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: long-gone who wrote (123464)	1/24/2001 6:18:46 PM
From: mst2000	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Odd - the recounts you are complaining about did not seem nearly as disorganized or mishandled as the GOP rhetoric has made them out to be (both at the time and since). From what I could tell, by watching the recounts as they proceeded on CSPAN, the main problems with the process stemmed from GOP histrionics (such as the frivilous objections made to almost every ballot by GOP operatives who were out to sabotage the process and make it look as unfair and disorganized as possible, because it suited their objectives to do that). And perhaps most importantly, the recount ordered by the FSC (which the 4 USSC dissenters would have allowed to continue, or modified to encompass those counties that had already been recounted - along with the ones that had not been - in order to meet the conservative justices' EP concerns) would have been conducted under the auspices of a Circuit Court judge sworn to uphold the law (and which were proceeding in a very orderly fashion until the 5 Conservative Bloc justices at USSC stayed the process). But you do state the GOP party line very well. I guess you are from the school that says that you when you have a dispute over what a piece of paper says, the one thing you CAN'T do is look at that piece of paper, because that would corrupt the process. When precisely the opposite is true. C'mon, admit it, the only way to ensure inaccuracy in the outcome was to NOT look at all -- which was the core of Bush's strategy even before the recounts started. And the only reason Bush took that position was because he was ahead by a slim margin when the recount requests were first made. Understandable, but still immoral and lacking in honr or dignity. Even the inventor of the machine, who was called to testify by the Bush camp in the contest trial, admitted under cross-examination that the ONLY way to get an accurate result in this close an election would have been to manually inspect each undervoted ballot. Lastly, and this is perhaps the most critical point, the bottom line is that Florida law expressly contemplated that the recounts must take place when requested in a timely fashion and a requisite showing was made. Whether you liked them or not, recounts are what Florida law provided for. And with the margin of "victory" being less than 1/100 of 1%, and the error rate on punch baoots being over 10 times the error rate on other types of ballots being used in the State, the recounts were clearly justified. Going into the election, both candidates would have thought that, if the outcome were exceptionally close and there were statistical anamolies in cerain counties on the counting of punch ballots, a manual recount would be available. The federal laws and constitutional provisions dictated respecting these state procedures as they existed before the election. The candidate who advocated ignoring Florida law, and used state officials affiliated with his campaign improperly to assure that Florida law on recounts would NOT be followed, was George W. Bush. And the justices who advocated usurping a State Supreme Court decision interpreting state law through the exercise of federal judicial intervention were the so-called conservatives who normally bend over backwards not to interfere with state court decisions regarding state law. All of whom happened to be politically affiliated with the views of the candidate who benefitted from their decision. and this you expect us to accept and reconcile ourselves to? Sorry, not gonna happen. Every time I hear Ari Fleisher pontificate that this (i.e., the right wing agenda) is what the American people elected Dubya to do, I think -- wait, the American people didn't elect Bush, they elected Gore. And tens of millions see it exactly as I do. But I'm sure calling us JERKS somehow vindicates you and your immoral position on this one. And you're right -- we do have a president -- but the only vote he really won was a 5-4 vote before the USSC.

To: long-gone who wrote (123464)	1/24/2001 7:02:46 PM
From: mst2000	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Odd - the recounts you are complaining about did not seem nearly as disorganized or mishandled as the GOP rhetoric has made them out to be (both at the time and since). From what I could tell, by watching the recounts as they proceeded on CSPAN, the main problems with the process stemmed from GOP histrionics (such as the frivilous objections made to almost every ballot by GOP operatives who were out to sabotage the process and make it look as unfair and disorganized as possible, because it suited their objectives to do that). And perhaps most importantly, the recount ordered by the FSC (which the 4 USSC dissenters would have allowed to continue, or modified to encompass those counties that had already been recounted - along with the ones that had not been - in order to meet the conservative justices' EP concerns) would have been conducted under the auspices of a Circuit Court judge sworn to uphold the law (and which were proceeding in a very orderly fashion until the 5 Conservative Bloc justices at USSC stayed the process). But you do state the GOP party line very well. I guess you are from the school that says that you when you have a dispute over what a piece of paper says, the one thing you CAN'T do is look at that piece of paper, because that would corrupt the process. When precisely the opposite is true. C'mon, admit it, the only way to ensure inaccuracy in the outcome was to NOT look at all -- which was the core of Bush's strategy even before the recounts started. And the only reason Bush took that position was because he was ahead by a slim margin when the recount requests were first made. Understandable, but still immoral and lacking in honr or dignity. Even the inventor of the machine, who was called to testify by the Bush camp in the contest trial, admitted under cross-examination that the ONLY way to get an accurate result in this close an election would have been to manually inspect each undervoted ballot. Lastly, and this is perhaps the most critical point, the bottom line is that Florida law expressly contemplated that the recounts must take place when requested in a timely fashion and a requisite showing was made. Whether you liked them or not, recounts are what Florida law provided for. And with the margin of "victory" being less than 1/100 of 1%, and the error rate on punch baoots being over 10 times the error rate on other types of ballots being used in the State, the recounts were clearly justified. Going into the election, both candidates would have thought that, if the outcome were exceptionally close and there were statistical anamolies in cerain counties on the counting of punch ballots, a manual recount would be available. The federal laws and constitutional provisions dictated respecting these state procedures as they existed before the election. The candidate who advocated ignoring Florida law, and used state officials affiliated with his campaign improperly to assure that Florida law on recounts would NOT be followed, was George W. Bush. And the justices who advocated usurping a State Supreme Court decision interpreting state law through the exercise of federal judicial intervention were the so-called conservatives who normally bend over backwards not to interfere with state court decisions regarding state law. All of whom happened to be politically affiliated with the views of the candidate who benefitted from their decision. and this you expect us to accept and reconcile ourselves to? Sorry, not gonna happen. Every time I hear Ari Fleisher pontificate that this (i.e., the right wing agenda) is what the American people elected Dubya to do, I think -- wait, the American people didn't elect Bush, they elected Gore. And tens of millions see it exactly as I do. But I'm sure calling us JERKS somehow vindicates you and your immoral position on this one. And you're right -- we do have a president -- but the only vote he really won was a 5-4 vote before the USSC.