White House reps are upset since future Democratic presidential non-winner John Kerry stated in “Rolling Stone”–
”When I voted for the war, I voted for what I thought was best for the country. Did I expect Howard Dean to go off to the left and say, ‘I’m against everything?’ Sure. Did I expect George Bush to f— it up as badly as he did? I don’t think anybody did.”
They feel that–particularly because of the language–John Kerry should apologize.
And I’m flashing back to the B5 episode where John Sheridan was told he had to apologize to an alien race and he rehearsed an entire very unapologetic apology. I swear, if Kerry issues an apology along those lines–something like, “All right, I apologize: I’m sorry that George Bush f—ed it up” or “I’ll apologize for saying it as soon as George Bush apologizes for doing it”–I’ll vote for him. Not that it’ll do any good. The Democrats still won’t win the presidency in 2004. But it’d be amusing to read that comeback and watch the fallout.
PAD
• 
Let’s see. How did he refer to a certain news reporter, when he “didn’t know the mic was on”?
“Major league a-hole” I think it was. (Censored on my part. This ain’t *my* forum! 😉 )
All Kerry did was call a spade a spade. And he *knew* it was going to be on the record. I think his response to George should be a sincere FU.
Wildcat
You think the Dems will lose in 2004? Why?
A complete lack of unity, perhaps?
The Dems have 9 candidates right now. And who’s firing Dems up the most? Hilary Clinton, and she’s not running.
Now, myself, I won’t have a say in the Democratic candidate – I’m registered independant. But even if I was registered Dem I can’t say I have any idea who I would vote for.
I could say a couple I wouldn’t vote for though. 🙂
All Kerry did was call a spade a spade.
Yeah, I think if Kerry did that there’d be a much bigger uproar…
It’s funny, because it took me years to realize where that saying came from.
Unless I’m totally stupid and I’m reading too much into things.
I guess the goal of these liberals is to get enough people to accept moral relativism so that no one can ever accuse them of hypocrisy
No, we just want to cook Republican babies over a stack of burning Bibles. Moral relativism is just a red herring.
And hey, does that mean incest is immoral relativism?
While a minority kvetch, I must forcefully disagree. My own view is that the Supreme Court simply had no jurisdiction in this case. The Constitution specifically gives and delineates the authority to debate and decide such federal election disputes to the House of Representatives, allowing for the decsion to be made by the directly-elected representatives of the people, rather than by an appointed body.
Actually, I’m not sure the Constitution does give that role to the House. The House is the judge of its own elections, as the Senate is the judge of its own. The House only comes into play in Presidential elections when no candidate has a majority of the Electoral College. In the 2000 election it was perfectly clear that somebody did have a majorty; but which candidate depended on how the Florida vote came out. If Florida had gone for Buchanan (because the ballots were just that hard to read) and the results in the Electoral College had been Gore 268, Bush 245, Buchanan 25, then the House would have voted by state.
The 2000 election had a different question presented, namely how the electors themselves are selected. This being the 20th Century United States (not 2001 yet when decided), the problem became a court case. For counting Florida votes in Florida, the case appropriately begain in the Florida court system. It got to the United States Supreme Court on appeal from the Florida Supreme Court, because any time there is a Federal issue in the state courts the losing party may appeal to the US court system. The vote in the Supreme Court was actually 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court screwed up. (People forget that. If John Kerry had been running it would have been 7-2 that the Florida Court f–ked up.)
The thing that caused the fuss was that the vote on what to do about the problem was a 5-4 vote that effectively certified the Bush electors because the Florida Supreme Court was ordered to do something constitutionally permissible in the time allotted, and the only thing they could really do by the deadline (under Florida law, mind) was certify the existing slate of electors. If that wasn’t suspicious enough, the 5-4 vote was along general Republican-Democrat lines (or more accurately, conservative-liberal, since two of the “Democrat” Justices were appointed by Republicans), and the Republicans, who usually are deferential to the state governments, voted to overrule the state court. (The Democrats, who usually are sympathetic to Federal claims, also voted backwards, so nobody comes out of this looking completely innocent.) Still, however much the actual decision may bother people, the process by which we got to that decision was fairly uncontroversial.
