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 : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TraderGreg who wrote (3042)	11/22/2000 2:08:32 PM
From: CYBERKEN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

<<They picked the 26th/27th as a compromise date that would give the other side time to protest and still meet the Dec 12 date for selection of the electors>> I'm not even sure why this has to be explained. The court has no right to "pick" anything. They have the obligation to enforce the deadline set by the FLA legislature. in failing to do that, and instead picking their own date, they wrote themselves a little law. And you call it "hate" to stand opposed to such blatant judicial abuse...

To: TraderGreg who wrote (3042)	11/22/2000 2:09:22 PM
From: bwanadon	Respond to of 6710

Whoa Greg- I think you and I are more politically in tune than you might think. I prefer Bush over Gore by a whisker at best. In fact, I voted another party. I do, however, think that reasonable people can disagree about the net effect of the courts decision. IMO, they came down right about where you would expect a democratic court to arrive. Call it what you will but, in effect, they changed the date that was in the statue. Now I will agree that it was not totally unreasonable for them to do so under the circumstances. Not unreasonble for the other side to complain about the rule change either. I do not hate Gore. Undoubtedly there will be a number on either side that will harbor a long burning resentment either way. You are probably correct in your long term outlook for the winner. I do not share your concern with violence...and hope your concerns are not realized. People need to relax.

To: TraderGreg who wrote (3042)	11/22/2000 3:08:49 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 6710

Hi Greg, In time for the 37th Anniversary of the Kennedy assasination, we have a new book on the subject. Senator Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.) has just published "Passion for Truth" defending his Single Bullet Theory, among a number of other very interesting topics. amazon.com This review is quite well written and descriptive: Few people have been as involved in the major political investigations of the last 40 years as Senator Arlen Specter, the independent and tenacious Republican from Pennsylvania. With the help of his former press secretary Charles Robbins, Specter tells all, beginning with his prosecution of the Philadelphia Teamsters during Robert Kennedy's anticorruption investigations and ending with his role in President Clinton's impeachment proceedings. Specter is perhaps best known for his controversial opinions. As a member of the Warren Commission, he authored the Single Bullet Theory, which supported the charge that JFK was assassinated by a lone gunman. And as Anita Hill's Senate questioner, he declared that Clarence Thomas's accuser had committed "flat-out perjury." But his book presents a picture of an evenhanded man who has merely acted according to his belief that the nation's "political and social health ... rests on government's doggedly following facts to find truth and then acting on that truth to create public policy." In fact, his purpose in publishing the behind-the-scenes activities of the Warren Commission, Robert Bork's Supreme Court nomination, the Ruby Ridge investigation, the Thomas-Hill proceedings, and the presidential impeachment, is to restore the public's faith in government and end conspiracy theories born of incomplete facts. "Had congressional oversight on Waco been as effective as it was on Ruby Ridge," he writes, "the militia movement would have been less motivated to mobilize. It is even conceivable the Oklahoma City bombing could have been avoided." This is not a self-glorifying tale, nor remotely boring. Like the best of books, it opens with a bang: the dramatic re-creation of a little-remembered event--the day General Patton, at the behest of President Hoover, turned his guns on WWI veterans demonstrating for their promised bonus. This was an eye-opening event for Specter, whose family desperately needed the money. Since then, his mission has been to "push government to treat its citizens justly" and to demand the truth. To that end, he sifts the evidence surrounding each controversial event and searches for the lessons to be learned. He makes no demons or heroes out of the actors in these true-life dramas (in fact, he genuinely seems to like most everybody on either side of the aisle). He even acknowledges the ignorance of the "group of aging white males" in the Senate Judiciary Committee (including himself), who, in confronting Anita Hill's allegations, "didn't understand the explosive nature of the [sexual harassment] issue." He writes, "I had not known how painful it was for women who were watching the questioning, so many of whom had been victims of sexual harassment and saw themselves, almost through transference, in Hill's position." While Specter admits his mistakes, he offers no apologies, for it's not forgiveness he holds faith in, but the undying belief that "trust is the glue that holds a democracy together." --Lesley Reed ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Specter was on Bill Maher's Politically Incorrect last night and Bill plugged the book ruthlessly. :) Of course Maher voted for Nader, and so recuses himself from the claim he's a partisan, but I can tell he's evaluated the situation and prefers a Bush administration since it would be some much more facile and easily satirized. In one interchange, Maher said that Bush is a draft dodger, that his manipulation to get into the Texas Air National Guard was clear proof of this. One other guest on the show commented that the aircraft Bush flew was obsolete and thus not really at risk for use in the war effort. Specter replied that maybe we should commend Bush's bravery for flying an obsolete plane. :) Best, Ray