Tastes Like Chicken Posted this on the Propaganda thread. It is another Posterity post because in it's content he describes why there are so many NON Voters without actually using the term. I've copied it in its entirety for your viewing pleasure.
To: lawdog who wrote (105194)
From: Tastes Like Chicken
Friday, Dec 8, 2000 6:08 AM ET
Reply # of 107442
That argument is totally vacuous. I hesitate to even get into it, since I know facts will not change your mind...
The winner of a close election would have no logical reason to ask for a recount, because he or she already won.
The recount concept was obviously set up to allow a loser in a close election to protest the results and see if he or
she actually won.
That's pretty simple. You're an attorney, you should be able to grasp that.
The 'recount the entire state' mantra was simple PR, nothing more. It was clever, I admit that, but nothing but PR,
as there was no way under the law that Gore, Bush, or anyone else could have called for a statewide recount after
the deadline to ask for a recount had passed.
The only method that anyone has suggested might have resulted in a statewide recount (at the first point Mr. Gore
"offered" it) was 'get a court to order it'. If it is against Florida law, it is insane to think that the winner of the election
would ask a Florida court to commit a crime and recount the entire state that he or she already won. You see this,
right?
You, like Mr. Gore, actually believe that he won the state's popular vote. This is because you, like Mr. Gore,
believe that since he won the popular vote outside Florida, he must have won the popular vote in Florida.
Your presumption is that Gore won Florida. This presumption is incorrect. Bush won the state. It was a close
election. Had Mr. Gore actually wanted a full statewide recount, he would have asked for it at the proper time. But
he did not. He asked for recounts in three counties that he knew would skew the election in his favor if he could get
the additional votes.
To assist him in obtaining the additional votes, the definition of the word "vote" was changed after the election took
place.
It almost worked. The problem was that Mr. Gore's helpers had no alternative but to play their game in public.
That is where the public relations nightmare began. The general public had no basic argument with a loser wanting
to make sure he was actually a loser, and maybe even a winner. They stood by and watched. Lots of people root
for the underdog, espectially if he is the overdog on the next street down the block.
But, there was a peripheral problem. There must be a dispute in order to get people to rally to your side. In order
to gain support for the dispute about the election, it was necessary to polarize the public. This was done by creating
the chant about letting every vote count.
That was the point where the whole plan went south. That was the exact point where things went sour. The reason
was, and is, and always has been, that this has nothing to do with letting every vote count.
I knew it right at that point. Jesse Jackson gets into the picture and starts mumbling about Black voters that got
stopped on the way to the polls. Their votes did not count.
Every vote did not count! Must be the same thing as the votes that did not get counted by the Evil Vote Counting
Machine From Hell. Must be the Bad Guys are racist. Let every vote count!
David Boies argues it in front of a State Supreme Court, and he massages them into believing it! Let every vote
count! We need to count a few more votes, we need a few more days, Let Every Vote Count! A Full, Fair, and
Accurate Count! Not "recount", don't use that word. DO NOT USE THE WORD RECOUNT! You have to
imply that the actual count was unfair, partial and not accurate. That was Lie #1.
But there is another problem. Same one as before. The news camera happens to catch a Gore attorney objecting to
a military absentee ballot because it has no postage, and the military VOTE is tossed out, in violation of federal law.
The Gore attorney lied. Lie #2.
Ooooops. Al failed to understand the significance of that.
Very, very bad PR move. Here is why: You can't be lying to people when you are engaged in public relations and
then expect them all to go along with you. It's a very basic idea. If you lie, you eventually will lose the public
relations battle in BOTH an honorable atmosphere and a dishonorable one. That is a stone cold fact. The reason is
because if you lie continuously, you will eventually have nobody to agree with you except the few that have the
exact same goal that you have, and that goal is that you must win despite any opposition, event, or fact to the
contrary.
Fact: If you lie in your PR, you will distance yourself from people who think lying is wrong.
Corollary: the more you lie, the more criminals you will attract and the more honorable people you will find
distancing yourself from your argument.
Which brings us to two basic philosophical questions.
1. Does the end justify the means?
2. Is it right, just, and honorable to break the law?
Answers:
1. If the end is right, then people will support a means that is unsavory only as long as it does not violate their own
sense of morals and ethics.
2. It is right to break the law only when the law is not moral and ethical, and even in that case, you are taking your
life into your own hands, so you better have some really good reason to do it.
History will record this incident in the light of honesty and ethical behavior vs. lying and misrepresentation of the
facts. These are, as you well know, somewhat subjective criteria. But there IS good, and there IS evil, and history
will record which people were good, and which were evil. That's the way it always breaks down in the end, good
and evil.
The Native Americans were extinguished. They were in the way of 'civilization'. Slavery was extinguished. It was in
the way of 'civilization'. The difference between the two events can only be understood if one dares to take a stance
on right and wrong.
At some point, one either succumbs to evil, or asserts his good. Very simple.
Al Gore has stepped over the line. He has embraced the idea of "whatever it takes, I don't care, I will fight until I
win." History will judge him in light of his decision to attack the rule of law and lie to try and obtain some advantage.
The result of his attack is clear to me. It should be clear to you in a few days. It will be clear to everyone shortly.
Al's message is: Let every vote count, as long as it conforms to my criteria of the word "vote", which does not
include military absentee ballots in Florida and absentee ballots in Seminole County, but does include dimpled
chads in Miami-Dade and Broward, so that the Will of All the People in the United States shows that I am the
president."
Bush would have done the same thing? Subjective speculation and irrelevant to the facts. I doubt it, but that is just
my opinion.
Al made a mistake. He loses. |
