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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pezz who wrote (6866)	11/20/2000 1:51:10 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10042

But of course in Gore's defense he has said that he would agree to state wide manual counting . A proposition that was rejected by Baker. No defense there. It was a simple charade. Clearly, he did not expect Backer to legitimize a process that the bush campaign had vocally decried and rejected, and orchestrated a coordinated (and ongoing) challenge against. But I have said repeatedly that selective manual counting in FLA is a disgrace! And that Gore,were he to win would have no legitimacy without it Well, that is what I was saying! Again, we were agreeing. Nor am I sure that it did help Gore any more than Bush They DECLARED Florida for Al Gore early in the evening, while thousands upon thousands of Americans had not voted. This is tantamount to declaring Gore President. I don't see how that helps Bush. I remember that the Bush campaign was certainly disguising any obvious pleasure this Declaration might have given them...Hmmm. How to Invent Voter Confusion: dispatch.com I am glad to see that your opinions are always correct. Welcome to the top. The view is incredible, and you will get used to the extremely thin air! ;)

To: pezz who wrote (6866)	11/20/2000 7:53:43 AM
From: long-gone	Respond to of 10042

HAHAHAHA YES! Key Donors Break Ranks, Criticize Gore By ELIZABETH SHOGREN, Times Staff Writer The Democrats' top donor is disappointed in Vice President Al Gore's conduct since the presidential election and believes that the candidate bears responsibility for the stalemate because he failed to give Americans a "compelling reason" to choose him. And Peter Buttenwieser, whose $1.3 million in donations put him at the top of the list of individual donors to the election--Democrat or Republican--is apparently not alone. While much of the Democratic establishment has been presenting a united front during the Florida recount, several of Gore's biggest contributors and fund-raisers are quietly or openly expressing dissatisfaction with him, blaming him for the murky outcome. Among Republicans, donors are apparently still united in supporting Texas Gov. George W. Bush's call to end the voting and declare a victory. "I think it's time to bring it to a conclusion," said Howard Leach, a veteran GOP major donor and a San Francisco investment banker. "I'd do anything if I thought I could help," said Bradford Freeman, a Los Angeles merchant banker who is a donor and leading fund-raiser for Bush. Among critical Democrats, no one was more sweeping in his criticism than Buttenwieser: "My own feeling is that Gore had a really terrific chance to win, and I think he squandered that chance. "We ran a bad campaign at virtually every level." Buttenwieser, heir to a New York financial fortune who works as a consultant to struggling urban schools, scolded the camps of Gore and Bush for fomenting division and partisanship. Neither candidate, he stressed, has exhibited the statesmanship required at such a moment. Other Democratic donors stayed with the party songbook by expressing support for Gore's behavior thus far, but stressing that it will soon be time to stop. "I am supportive of what's happened so far in the process," said Marvin Lender, the retired bagel magnate who emerged as a substantial donor and fund-raiser for the Democrats after Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut was added to the ticket. "But I think at some point it has to come to an end, and it needs to be relatively soon." (cont) latimes.com

To: pezz who wrote (6866)	11/20/2000 8:14:47 AM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

So this is your way of attempting to win an election?(oh yeah, I forgot you also keep calling the other side's guy stupid) Rumor Mill News Read Only Forum GORE SET TO 'BLACKMAIL' ELECTORS? Posted By: Esclarmonde Date: Saturday, 18 November 2000, 1:06 p.m. Thomas Sowell (back to story) November 17, 2000 More desperate, more ugly It was only a few words among the millions that have been spewed out through the media about the presidential election, but they were among the weightiest -- and most chilling -- of these words. A front-page story in the Wall Street Journal mentioned in passing "a quiet intelligence-gathering operation" begun by the Gore camp, "checking into the backgrounds of Republican electors, with an eye toward persuading them to vote for Mr. Gore." Those who vote in the electoral college are not legally bound to vote for those whom the voters in their states voted for. But if the Gore operatives are merely trying to "persuade" Bush electors to defect, then why this hush-hush digging into the past of these electors? All this is going on while the Gore spokesmen are saying on TV at every opportunity that "every vote should count." But a Bush voter's vote will not count if his elector who actually votes in the electoral college decides to vote for Gore, rather than have some scandal from his past made public. This is only the latest in the desperate and ugly tactics used by the Gore camp, in order to take the presidency by all means necessary. Nor is this a new tactic for the Clinton/Gore administration. It was used against Congressman Bob Livingston and Chairman Henry Hyde, whose old extra-marital affairs were dug up and made public on the eve of the impeachment hearings. It was used against Linda Tripp, whose confidential personnel files were made public, with an assurance from Attorney General Janet Reno that the person who made them public would not be prosecuted. This is the same administration that kept Wen Ho Lee in solitary confinement for nine months without a trial, on grounds that he was so dangerous to national security that he could not be allowed at large -- and then dropped the vast majority of the charges against him when time came to put up or shut up in court. This supposedly dangerous man had been free as a bird for months after the security breach that he was accused of had taken place, before he was suddenly locked up -- and he is now free as a bird yet again after all but one of the 58 charges were dropped. This extraordinary punishment without conviction caused something equally extraordinary -- a public apology in open court to Mr. Lee by the federal judge who had sent him to prison. The judge had done so on the basis of dire national security claims made by the Clinton administration, claims which the judge now said turned out to be completely misleading. The "politics of personal destruction," which Bill Clinton has publicly deplored, has been his method of operation for years, going all the way back to his days as governor of Arkansas. Al Gore has now taken over the techniques of his mentor, with his operatives' innuendoes about Ralph Nader's sex life on the eve of the election and their digging up George W. Bush's minor brush with the law 24 years ago. More is involved here than "dirty tricks" or the character flaws of those who engage in them. These corrupt ways of operating are a danger to the very nature of American government. If you can steal an election by blackmailing members of the electoral college, then democracy becomes a farce. Constitutional checks and balances mean nothing if you can blackmail anyone who would expose your illegal actions and ruin a few of them just to show that you mean business. Bob Livingston was scheduled to become Speaker of the House, but now he is not even a member of Congress. Who would ever want to prosecute any president for anything and be subjected to months of character assassination like Kenneth Starr, including reckless and inflammatory charges that Starr had violated the law? These charges all turned out to be wholly unsubstantiated when examined in a court of law, but that did not stop them from being repeated anyway on nationwide television during the impeachment hearings. If the government of the United States is going to be run like the mafia or a Third World despotism, what does our freedom amount to? Any of us could be thrown into prison and kept in solitary confinement for months like Wen Ho Lee, until we "confessed" to something -- however minor -- just so we could get out, and so that the administration gets off the hook legally and Janet Reno can discount our statements as those of a "criminal." Is this America? Do we want another administration like this? ©2000 Creators Syndicate, Inc. rumormillnews.net