The kicker is that based on other court decisions, the Bush v. Gore decision may have been right all along, because the Supreme Court has been consistent in those holdings. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20020709.html
Oh, and by the way, the only party I recall contemplating lobbying electors was the Democratic Party (although disavowed by Warren Christopher). http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/10/electoral.renegades/
On a similar topic, why are some of the democratic candidates trying desperately to hit a younger audience?
I’m astounded you’d have to ask this: It’s because young people aren’t voting. Of all the Americans (about half) who never bother to vote, young voters account for, I believe, the most sizable percentage. The Democrats are clearly hoping that by stirring the youth of America into action, they can get enough angry voters to get Bush out.
Not that it’ll happen, because the youth of America traditionally does the exact opposite of what the previous generation wants them to do. I touched on that in “Knight Life” by having Arthur give an impassioned speech telling young people that, no matter what, they are absolutely not to go out to the polls under any circumstance. Naturally under-25 voting increased.
PAD
Not that it matters, because Kerry is not doing to get the DEM nomination, but his use of the “F” word was just so calculated.
Not everyone can get attention by doing something as uncalculated as showing up in a flight suit on the deck of an aircraft carrier…
PAD
May I also point out that in all likelihood, Kerry knew exactly what he was saying, and that his choice of words was carefully chosen?
Personally, I’ve no problem with the notion of a politician choosing his words carefully. Nice change of pace.
PAD
Kerry is an idiot and backpeddles on everything. He has ruined the state of MA. Businesses & people are leaving the Bay State in droves and this moron is running for President? Good luck to folks who buy into his šhìŧ. If he ever got elected, I’d move to Canada.
PS: I’d vote for Al Sharpton before I’d vote for this a-hole.
Why doesn’t anyone ask Kerry how many innocent women & children he killed during the war? eh? And yeah, I’m from the Bay State so I know firdthand what this moron has done to ruin MA.
end rant
Dee… your comment about “Why doesn’t anyone ask Kerry how many innocent women & children he killed during the war?” Really makes you shine – as a beacon of ignorance and stupidity.
Statments like that are nearly as bad as some ignorant girl commenting a few months ago (in regards to Clark and Dean) who asked “Hmm. A man who’s saved lives, or a man who’s ordered soldiers to kill? Tough choice.”
While I still have to decide on which of the democratic candidates I like, teenage-esque comments like yours make my head ache.
PAD replied:
Not everyone can get attention by doing something as uncalculated as showing up in a flight suit on the deck of an aircraft carrier…
And it’s so unheard of to show up on an aircraft carrier wearing such garb? Bush would have looked pretty out of place wearing a three-piece suit.
(quote) The 2000 election had a different question presented, namely how the electors themselves are selected. This being the 20th Century United States (not 2001 yet when decided), the problem became a court case. For counting Florida votes in Florida, the case appropriately begain in the Florida court system. It got to the United States Supreme Court on appeal from the Florida Supreme Court, because any time there is a Federal issue in the state courts the losing party may appeal to the US court system. The vote in the Supreme Court was actually 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court screwed up. (People forget that. (unquote)
Again, still subject to multiple interpretations.
Bush claimed the dispute damaged him personally in the SCOTUS case – in actuality, U.S. Code, Title 3, Section 5 relating to controversy of electors, and relegating such matters exclsuively to the states, is mot apropos.
