Hello mst2000,
"a candidate has the absolute right to request a recount at any time up to the point of certification"
Are you sure about this? I thought the request had to be done within 3 days of the election (which Al did).
"in her opinion, the recounts were permitted only under circumstances that were extremely narrow - machine error only"
I believe this was more than her opinion. If you have a link for the FL statutes I will review further (and look myself also). I believe that she had the discretion to accept re-count results based on machine mal-function (which there was not), acts of god or foul play. None of those occurred, so I believe she was within the law. If she acted illegally it should have been an open and shut case against GWB I would think.
"her infamous "discretion" which she somehow managed to exercise in every instance to favor the Bush campaign"
She also exercised it in accordance with FL law. You are bringing up valid points that are challenging my position on this aspect. I need to look at the statutes to see if your assertions are true. Any back-up is appreciated.
"in an election in which less than 1,000 votes more or less separated the candidates out of 6 Million cast, and where there were approximately 100,000 undervotes, and massive ballot irregularities, most of them in these very 4 counties"
I suggest that there were no more irregularities in FL than there normally are. Because it was close, Al Gore wanted to challenge the irregularities that favored him. In the mean time his "operatives" were suppressing overseas ballots that had not been counted yet. They also were suing the c.b.'s that did not count votes the way he thought they should be counting and they wanted only the undervotes counted and not the overvotes. Every step they took (including picking 4 demo counties) was a calculated move designed by lawyers to maximize HIS vote count. It certainly was a chicken#@*t way to go (imo), and I think the law was not on his side. Need to research your points above to confirm (or refute) the legality issue.
"when no manual review of punch card ballots was EVER conducted even once"
What about Valusia and Broward Counties?
"and when they lost 7-0 in the FSC, they appealed to the USSC"
And the US SC ruled 9-0 that they wrote a bad ruling. They remanded it and sent it back. I will take the credibility of the US SC over the FL SC any day.
"who would have thought, going into the election, that it would be so hard to get a manual review of ballots in a razor close election"
Who would have thought that after conceding, then taking it back a candidate would hand pick a bunch of technicalities that specifically favored him while suppressing other potential votes (overseas ballots) that favored the other candidate? This of course was after a mandated machine re-count that favored nobody confirmed that GWB had won and there was no evidence of machine failure, act of god, or fraud. Even if all of Al's challenges were legal, I don't see how anyone would feel it is legitimate to overtake your opponent by hand picking certain rules in certain areas that only favor you (while suppressing your opponents votes). Seems un-American to me.
"applying standards of review that were far less liberal (in counting votes) than the standard that has existed under the state law in Texas for years"
This is absurd. The counting in Broward county was the most liberal interpretation ever used in a major election in the U.S. Considering dimples is not the same "counting" dimples. I am sure you saw some of Boise's arguments throughout this case and are probably aware that he had to revise what he had tole the FL SC (regarding an IL SC ruling) at the 1st hearing because he MISLEAD them. Isn't that against the law? Also, how do you justify him suing the PBC canvassing board? Judge Burton "considered" dimpled ballots and counted some, but did not automatically count all dimples as votes. As a repub I thought his standard was very fair (as did Judge Sauls), and was within FL law for the canvassing boards to set the standard. Al basically SUED him (the board?) for not automatically counting all dimples as votes, which to my understanding has NEVER been done in a major election. Even so, this is how he and the dem party want to claim their "legitimate" victory. Again, that is un-American to me and sets a bad example for America and the world. If he can use technicalities to PAD his vote total, GWB is well within his rights to shoot those technicalities down.
"the abomination at the USSC in which Dubya was appointed Prez by a 5-4 decision"
Your arguments are fairly good overall (again, I need to re-look at some legal technicalities), but the one above is a typical dem selective facts that sound best statement. The US SC voted SEVEN to TWO that the ruling by the FL SC was WRONG. The 5 to 4 vote was whether to give them a THIRD chance to get it right. I am surprised that was not more in GWB's favor as I don't see how anyone could believe a fair (impartial) result could be attained in just a few hours (48?).
I asked Nadine this earlier and will ask you. If all of Al's tactics succeeded and he won by 10 votes, would that have been legitimate to you? My contention is that the margin of victory was SO SMALL that you had to go with the method in place that favored neither candidate. That was the state mandated machine re-count totaled with the overseas ballots. Since Al never had the lead he could have kept his dignity by re-affirming his concession at that point.
"Thanks again for the civility. It would be a better world if there was greater civility between political "adversaries"."
You are welcome, and same to you. You pointed out in your last post a few areas where I was a bit too sarcastic, and you were right. I actually have a pretty good idea (and name) to start a websight that focuses on political and social issues where the thoughts and ideas of both sides can be fairly laid out and debated. I hate that on the TV shows that are supposed to do that they don't have enough time to get into a topic in any meaningful way and that the hosts usually lob giant softballs to their guests. When arguments are laid out in written form it is there for all to analyze and some debates may actually result in coming up with solutions to some of our problems (of which we have many).
Respectfully,
Scott |
