Is Gore correct in what he said tonight? I refer specifically to this excerpt from his speech:

"That is all we have asked since Election Day: a complete count of all the votes cast in Florida. Not recount after recount as some have charged, but a single, full and accurate count.

We haven't had that yet. Great efforts have been made to prevent the counting of these votes. Lawsuit after lawsuit has been filed to delay the count and to stop the counting for many precious days between Election Day and the deadline for having the count finished.

And this would be over long since, except for those efforts to block the process at every turn.

In one county, election officials brought the count to a premature end in the face of organized intimidation. In a number of counties, votes that had been fairly counted were simply set aside. And many thousands of votes that were cast on Election Day have not yet been counted at all, not once."

Ignore the possibility that Democrats are just as guilty of these charges, or similar charges. In fact, go ahead and assume that. That's irrelevant to my question. I am curious to know what people here think of the above quoted words. Are they correct? If not, why not? Try to stick to facts, not emotion.

[Scott_H]

Gosh PeeCee to think you pass yourself off as impartial? You fall right into the FUD of Gore. Please don�t tell me that your playing devils advocate here. Take Bush�s side and invite people to argue for Gore.

1) The votes were counted. Some were not punched either by choice, voter error or act of God. Those votes are invalid. Sorry voter. Check your ballot for chad next time like my wife did this time.

2) It would not be over. They would be fighting even more. I did not buy the Republicans yarn about the hand recount not being more accurate. After seeing the hand recount in action I totally believe it. Broward is a perfect example of the board "voting for the voter".

3) That's false. Some guys were pissed that they were locked out of a public meeting. They just stood there and chanted "Let us in". Big deal. That board didn't want to do a hand recount in the first place.

[tioga]

It's hard to discover the facts here, let alone stick to them. The truth may come out in a year or two.
One big issue is the enormous stack of ballots that the machines could not count at all. The question is: If the machine can't count it, then it shouldn't count at all?
The inventor of the Voto-Matic machines believes that hand recounts are, in fact, a more accurate way to count ballots. But who cares whaat he thinks.
So far, most of those involved in this morass have behaved poorly (candidates, staff, public officials, citizens). Either candidate will need to overcome this negativity before he can get anything done. That may be good. Both candidates have become subordinate to their lawyers. It seems what their lawyers say and do, is way more important than what they say and do. What a scene.
Meanwhile, the stock markets plummet, and the public has a very short attention span. Ho Ho Ho.

[dinero68]

Ever heard of Entropy? As time goes on, sh*t gets more and more f*cked up. Same with the votes. If he 'recounts' them all, he'll win.... and if he doesnt? He'll demand a recount until he wins. If someone paid me enough, he'd be sniper rifle meat. He pisses me off.

Ca$h

[deedar]

In a word, yes.

[Scott_H]

I forgot to add that many of those 10,000 "uncounted" votes do infact have no votes on them. That is the voters intent is to vote for no one. So if those were counted as no votes then they were counted.

[This message has been edited by Scott_H (edited 11-28-2000).]

[CaseCom]

I'm disgusted with both sides in this mess. The idealistic rhetoric isn't hiding what this is all about for both sides: doing whatever it takes to win.

If Gore held a thin lead the Republicans would be screaming for a full, "accurate" count and the Democrats would be trying to slam the door on the recounts. And you know it.

Any kind of "civics lesson" benefit in this mess has been lost. It serves only to deepen the cynicism about American politics.

And for what it's worth, I wanted Gore to win.

[jholmes]

As I said in another thread. The statement that those votes haven't been counted is just plain wrong.
These are machine ballots designed to be counted by purpose built machines that do nothing but that. They have been counted by the machines twice and did not register a vote. For whatever reason

Gore is attempting to mislead the American electorate by charging that these have not been counted. And that is a bald faced lie.

My respect for Mr. Gore - and sadly for Mr. Lieberman - grows less every day.

[Gregg]

In a word, no. In more words...

"That is all we have asked since Election Day: a complete count of all the votes cast in Florida."

That's a bald faced lie. All they have asked for is to recount ballots in heavily Democratic counties. The recount of all ballots was mandated by Florida law.

"Not recount after recount as some have charged, but a single, full and accurate count."

