Bush Was Elected - Get Over It

Politics International Politics
21

I read somewhere that a candidate who over-simplifies always prevails over the one who over-analyses. Tough luck, Gore.
I mean, he should have won by a huge margin, considering the situation he was in; strong economy, low unemployment, budget surplus etc.
The reason why Gore lost is not some crooked electoral college, or vote fraud. He just couldn’t get his message across, or the message his spindoctors were telling him to get across.
Without any doubt Gore would have been the better president for the American people and the world, so it’s a pity that he lost due to his unprofessional campaign.

Tigerman, your sports comparison is ridiculous and spot on at the same time. It is this kind of over-simplification that wins elections. Good job!

22

[quote=“t.ukyo”]I mean, (Gore} should have won by a huge margin, considering the situation he was in; strong economy, low unemployment, budget surplus etc.
The reason why Gore lost is not some crooked electoral college, or vote fraud. He just couldn’t get his message across, or the message his spindoctors were telling him to get across.[/quote]
First off, the economy was already starting to collapse as of mid-2000. Didn’t you notice the wild gyrations of the stock market?

Second off, Gore’s “message” changed day by day, poll by poll. He had no message beyond “elect me so I can follow the latest whims of the public.”

Better for whom, Saddam Hussein and the Taliban? Even most of the die-hard Democraps I know have said “thank God that Bush won.”

If Gore were in office, he’d still be vaccilating over what leaflet to drop on Kabul this week to tell them to play nicer.

23

Tigerman wrote:

[quote]I get so tired of reading this nonsense.

Bush was successful before the Supreme Court because he had a valid due process argument. Etc. Etc. [/quote]

I hope you had a big kleenex at hand after that long wank.

Please, spare us the partisan rehash. If you’d like to convince those of us who aren’t Americans and so have little stake in whether Bush was elected or appointed (but would like to know the truth) then give us a more reasonable picture of the other side’s argument. It strains reason to believe the matter was as simple as that. Or as clear as that. Months were spent debating this issue. Some very knowledgeable and intelligent people came to favor very different views. It can’t possibly be as cut and dry as you claim above.

If it was then the other side was simply motivated by partisan interests. Which may be true but then if America is so polarized how can you trust the information you have? What is your source and why isn’t it as slanted as the other sides’?

24

[quote=“Mucha (Muzha) Man”]It strains reason to believe the matter was as simple as that. Or as clear as that. Months were spent debating this issue. Some very knowledgeable and intelligent people came to favor very different views. It can’t possibly be as cut and dry as you claim above.

If it was then the other side was simply motivated by partisan interests.[/quote]
Wow. Give that man a mocha. Er, mucha. Whatever.

Remember, this “other side” that you speak of is the bunch of twisted sickos who wanted the Iraq War to end with hundreds of thousands of dead American troops – just so their political ambitions could be furthered in next year’s election.

25

This forum desperately needs a sweeping generalizations filter. How about a bullshit rejecter while we’re at it. :unamused:

I watched a Newsnight program recently which raised questions - to say the least - about whether it was right that the deciding magistrate presiding over the contested Florida votes, who also announced the winner, was also on Bush’s campaign team. With Bush’s brother also being governor of that state, it all starts to look a little too cosy. The program also showed that of the several hundred votes that were dismissed because the voters were alleged felons, an investigation revealed that only 10% were in fact former felons.

To be honest, I haven

26

My understanding of the fairly complicated facts is that Bush’s election resulted from following the election laws in Florida faithfully. The Democrats’ argument seemed essentially to be that the rules shouldn’t be followed because they were unfair rules – which is a recipe for social chaos – though they never stated their case as baldly as this. This whole notion that the rules should be freely bent for ‘a higher purpose’ was coming down from on high during that period of the Clinton scandals.

27

You’re absolutely correct.

Imagine, on the evening of election day, we are informed that the result of the election hinges on Florida and the popular vote there is really close. The candidate who lost requests a machine recount, but he still is the loser. Then he asks for a second machine recount, and again loses. Then he asks for a manual recount in only the counties where he is very popular, yet he loses again. Then he objects (successfully) to counting a substantial number of ballots that favor his opponent (mostly military ballots from overseas) on the basis that the absentee ballots had no postmark, despite the fact that Florida state regulations clearly stipulate that a postmark is not necessary. Even after this, he loses again.

Is it fair that the losing candidate now be able to get a second round of manual recounts, only in counties where he is popular, with the manual recounters (mainly members of his political party) counting any ballots as “valid” based on “what they determine might have been” the “voter’s intent”?

No rational candidate would, prior to the election, agree to such a ridiculously unfair vote-counting procedure. No reasonable person could conclude that such a procedure is more fair or more accurate than a machine count or a hand count of all votes using the same standard throughout the state. But that is exactly what Gore sought and that is precisely what the Florida Supreme Court ordered then. That, of course, was sought and ordered only after Gore knew how the people voted.

What the Florida Supreme Court did was change the rules of the election after the votes had already been cast and after the Court knew which method would produce a Gore victory.

One final note… the relevant Florida statute stipulates that it is the Secretary of State’s responsibility to obtain and maintain uniformity in the application, operation and interpretation of the election laws.

28

[quote=“Mucha (Muzha) Man”]I hope you had a big kleenex at hand after that long wank.

Please, spare us the partisan rehash. If you’d like to convince those of us who aren’t Americans and so have little stake in whether Bush was elected or appointed (but would like to know the truth) then give us a more reasonable picture of the other side’s argument.[/quote]

What? Its my fault you’re an ignorant jerk-off, who can’t be bothered to learn the facts on his own? I gave you the facts… if you disagree with them, then go look them up on your own and then come back and post. That is, if you really want “to know the truth”. :unamused:

What really strains reason is that such a simple matter apparently has you utterly confused.

