[jholmes]

The Election is certified and George W. says he's won. While I don't expect it will happen, it'd be great if Gore decided to bow out and stop all this BS before it deteriorates any more.
I don't expect he'll bail even if the US Supremes rule that the original deadline and rules should be enforced and delete all the recounts
What strikes me as sad is that Gore said he'd abide by the hand count, and the Fla Supreme court ruling and now, since that was completed to the letter of the Supreme Court's ruling but not to the Gore Campaign advantage - they'll contest the election.

What does he do if that doesn't work?

[Scott_H]

Personally I think that Bush should go forward with the US Supreme Court case. That case is more about the actions of the FL Supreme Court and less about the election results. I think it's important for future elections.

Gore will contest and he'll have his day in court. It will go back up to the FL Supreme Court and die there. There's no way he's going to get a court to hand recount in Dade and/or Palm Beach.

It will be over for sure on the 12th. Even Gore can't push it past that date.

[kaceygones]

I heard that Gore will appeal on three counts. What three? And who is he appealing to? The Fla. Supreme Court or the US Supreme Court. And why do you say it will be over on the 12th for sure? I thought the Electoral College people get together on the 18th +/- a day to cast the official votes. Will it finally be over by then?

I sure hope so...
kacey

[This message has been edited by kaceygones (edited 11-27-2000).]

[Ruby]

That fact that Gore won't concede is ridiculous. Since he lost the elcetion he should save his reputation.

------------------
Charity

[ThinkInsane]

Imagine that! A politician that doesn't keep his word. I am shocked!!

------------------
"We are the crazy ones, rebels, misfits, troublemakers, round pegs in square holes. Ones who see things differently. We are Mac users, and we won't be ignored!"

[Macfreak7]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Imagine that! A politician that doesn't keep his word. I am shocked!!

where i live its the other way... if a polictician keeps his word, people die of heart attacks. (a little exaggeration to give u the picture)

"poli=many" "tics=blood sucking parasites"

[poocat]

what? you don't think it's great that bush could lose the popular vote and still become president?
i'm shocked. i can't wait for him to appoint conservatives to the supreme court and have them repeal
roe vs wade. i'm so excited. i mean, bush said that sex ed shouldn't be taught in schools, because abstinence was better, and now the teen pregnancy rate in those schools is up 60%. who thinks he doesn't know what's going on? can't wait for his presidency.

poocat.

[VRL]

Bush has been elected. Anything that Gore does to contest these results will hurt the Democratic party more than he already has, and will reflect that Gore's motives are truly selfish.

The Constitution spells out clearly how elections are to be decided. Even Gore's tactics wouldn't change that. And before anyone else starts with the "Gore won the popular vote" rhetoric, stop and think a minute ... statistically speaking, there is a WIDE margin of error (Florida is a clear example of that). So, for all practical purposes, it was a tie. Thank God for our Constitution, for without it, imagine the widespread confusion, even chaos, across the entire nation!

[Gregg]

I just heard an interview with Robert Reich, former Clinton cabinet member, calling for an end ("closure" -of course) to the election process. He stopped just short of saying that Gore should concede now, only going as far as saying don't contest, just let the already open court cases run their course. Gore is supposed to hold a "press conference" (ie; give a short speech, timed, arrogantly, to preempt the national news broadcasts -again- in some areas) at 5:30 ?ST today. If by then several prominent Democrats have called on him not to contest, he will look pretty bad if he presses on. I just heard NPR say a poll taken overnight resulted in 60% saying Gore should give it up.

Gregg

Some random thoughts:

* It's irrelevant what Gore does or does not say tonight -- the fight goes on because it was Bush's team that appealed to the Supreme Court. James Baker said yesterday that all the lawyers should go home, but evidently he makes exceptions for Republican lawyers.

* Gore should concede. I firmly believe that if every vote had been counted, Gore would have had more votes. But when thousands of votes get tossed aside, you'll never know who really had the most votes. As it is, with all the chicanery on both sides, and with an 'official' margin of 500-some votes out of millions, it is mathematically a draw no matter who is said to have 'won'. It would have been absolutely just as valid to have flipped a coin to decide this election, as far as statistics is concerned. Nevertheless, Gore should concede since most Americans don't understand statistics and genuinely think Bush got an absolute majority votes in Florida. They will never believe the truth, and so will be furious if people point out that we'll never know for sure who won in Florida and that Bush got in almost by default and at random. Perhaps somewhat less than random considering who the governor and sec. of state of florida are.