Full? No, partial. And partial to whom? Albert Gore, Jr. that's who.

"We haven't had that yet."

Yes we have, as mandated by Florida law.

"Great efforts have been made to prevent the counting of these votes."

No, the endless recounting of ballots, as in recount after recount.

"Lawsuit after lawsuit has been filed to delay the count and to stop the counting for many precious days between Election Day and the deadline for having the count finished."

No, deadlines, plural -one of them ex post facto.

"And this would be over long since, except for those efforts to block the process at every turn."

No, except for the Sore Loserman appeal to count until they win.

"In one county, election officials brought the count to a premature end in the face of organized intimidation."

No, the head of the commission there said on national TV that the legal demonstration had no impact on the decision not to start the recount. This in the county that originally took a sample (before the real deadline) and decided not to do a hand recount because of the insignificant difference found w/ respect to the machine count, but later relented in the face of increasing pressure from the Gore mafia.

"In a number of counties, votes that had been fairly counted were simply set aside."

No, recounted.

"And many thousands of votes that were cast on Election Day have not yet been counted at all, not once."

Patently false. Votes are not counted. Votes are tabulated. Ballots are counted. All ballots were counted, including the ones that did not result in votes being tabulated. That also includes the absentee ballots that were set aside without being opened. Their count was that the officials decided they didn't count.

Mr. Gore appears to be a congenital liar.

Gregg

Scott,

I'm sick and tired of explaining my views to you, only to have you twist the meaning. I was going to explain my view of Gore's words, but now I'll let you think whatever you want to think.

[gumby5647]

let me just put in my two cents here.

ah ok, for all of you thinking "if it was gore ahead, bush would be screaming and demanding a recount as well"

Please consider this, Iowa, gore won by a very slim margin, did bush demand a recount? NO. I think that there are a few other states where this happened.

To me, the simple fact that bush did not object to the count in iowa or demand a recount in other flordia counties just goes to show that he puts trust in the american voter that thats who they voted for. He has faith in them.



i did not vote, i am neither republican nor democrat. and if you ask me.....the canvassing boards should be, republican, democrat, reform.

NOT republican democrat, democrat.



every passing day this goes on, gore is damaging his parties crediblity and trust. (not a good thing from my stand point, but then again i have a big thing with "trust")



but like i said, just my two cents...

[Gregg]

Aw, 'cmon PC, I didn't even understand what Scott meant, and I read it, re-read it, and read it again. (I might have goritis!) I think I demonstrated that Al's little tome has enough partially correct information in it to make a lie sound like the truth. It would be awfully hard for anyone to claim that his statement did not shade the truth, and contained no factual errors. So, I'm sure that can't be your position.

[CaseCom]

Originally posted by gumby5647:
To me, the simple fact that bush did not object to the count in iowa or demand a recount in other flordia counties just goes to show that he puts trust in the american voter that thats who they voted for. He has faith in them.

To me, the simple fact that Bush did not object the the count in Iowa just goes to show that Iowa has only seven electoral votes. Iowa would have no effect on the final outcome no matter which way the state went.

And he didn't demand a recount in the other Florida counties because he's ahead. No one who's ahead demands a recount. It's easy to "put trust in the American voter" when you're ahead.

Again, empty rhetoric.

[Gregg]

CC, you're isolating Iowa, and you're correct that its 7 EC votes alone would not help Bush if he lost Florida. But, the voting was close in Oregon (9) and Wisconsin (11) also, making 27, and I believe N.M. has 5, making 32 total in the closest states. N.H. was close too, and went for Bush, so he would have needed all of the others mentioned if Gore challenged and reversed the result there.

The potential blunder in not asking for recounts in heavily Republican counties was if Gore had pulled enough votes out of the Democratic counties to move ahead. The time for requesting a recount in the protest phase was three days, I believe, and was not extended. But, if Bush had asked for recounts, he could not protest the fact that Gore had done so. All his eggs were in one basket; invalidating the hand recounts. Now, if Gore manages to reverse the certified results in the contest phase, I'm not sure what options Bush would have. Time is running short for the appointment of Electors, and they say that timing is everything.