And again, the Constitution and/or thr rules and precedent and tradition of the Electoral College cover these types of cases, and leave the SCOTUS out of it altogether (as the SCOTUS is specifically excluded from election language in the Constitution, my own interpretation would be that the 10th amendment prevails, granting undelegated powers to the States or to the people – as States are cited as having the rights to choose electors, had there been a case of one (or more) state(s) versus Florida involved (rather than citizens of those states – se 11th amendemnt, below), then SCOTUS would have jursidiction ). If there is a dispute or disparity as to the validity or credentials of electors when their votes are counted (which was, IIRC, early-mid Dec. 2000), that situation is covered in U.S. Code, Title 3, Section 15: http://books.cqpress.com/nomajority/61352CQappenB.pdf
Instead of involving SCOTUS, the mandate is to proclaim, debate and agree as to whether such a disputed claim is or is not so (U.S. Code, Title 3, Section 15). If yes, that would, ipso facto, have sent the decision to the House, as there would be no candidate with a majority of electoral votes, and in such a case, there would be 51 votes cast (one vote each from each state delegation and one from the D.C. delegation – per the 23rd amendment), with the voting limited to the top 3 finishers in elctoral votes, as per the 12th amendment (which also allows for the case of the House being unable to choose by majority a president). In such cases, the choice of Vice-President devolves upon the Senate, whose chiuce must receive a majority of a two-third quorum (per the 12th amendment).
Appreciate the reasoned counter-argument, but still read the Constitution differently. it being he 20th century or any other is not germane; the credentialing, selection and all other facets of selecting electors are sepecifically delineated to the Stat, to wit,
Article II, Section 2:
Each state shall appoint, in such a manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of senartors and representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress….
Also Section 3 (too lengthy to be posted here) and also the 11th amendment:
The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted
against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.
Some other relevant citations:
McPherson v. Blacker (the power to apppoint electors rests solely within the states – could be extrapolated to cover that the final determination of counted votes rests with the states).
The clsoest precedent, of course, is the election of 1876, which did not go to the House, as it involved challenges to the validity of the votes cast i the Electoral college (a situation that would have occurred in 2000, but was detoured by the SCOTUS case). Not to prattle on too long, but in that instance, the House and Senate, agreeing that the Constitution was silent on matters involving challenges to the validity of electoral votes, set up a commission to make the decision as to the validity of the electoral votes, made up of 5 Senators, 5 representatives and 5 justices. Precedent was thus established for dealing with a like situation (short-circuited by the SCOTUS case in 20000, IMHO).
The result of the 1876 election was the Electoral Count Act of 1887 (in modern form, U.S. Code, Title 3, Section 15 – see above.
The House of Representatives has a very detailed set of rules involving disputes in Presidential electoral votes:
http://books.cqpress.com/nomajority/61352CQappenD.pdf
I’ve been rather busier than usual the last few weeks, so I may have missed something.
Whatever happened to Clark? I thought he was throwing his electoral hat into the ring, but see no mention of him to speak of in the above. Has he changed his mind? Or did he never formally enter the race to begin with?
Wolfknight – I hate to burst your bubble, but libraries all over Pennsylvania are suffering, not just the ones in rural towns.
The problem isn’t any kind of favoritism Rendell is showing to Philly and Pittsburgh, but rather the fact that he and our Republican-controlled General Assembly still haven’t agreed to a budget – six months into the the state’s fiscal year.
A pox on both parties, I say.
And it’s so unheard of to show up on an aircraft carrier wearing such garb?
Only if you’re worthy of wearing the uniform.
As somebody who wasn’t in the military, I think it’s shameful that Bush wore that. It’s like he’s trying to be cool or something. He looked like a fool instead.
A link to an old article on Dubya’s swearing
Conservatives can bìŧçh and moan about moral relativism and hypocrisy all they want…and try to proclaim it is alright for Bush to have said ‘áššhølë’ on the mic because he didn’t know he could be heard (Kind of like Beloved Reagan saying ‘The bombing will begin in 5 minutes’…he didn’t realize the mic was on, so it was alright to joke about starting WWIII)
But in 1988, when a reporter directly asked Dubya “What do you and your father talk about when not talking about politics” Bush’s one-word response was “Pussy”. He knew the mic was on. He knew a reporter was recording the response. He knew it would be printed.