* Both sides should be deeply ashamed of themselves. What happened in Florida happens in every election, but usually hidden in the dark crevices of local precints, not under the white-hot spotlight of media coverage. So this time we got to really see the blacks being turned away from the polls, the out-of-state, paid Republican agitators causing violence in the demonstrations to intimidate the local counties into giving up the count, the hypocrisy of the Democrats who say they will abide by the courts and then press on anyway, the hypocrisy of the Repulicans who scream 'States rights!' until things go against them and then suddenly they are perfectly willing to run to the Supreme Court to overturn a state court, and how both sides will throw away whatever votes they think they can get away with and thus showing contempt for the American voters who think their voice actually counts.

* The country is screwed, but probably not as badly as it would have been had Bush won with a mandate. Say bye-bye to the surplus, the economic good times, individual rights, and the environment. Say hello to broken promises over Social Security, good times for oil companies, and good ol' boy humor in the White House.

* Conservative voters showed how they didn't really care about 'cleaning up the White House', for they voted in the guy with the checkered past of drug use, alcohol abuse, and a abortion, and voted against the guy who has a genuinely Republican-looking family life. They chose the good ol' boy instead. Hypocrisy. What they really wanted was to get one of their own in office, no matter how flawed.

* Bush loses in 2004, guaranteed. Incidentally, had Gore won, I would have written: 'Gore loses in 2004, guaranteed.' This year's mess makes that a certainty. May we have two decent candidates in 4 years.

[jholmes]

You make some good points PC but, boy, are you a first rate cynic.

I agree Gore should concede. He has lost the election and the only way he can now become President is to win it in a tainted lawsuit. That would be even less of a mandate than Bush will ever have. And if he doesn't win the suit, he might as well move back to Carthage and get a job on the local newspaper because his political career will be toast after losing an election he and his lawyers dragged out for six weeks.

That said - I don't think that Bush should drop the Supreme Court case. This is an important legal precedent. A State Supreme Court overstepped its authority, assumed legislative powers and changed the rules in the middle of a Federal election. That needs to be addressed by the Court.

But you are 100% right in your thinking that both sides acted in a despicable manner. Can the GOP discipline those who raised havoc in Palm Beach? Should the Democrat Judge who barred GOP laywers from court because he dissagreed with their politics be censured? If possible they should.

As for the future - hopefully we'll see if Bush can swim in the deep end of the pool. I didn't expect much of him when he became Governor and he surprised me. I hope he can do it again. If so he just might beat Hillary in 2004.

"boy, are you a first rate cynic. "

I'll say I am. And you don't even know the half of it.

But thanks for the reasonable response. I, too, hope Bush shows better than he appears. As he gave the speech last night, I couldn't help noticing his deer-in-the-headlights look. A mark of a leader is his or her ability to cope with unexpected developments. So far, Bush doesn't seem too comfortable with these unexpected developments. My sincere hope and wish is that he grows with the job so that he doesn't give that same lost look to some foreign leader during delicate negotiations.

[Gregg]

PC, I'm not positive, but I think a case can be withdrawn, even from the U.S. Supreme court. If that is true, and Gore does concede, the lawyers *can* go home. Mr. Baker's statement is not inconsistent in that case.

I suppose I agree with you to a point about the public perception. Those who are of limited intelligence, and/or who do not follow the news stories closely might never get it straight. But, I would assume most of those people don't vote, so their impressions literally do not count. The whole election is a statistical tie. I've not seen a complete analysis because everyone is concentrating on Florida, but I assume that at least one other state is also a tie. Thank goodness for the electoral college! The national popular vote is also a tie.

And in your tirade against both parties, you fail to mention the Democratic paid telemarketers who helped stir up the dissension in their hand picked counties. I don't see anything fair about hand recounts in just those counties. I think that's one area of the law that should now be examined. The only reason to give special attention to particular counties, in my view, is if laws were violated there, and that can be proven in court.* That was not Gore's argument. Gore's offer to hand recount the whole state was a PR ploy, because he knew Bush was not in favor of it. Gore could have requested it himself. He didn't do that, because he could not be sure of the outcome. The Big Three figured to give him enough undercounts that count to win, while other undercounts remained uncounted. Gore says every vote should count, but he has not supported that. I would really like to know how hand recounting the entire state would come out. The disputed votes would have to be categorized, and broken down under several scenarios of what counts or doesn't count.