Above, you stupidly accuse me of being partisan, yet you seem unable to imagine that all those “very knowledgable and intelligent people” who debated the issue might also have been partisan. Here’s a newsflash for you: The people debating the issue were attorneys for the candidates… the US Supreme Court finally determined the matter based on the facts as agreed to (and which were undeniable) and decided according to the relevant laws and the US Constitution. It really is that simple… and its a matter of goddamned public record… if you have doubts then do the fucking research yourself.

A revelation! An epiphany! Hallalluja!

Its fucking public record. The US Supreme Court decision can be found easily… it was published, as are all US Sup. Ct. decisions… :unamused:

29

i was pulling for gore on election night for various reasons and while i was pissed about the inconsistent vote totals, the one thing that surprised me was that gore refused to call for a recount of the whole state. he ONLY wanted recounts of counties where he was sure he had a large advantage. up until that point, i believe gore carried the moral high ground. but when he only wanted recounts in democratic counties, the whole thing degenerated and it became a he-said she-said mudslinging match.

oh, and how many votes did nader win in florida? like 5-10x the amount needed to give gore a comfortable victory, right? what a bunch of idiots. and they’re the ones who whine the most about bush being an illegetimate president.

30

Whether you like it or not George W. is the president.
I agree that the Electoral College has its advantages. It does however have its disadvantages. It was conceived and designed in a different era to fill a different need than exist in the United States of America today. The American system of government allows for adjustment and I think one is obviously called for. The lost credibility, economic and political repercussions should be enough to justify that argument.

31

This forum desperately needs a sweeping generalizations filter. How about a bullshit rejecter while we’re at it. :unamused: [/quote]
Good idea – we can dispense with your post, since:

Judges do not join in campaigns. It is a violation of judicial ethics.

You mean, like the Florida Supreme Court ruling that the recount could proceed on a 4-3 party-line vote? (Florida judges are elected in partisan elections.)

[quote]To be honest, I haven

32

Ms. Harris appears far from impartial according to the press.

[quote]
Judge Decides Katherine Harris Will Face Lawsuit

MIAMI – Katherine Harris, Florida’s former secretary of state, wanted a lawsuit against her thrown out, but a judge has decided to let the case go trial.
The NAACP and four other groups filed suit against Harris (pictured), a former state election chief, and the county elections supervisor. The suit charges that black voters were disenfranchised during the 2000 presidential election.
U.S. District Judge Alan Gold cited “the importance and immediacy of the claims” as he rejected attempts by two state agencies and a company that helped purge voter lists to get out of the case.

The lawsuit cites the state, several counties and the contractor over procedures for voter registration, voter lists and balloting.
Katherine Harris To Run For Congress

The woman who found herself in the middle of last year’s election recount fiasco is now Florida’s next congressional candidate.
Secretary of State Katherine Harris says she wants to run on the Republican ticket for the seat being vacated by retiring Republican Dan Miller. That’s in the state’s 13th district, which represents the Bradenton area.
Harris plans to make a formal announcement next month.
click10.com/news/1237092/detail.html[/quote]

[quote]There is no shame.
In 2000, Katherine Harris, Florida Secretary of State, ordered county elections officials to purge 57,000 citizens from voter registries as felons not allowed to vote in Florida. In fact, about 95 percent of these voters were innocent of crimes – but 54 percent were guilty of being African-American. No guess there: a voter’s race is right there on the voter form. So there was the election: BBC Television, for whom I conducted the investigation of this black-out operation, figures Al Gore lost 22,000 votes this way.
But I was wrong. The company that put together this racial roster that fixed the election, DBT On-Line of Boca Raton, has now ‘fessed up, having been sued by the NAACP for violating Floridians’ civil rights. They have turned over to the NAACP’s lawyers a report indicating that the state ordered the purge of 94,000 voters and that, according to the company’s data, no more than 3,000 are likely illegal voters.
In April of this year, Harris wrote that my reporting was “twisted and maniacally partisan” – but not, in the main, wrong. The Secretary of State, now candidate for Congress for Sarasota, settled with the NAACP, agreeing that legal voters had been mistakenly purged, but admitting no wrongdoing.
Here’s where it gets nasty. Harris and the state admit that tens of thousands of black voters had been wronged, and with plantation noblesse have agreed to return them to the voter rolls – at the beginning of 2003. In other words, the votes seized in November 2002 will not be emancipated until after the ballots are counted in the race between Governor Jeb Bush and his Democratic opponent Bill McBride.
globalresearch.ca/articles/PAL211A.html[/quote]

[quote]Democrats Cry Foul Over Computer Records
A computer controversy has led some members of Florida’s Democratic party to call for the resignation of Secretary of State Katherine Harris.
The action is the latest fallout over the voting in Florida during the presidential election.
Computer experts have reviewed files on Harris’ office computers and say that they were used to promote George W. Bush’s presidential campaign.

Democrats are crying foul, while Republicans say that Harris (pictured) did nothing wrong.
“This review completely vindicates what the secretary’s maintained all the way through. It completely vindicates the secretary’s performance in office and completely vindicates her performance during the recount,” Harris spokesman David Host said.
“This does not exonerate her. (There are) still more questions. Why is she doing work for the Bush campaign on state time, on state equipment? The Bush campaign didn’t pay for those computers, the people of Florida did and they deserve some answers,” Tony Welch of the Florida Democratic party said.
The review of the computers also showed that Harris was registered to vote in two counties.
Records show that she only voted once in the presidential election. Despite the controversy, a member of Harris’ office says the secretary of state has no intention of stepping down.
click10.com/news/910487/detail.html
[/quote]