So for Bush to get upset with Kerry for his cussing is 100% pure hypocrisy. And there is no way to honestly attack Kerry for his language without attacking Bush for his.
In regards to Bush & the flight suit – When Eisenhower was President, some of his advisors wanted him to make appearences in his military uniform to remind people he was a war leader. He refused because the Presidency is a civillian office & it would not be approiate for him to appear in uniform as President.
As for Bush looking out of place in a three piece suit, Presidents have been appearing on military bases in suits since Washington. While some Presidents would wear jackets &/or hats representing the unit they were visiting, none of them appeared in full uniform.
The whole flight suit point is moot anyway. Bush has already carefully constructed a new photo opportunity complete with a new military uniform and a fake turkey to boot!
I think it is great that this guy, who has gone on record saying that the worst thing about liberals is that they feel guilty about being privileged, chooses to stage his photo opportunities with the run-of-the-mill grunts! He’s willing to go down to their level, time and again, just to earn a few PR points. Wow. What a sacrifice.
Phinn:
**The whole flight suit point is moot anyway. Bush has already carefully constructed a new photo opportunity complete with a new military uniform and a fake turkey to boot!
I think it is great that this guy, who has gone on record saying that the worst thing about liberals is that they feel guilty about being privileged, chooses to stage his photo opportunities with the run-of-the-mill grunts! He’s willing to go down to their level, time and again, just to earn a few PR points. Wow. What a sacrifice.**
Ok, now, what? “go down to their level?” Talking about our troops…? What the f### is that supposed to mean?
In any case, if you honestly and truly believe that it was all just a PR stunt, then you will never ever understand. I will say this, many news organizations were UPSET because only a few reporters were allowed to go. NYT is still complaining about it not having a representative. Not too many PR stunts neglect to bring, you know, the PR.
No, all the reporters were too busy hanging with Hilary at HER PR stunt…
The limited number of reporters was in order to keep the photo op a surprise until the last minute. Allegedly, even Laura and Mommy and Daddy Bush didn’t know where he was going.
It was also because Bush only allows reporters that will report on him favorably at most of his photo ops to begin with.
I think live coverage on Fox News counts as remembering to “bring the PR.”
Craig Reis wrote:
>>The Dems have 9 candidates right now. And who’s firing Dems up the most? Hilary Clinton, and she’s not running.<<
Nah, the Dems aren’t getting fired up about her. It’s the Republicans (still) using her as a boogeyman that’s generating all the press (and sizable donations for repugnican coffers, I’m sure).
Rob
History has a way of kicking out presidents right after wars, no matter how high their popularity is at the start. Another lesson that Jr should have learned from Daddy.
You mentioned plural… where’s your second example?
** Is there anyone who did not vote for him in 2000 who will now vote for him in 2004. And there seem to be quite a few folks out there who voted for him last time who won’t this time.
Just something to ponder.**
60+% approval rating
And it’s so unheard of to show up on an aircraft carrier wearing such garb?
Only if you’re worthy of wearing the uniform.
As somebody who wasn’t in the military, I think it’s shameful that Bush wore that. It’s like he’s trying to be cool or something. He looked like a fool instead.
Are you saying that’s your perspective, you having been somebody who wasn’t in the military, or are you alleging Bush wasn’t in the military? Actually he was in the military (National Guard counts, just ask a few thousand people in Iraq now). In fact, he was an Air National Guard fighter jock and was peeved that the current military people wouldn’t let him fly the plane.
(In my best Eeyore voice:) Some people go to good law schools and some don’t. I’m not complaining, but there it is.
Instead of involving SCOTUS, the mandate is to proclaim, debate and agree as to whether such a disputed claim is or is not so (U.S. Code, Title 3, Section 15). If yes, that would, ipso facto, have sent the decision to the House, as there would be no candidate with a majority of electoral votes, and in such a case, there would be 51 votes cast (one vote each from each state delegation and one from the D.C. delegation – per the 23rd amendment), with the voting limited to the top 3 finishers in elctoral votes, as per the 12th amendment (which also allows for the case of the House being unable to choose by majority a president). In such cases, the choice of Vice-President devolves upon the Senate, whose chiuce must receive a majority of a two-third quorum (per the 12th amendment).