*I say it has to be proven in court in order to prevent frivolous claims from triggering a recount. I realize that no matter what the law is, some will try to subvert it, so the law would have to be amended to make each new way of corruption illegal. The problem with that, of course, is politics. Whoever has control wins.

You might be right about neither candidate being electable after serving one term. I would give Bush slightly better odds, but still not predict him pulling it off. I'd give Gore slightly better odds of being nominated in 2004 if he does not serve the next term than I would Bush, but still not predict he would win.

I disagree with your characterization of contrasting family lives of the two men. I don't know about the abortion you refer to, but both men have apparently changed their views on that if your reference is to an abortion Bush supported because he'd gotten someone pregnant, and both have admitted to using illegal drugs. One toke is as illegal as 10 snorts, right? I wouldn't consider drunk driving alcohol abuse, because many people consume enough to be drunk without violating any laws. Drunk driving is a poor decision, and a serious offense, but one instance does not define a pattern worthy of calling it abuse. Or, are there other convictions in Bush's past that I have not heard about?

As far as 'cleaning up the White House' - that takes place after one holds the office, not before. Your position seems to be logically inconsistent. I would trust a bus driver who had been a drunk, if he/she had a spotless driving record since undergoing treatment, was sober before the bus left, and had no opportunity to drink before the trip concluded. Wouldn't you?

Gregg

[This message has been edited by Gregg (edited 11-27-2000).]

"I don't see anything fair about hand recounts in just those counties. "

I think each side had the responsibility to look after irregularities that could have affected the election results. We all know that both parties are more interested in winning than in getting all the results 100% squared away. So it's not surprising that Gore would pick the counties he felt had the worst abuses and ask for a recount. The fact that Bush chose not to do the same is his fault. There is no need to do a full recount if there are no indications of problems in some counties. Just do the ones where people were pointing out that their votes were being thrown away. Bush could have done that, just as his team is even today fighting to recount oversees ballots that they think will help Bush. Each side looks out for themselves -- which gets back to my old thread about the inherent evils in the party system.

As for Bush having an alcohol problem, he did give it up, which indicates a person who had problems. You don't become a statesmen without being in many circles where alcohol flows freely. For someone like that to give it up anyway indicates that he feels he is safer not drinking at all.

Besides, his cocaine use also indicates an addictive personality disorder that he, commendably, has overcome, but the fact is he had to overcome it in the first place.

Do I trust the screw-up who has changed his life? Sure, but not as much as the guy who never showed an addictive personality in the first place. You can hate Gore's personality, his politics, his words, but no one questions that he has been a model family man from day one. The one thing everybody claimed they wanted in a president. And Gore does not indicate addictive behavior. His drug use was limited to pot smoking from his Vietnam days, and that's it. Tried it, enjoyed it, moved on with his life. He's not in the Bush equivalent of a 12-step program in his life.

[deedar]

Come on folks. Gore needs to push the point in order for the election to have some sore of finality and legitimacy. As it stands, with partial recounts, the actions of the obviously partisan Sect'y of the State of Florida, Miami-Dade backing out at the last minute, etc. - this election is not finished. Something needs to be "on the books", other than George W. saying he won, for this election to be "complete." Gore really needs to follow the available avenues of recourse to bring this thing to closure.

[Scott_H]

Something needs to be "on the books", other than George W. saying he won, for this election to be "complete."

Something is on the books. There was the count. Bush won. The automatic recount. Bush won. Hand counts in two counties one of which was too lazy to get it done on time. Bush won. The Sec. of State did the job to the letter. It is illegal for her to accept partial returns. The vote was certified and Bush had more votes. It's on the books.

Do you want her to bend the rules just for Gore? Why? The rules are the same for everyone. It would have been illegal for her not to certify the election. She can't force Dade to do a hand recount and neither can Gore.

Now that the vote is certified Gore can contest it. Which is what should have happened over a week ago.


Gore didn't want to fight the loser's battle that he now has.

