SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: SecularBull who wrote (76274)11/15/2000 5:02:54 PM
From: Broken_Clock  Respond to of 769667
 
Mike Kelly nails it....

AL'S STOMACH-TURNING PIETY
Wednesday,November 15,2000



IT'S a toss-up as to what is most revolting about
Al Gore's determination to vote-rig his way into
the White House.

But I think the real stomach-turner is the piety.
The vice president appeared before the cameras
Monday to lecture us about what is at stake here:
"And what is at stake here is more important than
who wins the presidency. What is at stake here is
the integrity of our democracy, making sure that
the will of the people is expressed and accurately
received. . . . And so that's what I'm focused on.
Not the contest, but our democracy."

Just what is it that Al, The Great Defender, has
done in his fight (not to win but) to preserve the
integrity of democracy? First, he lost the
democratic vote in Florida and this, on top of his
other losses, meant he lost the presidential
election. He conceded this, but then, as it became
clear that the closeness of the Florida vote meant
a mandated recount, withdrew his concession.

Then, with the recount likely to confirm Bush the
victor, he sent brigades of lawyers and political
operators to Florida to look for loopholes. Then
his man Daley warned that the Gore campaign would
sue rather than accept the verdict of the recount.

Then, The Watchman of Our Integrity seized upon the
results in Palm Beach County, where it appeared
that a ballot confusing to people who did not
understand directional arrows had led to perhaps as
many as a few thousand votes miscast for Pat
Buchanan and as many as 19,000 ballots voided for
double-voting. And so was orchestrated a great cry
that the great people of this great county had been
robbed.

Never mind that there were no allegations of fraud
in Palm Beach County; or that the ballot form had
been designed by a Democratic elections official;
or that a similar thing had occurred in 1996, when
14,000 votes were voided in this apparently
endlessly confused county; or that this sort of
thing in fact happens in every election, all over
the country - this year, 120,523 improperly punched
votes were voided in Cook County, Ill.

Then it appeared that The Selfless One would lose
the automatic recount. Then he realized that
democracy would be even better protected if the
20,000 or so misdirected voters of Palm Beach
County never did get their intended votes counted,
because there was a better, easier way to get
himself elected.

The Keeper of the Founders' Faith could wiggle his
way into the White House by cherry-picking a few
thousand uncounted Democratic votes. This would not
rescue the miscast or voided Palm Beach votes: A
hand recount would simply confirm the votes for
Buchanan and still reject the double-punched
ballots.

So it was directed that Democratic officials in
four heavily populated, heavily Democratic counties
demand hand recounts, in search of machine errors.

The nice thing about this, integrity-wise, is that
a hand recount in any county is mathematically
certain to produce more votes for the majority
party. A hand recount enlarges the vote and
enlarges it proportionately, so forcing hand
recounts only in Democratic counties guarantees
only Democratic gains.

The even nicer thing was that Bush had missed
numerous deadlines to demand hand recounts in most
GOP counties. The yet nicer thing was that this
stunt would drive the Bush campaign into court,
where they would likely lose, since everything The
Man Who Put His Country First had done had been
perfectly legal.

Not to mention Noble.



To: SecularBull who wrote (76274)11/15/2000 5:03:35 PM
From: jlallen  Respond to of 769667
 
Good point. Of course we need to see the opinion itself to be sure. JLA