OK, apart from the fact that this reads like a Shakespeare lampoon of a lawyer’s argument, I’m going to try to address it. First to get the factual errors out of the way: The 1876 election was a debacle. President Hayes was elected 8-7 by a straight party line vote in an ad hoc committee with no real Constitutional basis. I don’t believe anyone in government or the legal profession could reasonably assert that this was a precedent we need to follow.
Second, the election only goes to the House if the Electoral College is unable to select a President. The wrangling in Bush v. Gore was before the Electoral College even met; therefore the House didn’t have an opportunity to make that determination. If you’re making a normative argument that ethically the courts should have stayed out of it and let the backup procedures in the Constitution run in January, that’s one thing. But don’t confuse it with an assertion that the courts had no basis to act.
Which brings us to the third thing. Even you are citing 3 U.S.C. S 5. The ultimate interpretation of a Federal statute has been the responsibility of the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) since the inception of the Republic. You don’t even have to stop at Marbury v. Madison to find that; Hamilton offered that as his interpretation of a document he helped write (the Constitution) in the Federalist Papers.
None of this challenges your one really accurate assertion (citing McPherson v. Blacker) that the states are the ones who select the electors. The thing that the Supreme Court said in Bush v. Gore (and really the only important thing the Supreme Court said there) was that the states cannot violate the rest of the Constitution in selecting the electors. And again, the Supreme Court is the organization that has the ultimate authority on interpreting what it is that the Constitution says.
And again, the Constitution and/or thr rules and precedent and tradition of the Electoral College cover these types of cases,
The Electoral College has precedents? How does that work?
and leave the SCOTUS out of it altogether (as the SCOTUS is specifically excluded from election language in the Constitution,
It is? Where? I’m pretty sure someone in the Gore camp would have noticed a Constitutional provision excluding the Supreme Court from participation in electoral disputes.
my own interpretation would be that the 10th amendment prevails, granting undelegated powers to the States or to the people – as States are cited as having the rights to choose electors, had there been a case of one (or more) state(s) versus Florida involved (rather than citizens of those states – se 11th amendemnt, below), then SCOTUS would have jursidiction ). If there is a dispute or disparity as to the validity or credentials of electors when their votes are counted (which was, IIRC, early-mid Dec. 2000), that situation is covered in U.S. Code, Title 3, Section 15: http://books.cqpress.com/nomajority/61352CQappenB.pdf
The 10th Amendment may be your interpretation, but it’s not an interpretation that would find much support. You could put three copies of every court opinion holding that the Ninth or Tenth Amendments controlled some dispute into a notebook, and still have an empty notebook. The 11th Amendment is really a red herring, because it’s the 14th Amendment (you know, the one that came three amendments later) that gives the Federal government powers over the states, and particularly the power that was raised. The Eleventh Amendment gutted diversity suits (people in one state suing another State) and limited Congress’s Article I powers to act directly on the states, but the Fourteenth Amendment overrules the Eleventh to the extent that they conflict.
