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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ish who wrote (123420)	1/23/2001 10:23:18 PM
From: mst2000	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

It was NOT 7-2 to stop the recount. It was 5-4 to stop the recount. What is the problem with you guys? Both Souter and Breyer (2 of the alleged 7) said they would not have taken the case or interfered in the recount, and both tore the majority a new sphincter over the stay that was granted. Agreeing that there were legitimate concerns about the different standards adopted by different counties during the recount (which is ALL Souter and Breyer did) is not the same as agreeing that the recounts should have been stopped. The 4 dissenters did not concur in any part of the majority decision, even as they expressed agreement with certain concerns raised by O'Connor and Kennedy (while disagreeing completely on how the USSC should have acted in response to those concerns -- first, don't take the case at all as it raised no substantial federal issue, and, second, having erred by taking the case, don't err further by saying that the clock had run out when clearly it had not). As for your second point, the Herald analysis is not out yet. Until it is, there is no point in arguing what the newspaper recounts show, and right wing statements thgat Bush probably won anyway are waaaaayyyyy premature. But the real point is this. A post hoc look at the vote misses the point completely, irrespective of who "wins". The time for conducting a proper recount was before the final results were stamped official by the USSC. The Bush team did everything they could, from the moment the polls closed, to obstruct lawful recounts from proceeding. They acted (i) to make sure no manual recount, fair or otherwise, ever occurred (e.g., Baker's tactical assault on recounts), (ii) to actively interfere, through state officials closely affiliated with the Bush campaign but acting under color of government authority, with the progress of manual recounts that had been commenced as provided under state law before the certification deadline passed (e.g., the positions taken by K. Harris, which the FSC unanimously ruled were unlawful), (iii) to interfere with the counts as they proceeded after the certification deadline passed (e.g., objecting in PB County to every sixth ballot, whether or not objectionable, in order to slow PB down and cause them to miss the FSC imposed deadline, the "protesters" who stormed the Courthouse in Dade after being told "to shut down" the count and who obstructed, intimidated and interfered with the administration of the election, who turned out to have been paid by the GOP, etc.), and (iv) to then claim that time had run out, as if they had nothing to do with it. If the democrats had done this to stop a GOP recount under reverse circumstances, you guys would have gone totally nuts -- as it was, the mere act of asking for the recounts (which were clearly permitted by Florida law) led right wingers to claim, like a mantra, that Gore was trying to steal the election and that they would never accept the result if it was not in Dubya's favor. So irrespective of how the newspaper recounts turn out (and I think they will show that Gore beat Bush by a wide margin in Florida, not even taking into account tens of thousands of overvotes that were intended as votes for Gore but were screwed up because of the butterfly ballot and the 2 page ballot in Duval), it does NOT let Bush off the hook for the deplorable approach he and his campaign took to this. It is and remains the most shameful display of lust for power (the lengths to which one party was prepared to go to in order to ensure victory in spite of the democratic will of the people) in my lifetime -- and it was despicable by any standards, and regardless of the ultimate outcome. We will never accept Dubya as our president, nor we will reconcile ourselves to his illegitimate presidency. The price of this despicable behavior will be 4 years of civil unrest by those whose democratic rights were so casually tossed aside by the Bush campaign in its lust for victory. It is not nearly enough. Restore honor and dignity to the White House?? Dubya doesn't even understand what those words mean -- he couldn't even act with honor and dignity at the most critical juncture of this election. Indeed, that tells it all -- he is all pretty words . . . but when you go under the surface and look at what he does, and not just what he says, what you get is a lot harsher, a lot more ideological, and one helluva lot less "compassionate" than the lofty rhetoric.