Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Why is Gore Trying to Steal the Presidency? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (789)	11/17/2000 1:20:36 PM
From: MasonS	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

Let's not forget that the Fl Attorney Gen...who said re-counts should continue was the co-chairman of Gore's campaign...

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (789)	11/17/2000 1:51:13 PM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

Art: I hear your arguments, but in all honesty they weigh little in how this whole matter has evolved. Yes, this matter will undoubted come before the Florida Supreme Court as it should. But don't necessarily expect that Court to rule in a manner to your liking. Your assertion that Ms. Harris has acted in a manner that reflects more a conflict of interest and less in a manner that is a reflection of her duties to follow the letter of the law of the State of Florida in these matters belies the integrity of the J. Lewis's initial ruling on this matter as well as his ruling today. Its obvious that you don't accept his ruling on the LAW, and likely question his partisanship to this matter as well. If not, then I suggest you reconsider your assertion because if in-fact J. Lewis believed that Ms. Harris had acted in the way you have asserted, you would have seen language in his opinion to that effect. You didn't. And therefore this is something the Supreme Court is not going to consider -- her partisanship to the Republican Party. Such an issue is not before the court and never was. For you to rely upon this to defend your position is merely an effort in frustration and desperation. To focus on this matter objectively, what can you say about the apparent partisanship underway at the local level. We have heavily Democratic counties conducting a hand count where disputed ballots are ruled upon by predominately dominated Democratic canvassing boards. As this is not enough, when the will of the people as expressed by a local canvassing board, decides not to hold a full manual count you have the effort of a out-of-state political campaign exerting pressure, both publicly, and through litigation, to compel a full manual recount. Would you be statesmanlike to agree that there's a modicum of conflict of interest in the whole manner in which these recounts have been engendered? Remember, we first heard cries of an illegal ballot which resulted in an inordinate amount of votes for Buchanan. Now that ballot has been determined as legal, yet we still have recounting in 2, and possibly a third predominately Democratic party. The fact that the Democratic party is on a fishing expedition and not in search of a true voter expression is indisputable. As for me, I am not worried by the recount underway, because I believe that even with the recount, Gore will not have enough votes to overcome the margin that Bush will achieve when the overseas ballots are canvassed and certified this weekend. Moreover, any effort by those in control of the hand count to create more votes for Gore than what are truly there only undermine their cause as it truly calls into question the veracity of the how the hand vote was conducted. Try and put yourself in the shoes of a truly objective disinterested individual no matter how difficult. Then weigh what is going on at the local level, for example, the determination by the Palm Beach local canvassing board to include dimpled or impregnated chads as votes, which IMHO no objective observer could support as an objective decision, against the actions of the Secretary of State, whose conduct has, at least at the present has passed the scrutiny of a court of law. In short, Art, you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for some reason to overturn J. Lewis's decision. This is not what the Supreme Court will look at. It will look at whether her discretion is broad enough to outweigh the intent of the canvassing boards in the three counties, Palm Beach, Broward, and possible Miami-Dade. Even if it rules in this manner, don't be surprise if the Supreme Court throws the matter back into her lap, but only to weigh "the will of the people" against the interests of finality. It is clear that the "will of the people" is certainly in question down in South Florida as evidenced by outside pressures of the Democratic party, the "on the fence" decision making by the Broward and Miami-Dade County canvassing boards, and the decision by the Palm Beach County canvassing board to include dimpled or impregnated chads. Finally, the Supreme Court, if it rules in this manner, is NOT going to tell the Secretary of State to ACCEPT the manual recounts; it going to order here to WEIGH the integrity of the result in the exercise of her DISCRETION, and any objective reasonable person can find a basis to weigh lightly the results of these hand counts for the reasons I have just given. In short, the Democrats, and your argument, has a steep slope to climb, and the Supreme Court, even if it rules in a manner that might be construed in the Democratic favor, it is NOT going to rule that the manual counts MUST BE COUNTED as their INTEGRITY is UNDOUBTEDLY in QUESTION. Remember, high courts don't deal in FACTS; they deal in LAW.