Also, 3 USC 15 governs the procedure when the election is thrown into the House, which would only have happened if the Florida votes had been removed from play entirely (as they would have been if no one had ever been able to settle on a slate of electors). There are a couple problems with this. First, excluding every Florida voter from having any effect on the Presidential election (other than perhaps making us look like a banana republic) would have been sort of a disaster. Second, it’s probably the correct interpretation of the Constitution that a majority of the electoral votes cast would make a President, not necessarily a majority of the possible electoral votes. (Thus Gore would have been President if the recounts had carried over into, say, the first week of January. The plot, as they say, thickens.) This also brings us back to 3 USC 5. That statute is a “safe harbor” provision (which is unconstitutional if we accept your interpretation that the Federal government has no business interfering with the selection of electors) that declares that NO challenge to an elector’s qualifications is possible if the electors are certified by the state at least six days before the Electoral College votes. That was where the deadline Katherine Harris wanted to meet came from. By extending the time for the recounts, the Florida Supreme Court 1) changed the rules for vote counting after the voting concluded, 2) removed Florida from the “safe harbor” and thus opened Florida up to challenges it would have been immune to but for the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling, and 3) was highly selective in its orders, ordering recounts in some counties but not other (Republican) counties, being picky about “undervotes” vs. “overvotes,” and giving so little guidance about what a voter’s mark looked like that the decision to count or not count a certain alleged “vote” was effectively in the unbridled discretion of the poll reviewer. (Remember here that “selective” and “discriminatory” were once synonyms.) Problems 1) and 3) raised 14th Amendment problems, which is how the US Supreme Court got involved. QED.
When my spouse apologizes she uses this form:
“I am sorry you were mad for what I said”
or even better
“I am sorry you suck”
She is often angry so I know which of them she will use.
Kerry should say “I am sorry for being honest about how I feel about GW Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq. “
Whether I agree with it or not, if he did mean what he said initially what the f— is wrong with being honest. At least you know what he f
Alexander – I have to wonder how many “sensitive” people are left in a thread focusing on the word “fûçk”, edited or not.
**In fact, he was an Air National Guard fighter jock and was peeved that the current military people wouldn’t let him fly the plane.
**
Did he actually show up long enough to learn how to fly one?
Kerry shouldn’t apologize. I don’t think anyone should apologize for things said on or off camera. If you said it, you must believe it. If you day it when it is inappropriate, well, things like that happen all the time. Just walk through a Wal-Mart with a toddler sometime, and note how many people watch their f– mouths.
Bush won the election legally. Does it suck if you didn‘t vote for him? Sure. But Gore showed that he was ready to do all kinds of things to win, up to and including involving the courts (Gore’s people were the first to file any court papers).
PAD – you did seem to IMPLY that there was some cosmic significance to your daughter’s birthday and snow.
As for asking why the attempted focus on younger people, I guess the real question is why try now? I mean history has shown that once the election is done, if you aren’t a senior citizen, you can go pound sand, because Medicare is all that really matters. I would rather see a candidate encourage young people to vote, because it is the right thing to do, rather than to (painfully) to appear like they are “one of them”.
Den – The point was that the election in PA was decided by the major cities, disenfranchising many rural and smaller city voters.
On a smaller scale, the county where I live in PA is home to a medium sized city that gets all kinds of funding/grants from the county. Where I live gets the shaft from the county for being as far from the city in question as we are. We still pay county taxes, but watch all our money fly north, and because of the outdated county governmental structure, we have no say, and very little recourse (our county commissioners were decided by the larger population centers, to hëll with the little guys).
But Gore showed that he was ready to do all kinds of things to win, up to and including involving the courts (Gore’s people were the first to file any court papers).
Oh give me a break. Do you honestly believe that Bush wouldn’t have filed as well if Gore had gotten Florida?
The Florida fiasco was such a joke they should’ve thrown the whole state’s results out.
Oh give me a break. Do you honestly believe that Bush wouldn’t have filed as well if Gore had gotten Florida?
Bush would not have done what Gore did. He would have followed Nixon’s example from 1960 and graciously stepped aside. Bush is not as obsessed with power as his liberal opponents are. I hope to God that the Dems nominate someone with a brain, like Liberman, so we can have some intelligent debate and not “my america can beat up your america” rhetoric coming from the left these days. I swear the black helicopter crowd is running the dems these days.
Oh give me a break. Do you honestly believe that Bush wouldn’t have filed as well if Gore had gotten Florida?
Thankfully, we will never know. All I do know is what ACTUALLY happened, and not some idea of “Bush would have done the same”.
Upon what do you base that Bush would have done the same? Did anyone see Gore going straight to the courts as he did? I mean, it’s not like he conceded the state on election night or anything.