Gregg

[Scott_H]

Here's a good one.
http://cbsnews.com/now/story/0,1597,252872-412,00.shtml

[Gregg]

Amazing article, Scott! You have to look hard for an objective analysis. The broadcast media have certainly been silent. I did hear Paul Harvey this morning sarcastically commenting on Gore's speech and the complicity of the TV networks, but that's about it.

[CaseCom]

"Objective analysis"? That's a commentary, which is fine, but it doesn't pretend to be objective.

More evidence that for a lot of people, "objective" equals "agrees with my views."

[Gregg]

I thought the article pointed out some facts that were inconsistent with Mr. Gore's statements. That's the objective part. Yes, there were some snide slams in there, against both sides, but the focus of the article was Gore's speech. Yes, the article agrees with my views, as expressed in this thread. That either means the author and I both got the facts right, or both got them wrong. I think we nailed it, and exposed the "half-truths" that politicians are so good at concocting. I'm sure I could find some in the statements made by Bush or James Baker as well. If you care to dispute any of the assertions made, feel free to do so in a respectful fashion.

[CaseCom]

Originally posted by Gregg:
If you care to dispute any of the assertions made, feel free to do so in a respectful fashion.

Actually, I agreed with much of what the commentary said -- and I have no problem calling Gore on the carpet when he spouts self-serving nonsense -- but I objected to it being called "objective," which to me means an even-handed treatment of the facts, which by definition is what a commentary is not. But since I hate it when threads degenerate into quibbling over semantics, I probably shouldn't have brought it up in the first place

[Gregg]

Ok, you've got me going now. Semantics is one of my favorite topics.

I don't think there is anything in the meaning of "commentary" that would prevent it from being objective. It is a systematic series of explanations or interpretations, so it can be very subjective, but doesn't have to be. If it presents facts that cannot be disputed, I think it qualifies as objective analysis. Perhaps some of that article can be called into question, but overall, it dealt pretty evenly with the facts.

That "quibbling over semantics" part will garner much sympathy, but not in the two dozen court rooms adjudicating the election. Sorry if I offend you by continuing on that path, but I hope that I haven't.

Gregg

[MrTomServo]

Originally posted by Gregg:
I don't think there is anything in the meaning of "commentary" that would prevent it from being objective. It is a systematic series of explanations or interpretations, so it can be very subjective, but doesn't have to be. If it presents facts that cannot be disputed, I think it qualifies as objective analysis. Perhaps some of that article can be called into question, but overall, it dealt pretty evenly with the facts.

Precisely, Gregg. Just to give the journalist's perspective (worked at a newspaper for three years until this darn internet thing came along) ... when an article is marked "commentary" or "analysis" or something along those lines, it's meant to signify that the article is NOT news, which means that it doesn't fall under the "let's try and be objective as we can" rule that most newspapers (hopefully) have.

Commentary usually contains the opinions of the author, but does not carry the full editorial weight of the entire publication behind it. That is to say if the commentary article was libelous, the reporter would likely be punished, but the publication would be more or less indemnified.

If a news article, however, is deemed to be libelous, then the entire publication is in deep doo-doo.

Not sure if that clarified anything at all, but there you go.

Robert

[CaseCom]

Okay... I'll take one more stab at this.

"Objectivity" means the opinions and beliefs of the writer do not enter into the story. The story says what happened, and how other people react to that event. But the writer is just a window through which the reader sees the event. In other words, "just the facts." The reader should not be placed in a position of agreeing or disagreeing with the author.

Now, some examples from the piece in question.

(Gore's address) "was laced with half-truths." Fact or opinion?

"There is so much indigestible verbiage spewing from the candidates..." Fact or opinion?

"That is just silly. He must really think we're chumps." Fact or opinion?

"This (is) part of a bigger charade where Gore and Lieberman pretend that the goal of targeted recounts in counties where Democrats control the canvassing boards is not to acquire more votes than Bush�s margin of victory." Fact or opinion?

" 'Ignoring votes means ignoring democracy itself,' Gore intoned solemnly. Except when the ignored votes happen to be, say, overseas absentee ballots." Fact or opinion?

"With soaring rhetoric and fuzzy logic, Gore has..." Fact or opinion?

You and I might agree with some or all of these points, but you could find people on the other side of the fence for all of them. This piece would be appropriate for, say, the op-ed page in a newspaper. But I wouldn't put it in the main news section.

