, under all the important scenarios - the ones which count the votes you can tell the intent on - Gore wins. Every one of the scenarios.

But to look 'balanced', the writers made some new categories for counting votes, where you exclude some votes where you can tell intent, and under some, Bush won.

I'm not so interested in those latter types, where you ignore the votes where you can tell who the voter wanted.

What should matter to Americans is who the voters intended to win, and that was overwhelmingly clearly Al Gore.

Especially when you count the other issues I mentioned like the butterly ballot that caused thousand of voters who wanted Gore to get counted for Buchanan, and other issues.

Ooooh they could hear that smack upside pabsters head in space! Nice!