[Gregg]

PC, you disagreed with me that Gore was more at fault for prolonging the election. Now you're saying Bush was more of a "bad boy" than Gore. If it doesn't matter to you in the first instance, why does it in the second? And you make a broad assumption about why Bush went cold turkey. Some people do not drink because they regard it as a evil. Perhaps he's now of that persuasion, I don't know. Do you have other information on that too? (Feel free to go back and fill me in on the similar questions I asked you above as well.) I think that had you overcome an addiction, you would not want that held against you, in fact, you'd want credit for it. I would.

You (PC) have a different standard for allowing a recount than I do, I guess. You say "indications of problems" and I say "violation of laws". Fuzzy vs. Factual, sounds like to me. But my standard can be made fuzzy by the right lawyer.

I just think it is wrong to pick and choose counties. The EC vote is decided by state, so if there are illegalities, recount the state. If the EC vote was decided by precinct, it would make sense to ask for an extra recount in a precinct where there were violations of law.

Deedar, what about the actions of the obviously partisan Florida Supreme Court? Should Bush continue to push that as well? The U.S. SC would not have agreed to hear the case if they judged it to be frivolous. Everyone in this has a preference for one side over the other, even the U.S. SC Justices. Unfortunately, we can't get away from that, but they can get away with it.

Gregg


Oops! Forgot to finish spell check.

[This message has been edited by Gregg (edited 11-27-2000).]

"PC, you disagreed with me that Gore was more at fault for prolonging the election. Now you're saying Bush was more of a "bad boy" than Gore. If it doesn't matter to you in the first instance, why does it in the second? "

It doesn't matter to me at all, but I was talking about those conservatives who railed against Clinton's morals and demanded a solid family man in the White House. To those people, Bush's checkered past should have raised a red flag, IMO.

"And you make a broad assumption about why Bush went cold turkey. Some people do not drink because they regard it as a evil. Perhaps he's now of that persuasion, I don't know. Do you have other information on that too?"

No, I have no further information, other than the assumption I stated, given the reality of a politician's job. I hope Bush isn't one of those who view drink as an evil, for it would then mean we have a religious nut in the White House who can't think for himself. For I know of no one who believes this way except those who strictly interpret religious writings.

"I would think that had you overcome an addiction, you would not want that held against you, in fact, you'd want credit for it. I would."

I do give credit to Bush for overcoming his addictive behavior. All I said is that I prefer the person who never had that behavior in the first place. As Robert Downey Jr. keeps demonstrating, once an addict, the potential is always there to be an addict again. Note, I only say potential. I would be surprised if Bush ever shows up drunk on the road again, but less surprised than I would be if Gore would be pulled over for DUI.

"You (PC) have a different standard for allowing a recount than I do, I guess. You say "indications of problems" and I say "violation of laws".

It's the same thing, except I was following the British method of understatement. Disallowing votes, or throwing out ballots when there are no legal reasons for doing so, are violations of laws.

[deedar]

Sorry Scott - The point is that the count is not accurate and not representative. You fail to mention that, in large part, the activities of the last week have been driven by the Sec of State's decision, yes decision, to attempt to certify the results before there was an accurate count. Like it or not, she was "overuled" by the State Supreme Court. If she had recused herself at the begining of the process, which would have been the appropriate thing to do, I don't think that we would find ourselves in a position questioning the judgment of her office, hence the "certification" of the results. Gimme a break, not only was she the co-chair of Bush's Florida campaing, but she donated 35k of her own money to boot. She has no business, as a public official, making decisions that could impact the outcome of the election.

BTW - It may be innapropriate, but by no means illegal, for her to accept partial returs - she did so in her first attempt at certification.

[Ruby]

Every vote WAS counted, the votes that Gore says weren't counted at all, WERE counted. During the machine counts, they were spit out...because they DID NOT matter. The manual count was stupid, machines are more accurate. I'm not saying that machines are smarter than people, but when you have people who can't punch a hole in a piece of paper on election day, it's better to void those instead of playing mind reading games trying to decide what their intent was. That's impossible to do!! Hand count the whole nation and see what irregularities come up.

------------------
Charity

[Gregg]

"The point is that the count is not accurate and not representative."

The real point was made by PC. The count is not statistically significant because the difference between the candidates is less than the margin of error. An accurate count is a fantasy. It never happens, because it is impossible when even merely hundreds of votes are cast. The not representative part I agree with. Broward County should not have been allowed to do another recount, unless every county did.


"She has no business, as a public official, making decisions that could impact the outcome of the election."