Now we could get into a long discussion of whether true objectivity is even possible at all, but I'll save that for another thread

To continue in that philosophic vein:

If a chad falls in a voting booth but no one ever checks to see if it has fallen has it every really fallen at all ?

-Bush: NO
-Gore: Let's look and see

[oscar]

According to the Washington Times, there is a patron saint of voting, st. chad - no joke

------------------
-See Yea!

[Gregg]

"Objectivity means the opinions and beliefs of the writer do not enter into the story. The story says what happened, and how other people react to that event. But the writer is just a window through which the reader sees the event. In other words, "just the facts." The reader should not be placed in a position of agreeing or disagreeing with the author."

Alright, CC, I'll concede that the piece was more interpretation than fact. I was too impressed by the inclusion of a few facts that the other media have ignored or brushed over.

Gregg

[jholmes]

If a chad falls in a voting booth but no one ever checks to see if it has fallen has it every really fallen at all ?

-Bush: NO
-Gore: Let's look and see

Doesn't it really come down to when the law says you can look for the chad? If the folks in Florida - Dems, Reps, Supremes and all the 12,000 lawyers had just gone by the law in the first place, this circus would have folded it's tent and left town by now.

If I'm Bush, I call up my old Air Reserve unit, borrow an F-111 and put a couple of hellfire missiles into that convoy of ballots headed to Tallahassee - now there'd be some chad.

[Scott_H]

So do you all know where the word "chad" comes from? Someone filled me in last night.

[Gregg]

Yeah, Scott, we know, so you don't need to tell us.

[Scott_H]

Do you? Beyond paper from ballots what is "chad"?

[CaseCom]

I feel a "punch line" coming on...

Actually, one of my hometown papers had an item on this recently:

The origin of the word is unknown according to both the Random House Dictionary of the English Language and the American Heritage Dictionary. However, the word began to appear between 1945 and 1950.

Theories have cropped up during the past two weeks. Some think the word derives from the Chadless keypunch, named for its inventor, which cut little u-shaped tabs in the card, making a hole when the tab was folded back, rather than punching out a circle/rectangle. If the "Chadless" keypunch didn't make debris, then the stuff that other keypunches made had to be "chad."

Others think it's an acronym standing for Card Hole Aggregate Debris.

Facts on File Encyclopaedia of Word and Phrase Origins adds that it might have come from a mining term, "chat," meaning bits of white, gravel-like rock, a byproduct of lead mining sometimes used to surface roads.

[Gregg]

I guess Scott went on a safari, to Chad, of course.

[Scott_H]

Nope. My friend told me that "chad" is an Irish (? cant remember if it's irish or not) word for small rocks/pebbles. She read it in the paper so it must be true.

Originally, the 'chad' bore a striking resemblance to the profile of Chad Everitt, star of Medical Centre in the early 70s, hence the term.

I read that somewhere. Or maybe it was a halucination...

Mr.F

[MrTomServo]

Chad is probably the name of the first person to give a name to those paper bits, and now is enshrined in history. Although I'm sure he'd much rather have named something that didn't give America such a headache.

I'd like to name something ... how about the hole in the middle of a CD? "Hold the CD by it's edge and Robert with your thumb and forefinger."

Robert

[jholmes]

Chad was actually the name of a young Palm Beach County surfing legend, who sadly met his demise in a shark attack. To this day, it becomes a media circus whenever small pieces of Chad appear in Palm Beach.

[Gregg]

"(? cant remember if it's irish or not)"

No, it's Scottish. Close, but Scot beats Erin by a nose.

[bleen]

I know everyone is getting ticked off about this whole Al Gore not conseding. If you really think about it though, he's running for The President of the United States. You grow up and you hear your parents saying on ya you will be the President one day. This is real close for Al Gore and George Bush. As long as the Supreme Court does not move the date the Electoral College votes then I don't care how long Al Gore tries to "streighten" things and show he might be the winner in Florida. He knows he has no chance to run again, and even if he does become president he won't be reelected (same with George Bush). This is the only chance for both men to hold this title.

[tioga]

Chad is where Katherine Harris will be posted as Ambassador if shrub wins.