You are absolutely correct. The FL fiasco WAS such a joke, because Gore didn’t know when to quit. Had he stood by his initial concession, as many politicians would have, rather than waffling and crying like a child that things were unfair, the whole thing would never have happened, and we never would have heard of such silliness as “pregnant chad”.
I can’t believe I’m about to say something nice about Gore, but I think it’s a little unfair to blame him for going into court. There’s no way to know what Bush would have done had the vote been reversed, but I think we all have to admit that it would be very very tempting to do the exact same thing that Gore did. I’d almost go so far as to say that it would take an absolute saint to step back when you’re a couple hundred votes in a recount away from the Presidency, and no saint belongs in the White House.
That said, Gore did a number of nasty things, like recanting his election-night concession (the concession sadly had no legal effect), asking for every vote to be counted because every voter is important– provided of course that the endangered votes happened to be in Democratic counties, and insisting on multiple successive recounts. (Challenging a close election was one thing, and I can sympathize with that. Demanding that we have recounts until he won was another.) Not to mention the pre-election moves like Bush’s DWI revelation, deceptive commercials, and the ever-present race card. ( http://www.gwu.edu/~action/ads2/adnaacp.html ) I just think that if we’re going to blame Gore we should blame him for the right things.
On election 2000. Many of the counties in Florida ignored Florida law and did not exaimne “overvotes”. These are to be exaimned by hand and if the “intent of the voter” could be concluded the vote counted. These votes were to be included in the final certified count.
28,000 overvoters were never counted. The law was not followed, if it would have been there may not have been any court case to complaign about.
http://democrats.com/view.cfm?id=1609
Den – The point was that the election in PA was decided by the major cities, disenfranchising many rural and smaller city voters.
They were not disenfranchised. They voted, their guy lost. That’s how elections work. Nobody stopped them from voting, that’s disenfranchisement. Saying that your vote doesn’t count just because the majority of people living in the more populated areas voted the other was is just sour grapes.
On a smaller scale, the county where I live in PA is home to a medium sized city that gets all kinds of funding/grants from the county. Where I live gets the shaft from the county for being as far from the city in question as we are. We still pay county taxes, but watch all our money fly north, and because of the outdated county governmental structure, we have no say, and very little recourse (our county commissioners were decided by the larger population centers, to hëll with the little guys).
Pennsylvania’s local government system is one of the most outmoded in the country. We have too many tiny municipal entities that do nothing but duplicate services, or worse, neglect essential services (we’re talking plowing the roads here) because the tax base is too small to support them.
Incidentally, the county I live (Dauphin), has the opposite extreme. Here, the county government is dominated by the sprawling suburbs and our commissioners are quite content to let our city decay away into nothing.
Oh give me a break. Do you honestly believe that Bush wouldn’t have filed as well if Gore had gotten Florida?
Bush would not have done what Gore did. He would have followed Nixon’s example from 1960 and graciously stepped aside.
Considering the fact that Bush’s team had drawn up plans to fight for their man in the event that Gore won the electoral vote and Bush won the popular vote (which is what they thought might happen – it was expected to be a close election; who imagined it would go the other way?), it is a very safe assumption to make when I say that Bush would have fought tooth-and-nail to get votes recounted and would have fought just as hard as Gore did if not moreso.
Bush is not as obsessed with power as his liberal opponents are. I hope to God that the Dems nominate someone with a brain, like Liberman, so we can have some intelligent debate and not “my america can beat up your america” rhetoric coming from the left these days.
Liberals? Obsessed with power? It isn’t the liberals who are currently doing their dámņdëšŧ to gerrymander themselves into perpetuity. (http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/031208fa_fact)
And if you want intelligent debate, Bush really isn’t your man. I don’t claim to know how smart he is and with a prepared speech he’s decent, but as a debater and extemporaneous speaker, Bush is painful to watch.
Guys, you seem to have your history all knotted up.
It was not the Democrats who took the Florida stuff to the courts first. The first court case was filed by the Republicans.
Really.