I disagree with that, because it violates the Constitution and Florida law. There is no one else with that authority, and whoever holds the office will be partisan, or biased if not a member of one of the political parties disputing an election. What you might be saying really, is that this should be changed.

Gregg

[Scott_H]

If she had recused herself at the begining of the process, which would have been the appropriate thing to do, I don't think that we would find ourselves in a position questioning the judgment of her office, hence the "certification" of the results.

WOW! You total don't get it do you? She can't recuse herself. She was elected to be the Sec' of State which is, by law, the chief elections officer. She would be abdicating her job if she were to recuse herself. There's no one else that can legally do that job. If a judge recues him/her self you can get another one. If Jeb recues himself you can get someone to sit in. The Sec' of State is the top dog and can't bow out.

Look. Palm Beach had enough time to finish. They didn't. She can't accept late returns without being sued. She can't accept partial returns without being sued because it is against the law.

BTW Don't you think it's a little fishy that Palm Beach county missed by two hours? Maybe they meant to miss the deadline?

[jholmes]

If Harris showed poor judgement on any point then it was in supporting Bush publicly. The State's chief election official should be as agnostic as possible on that count and there she screwed up.
As for enforcing decisions as to accepting returns it appears to me that she followed the letter of the law. Even the law as amended by the Florida Supreme Court
If the ballot was designed to be machine counted and less than what - ten thousand out of six million? .06% of the total vote? - could not be counted by the machine built specifically for that purpose - then it should be an invalid ballot. Lieberman said that there are ballots that haven't been counted and that's just wrong. They were counted twice by the machines employed for that purpose and found wanting.
And if Palm and Miami can't get their results in under the deadline that the Court made up out of thin air, then so be it. If I miss a deadline my clients fire me. It's a hard, cruel world. This election has been worked and reworked so many times that it isn't funny. I, for one am starting to get a little pissed about it. Not that anyone cares, but I don't think I'm alone.
Gore said he'd live with the results of the hand count. Well, the Supremes in Florida made the rules and he doesn't want to live with the result of his own actions because at the end of the day, they say he lost.

Retire with some dignity and live to fight another day.

[This message has been edited by jholmes (edited 11-27-2000).]

[VRL]

Scott_H, jholmes ... your posts are right on the mark.

I'm also wondering if the missed deadline was intentional. At this point, nothing would surprise me.

[Gregg]

VRL, you mean Palm Beach County missing the deadline on purpose? I kind of doubt that. They placed a higher priority on spending Thanksgiving with their families, and that was understandable.

Gore lost the war when he won the first battle. When the Florida Supreme Court ruled, and extended the original deadline for submitting tabulated votes, that ate valuable time. Now Gore wants to speed up things, when before, he wanted to take all the time needed to count every ballot with no vote for President. Meanwhile, Bush's lawyers say not to rush the courts, when before they wanted to keep the original deadline, and bring things to a quick conclusion. Go figure.

Gregg

[VRL]

Columnist Suzanne Fields put it very well:

"But the Wimp of the Month Award has to go to the Democratic
vote-counters in Palm Beach County. With stakes so high, the canvassing
board worked half days and took off all of Thanksgiving, missing by two
hours the deadline set by the Florida Supreme Court. All for the love of a
turkey."

It just seems odd to me that counters didn't meet the Court's deadline. Why not have turkey Sunday night after finishing? Or did they want another excuse to vilify Katherine Harris? Or maybe they wanted to create the illusion of another controversy?

Now, Gore is attempting to move back to the Supreme Court of Florida to force recounts. Of course, it appears he's contesting counts in a number of counties, including Miami-Dade and, you guessed it, Palm Beach. (If Palm had finished the recount, it would be a virtual non-issue, wouldn't it??)

The election was close, and Bush won. Gore is now trying to force his way into the presidency. If he doesn't succeed, he can at least create enough controversy/bad press to potentially hurt Bush. And, of course, there's the hindrance of the Bush transition to the White House. Score another one for Gore.

Gore is now doing the PR thing (running from network to network), claiming he loves our democracy. Go figure. Perhaps Gore ought to look into the Military vote a little more. The tactics used were anything but fair/democratically minded. http://www.hackworth.com/DA28NOC00.htm

BTW, there is some encouraging news ... Colin Powell is "officially" on the Bush team.

[This message has been edited by VRL (edited 11-30-2000).]

[This message has been edited by VRL (edited 11-30-2000).]