Should he apologize for saying what he did? Nah. I don’t think so. BUT, on the other hand, he should apologize to his supporters and those he’s got trying to round up votes for him for forgetting that he’s in the public arena, he can’t talk like that or he’ll alienate so many people that MIGHT have otherwise voted for him. Just my opinion. Not that it matters much to anyone but me, and even THAT’s debatabe.
Nat:
Check the timeline.
Nov. 13, Gore campaign joins in a suit to extend certification deadline. In response, but not before, Bush’s campaign sues to stop manual recount and deadline extension.
The first candidate to join in a suit, or file court papers, was Gore.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/magtimeline.htm
That timeline 1) says both things happened at 10 AM, and 2) doesn’t have everything. The Bush campaign had announced days before that they were seeking an injunction against the manual recount. http://www.surveyusa.com/ArchivedArticles/UPINewsArticleGOPseeksinjunctiontostopFloridarecount.htm
Nat, whatever kook source you’re getting information from is wrong. By law when elections are so close there is a required recount. Bush did not oppose this. He won the first recount if you recall. What Bush opposed was Gore hand picking certain counties (heavily democrat) for a SECOND recount, and the SUBJECTIVE interpretation of punch ballots of what a voter “intended”. The first judge was correct in his ruling, but the supreme court of Florida decided to rewrite the law, which brought the US Supreme Court into it, which should never have had to happen. Besides, if Gore could have won his HOME state this would not of even been an issue. The Clinton/Gore team has successfully politicized every freakin’ aspect of the system. Democrats should be embarassed of these guys. Not defending them.
Nat, a suggestion for entering into debates:
Check your references and make sure they do not contradict the point you are trying to make.
You insist that Bush and/or his supporters were the first to go to court. You then post an article that says that not only did Gore supporters go to court first, but Gore’s chief in FL admitted to several instances that he was aware of.
In the article appears the following paragraph:
Baker [part of the Bush camp] argued that Gore supporters have filed eight lawsuits challenging the election, so the Republicans are not the first to go to court. Daley [part of the Gore camp] said he thought they were only five and that the national Democratic Party had nothing to do with any of them.
Care to un-knot your history there a little?
I should have been clearer in saying that the Republicans were the first [i]of the parties[/i] to go to court. Yes, private citizens went to court first.
The folks who Baker described as “Gore supporters” were Florida citizens who appeared to be disenfranchised by the situation. The suits were not filed by Gore and his staff, nor by the Democratic party. This is in contrast to what happened on November 11th. Even NewsMax (a source for rabid right-wing news spin) says that “The first political party to file any legal action was, indeed, the Republican Party.”
“Wolfknight”, if I was looking for someone to lecture me on debate, it wouldn’t be someone who had just cited a partial timeline that didn’t even say what he claimed. Really.
And Chris, if you want to rant about my sources, you may want to have your own sources to back you up, rather than apparently using your own presumptions as an excuse for yet another shallow rail against Gore and (for some unlinked reason) Clinton.
Nat:
I wasn’t lecturing. I was suggesting an improvement.
Yes, the first party to file was the republicans. But that was not what you said. You said “The first court case was filed by the republicans. Really.” (emphasis added)
I wasn’t speaking about what party filed the first case, rather the first case period, which was what you had said.
If you intend to present information in a debate, it would help to be clear as to what you mean to say, rather than have to apologize for misspeaking later.
Ah, another lecture on debating from “Wolfknight”, who seems to show little concern for the information he’s presented, but feels the need to echo my statement that I should have been clearer.
But if you’re concerned about what was actually being addressed, I suggest that you look at your post “Upon what do you base that Bush would have done the same? Did anyone see Gore going straight to the courts as he did?” Gore did not go “straight to the courts”. Gore did not go to the courts until after the Bush team had.
Really.
Let me guess: I’ll get another “Wolfknight” lecture on debating guidelines for people who aren’t him?
FÙÇK, NO!!!
He ain’t gonna win, anyway.
Mindy