posted on December 13, 2000 04:03:56 AMIMLDS2 - The 'recount' was NOT legal because there wasn't a uniform law in FLA for the recounting..and all the counties and MILITARY VOTES weren't included in the 'recounts'.
Ok, if the recount wasn't legal because there wasn't a uniform standard - how about setting one up and recounting?
The Florida Supreme Court DID want all the counties included.
As to 'military votes' (or absentee ballots in general not counting) - that's a hoot.
Here are some quotes:
"criteria for judging overseas ballots varied wildly from county to county, with some using almost no standard at all"
"In Clay County for instance, ballots with no witness signatures were accepted, as well as ones without signatures across the seal of the envelope. Two faxed-in ballots -- albeit ones that arrived by Nov. 7 -- were even added to Bush's tally. "That's not the normal protocol," says Stephanie Thomas, assistant supervisor of elections in Clay
County. "The law is you don't count faxes. But it was up to the canvassing board, and it was their determination to accept them."
Contrary to Florida law, Collier County accepted overseas ballots that were not signed, dated or postmarked.
Escambia County accepted some overseas ballots clearly postmarked after Election Day.
So did Santa Rosa County, which also counted five ballots that arrived after the 10-day post-election window allowed by the state
for overseas ballots. It also accepted ballots arriving after Nov. 7 that carried a U.S., not an overseas, postmark --
even though all absentee ballots mailed from within the U.S. are supposed to arrive by Election Day.
Meanwhile, Pasco County waived the state law requiring that an absentee ballot only be counted if there is a request for it on file."
This is from http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/12/11/absentee/index.html?CP=YAH&DN=110
I guess it's ok to 'have varying standards' if they're absentee ballots.
posted on December 13, 2000 05:20:06 AM
We get what we deserve. Lets hope he is able to rise to the office. What a mess. A tainted President and now a tainted Supreme Court. Will we ever have people of quality as President? What is it about our system that we choose such mediocre leaders? Worst of all we will have to see his smirk for the next four years. Lets hope Cheney stays healthy. We need someone high up that's not clueless.
Humanity I love; it's people I can't stand
posted on December 13, 2000 06:36:34 AM
Years ago, there was a Smith-Barney ad.
Their slogan, so eloquently relayed by John Houseman, was "Smith-Barney makes money the old-fashioned way...they earn it."
I didn't vote for GW.
I didn't and still don't like GW.
If he wants my respect, he will have to do it the old-fashioned way...he will have to earn it. He is no different than anyone else in my life.
I asked Bush supporters for some insight into this man in a previous thread. Where were the Bush supporters? Marwin tried, but (sorry) failed.
I have to come to the conclusion that Republicans aren't sold on him either, and are just as embarrased with his Bushisms. His only "quality" is that he is a Republican.
Apparently, just like the skewed attitude with sports:
posted on December 13, 2000 06:51:02 AM
I'm nothing if not fair-minded. I vow to afford Dubya the same respect I afford to all the coke-sniffing, vacuum-headed, overindulged, unaccomplished children of privilege I know.
posted on December 13, 2000 07:08:24 AM
These recounts were of "undervotes" I believe (where the machines do not detect a vote for Pres) and all counties were
directed by the FL Court to recount these.
Anyway, the Court's ruling strikes me as odd. Didn't it say the FL Supremes should have set standards? But wouldn't that be, in effect, writing new law which has been one of the appellant's allegations against the FL Court to begin with?
Savoy: People don't really have that much choice who the candidates for Pres are. As to who runs and can stay in the race for any significant length of time depends on money. The first race is for support from influential politicians, powerbrokers and campaign dollars. The party nominations were essentially locked up even before the primaries were over. Unsurprisingly, the candidates with the most campaign dollars for advertising, travel and campaign staff and organization edged out the other competitors in the primaries. (Think Gore's and Bush's campaign tactics against their fellow party members, Bradley and McCain respectively, were much nastier than their campaigns against each other.) No millions for the campaign: no campaign, no candidate.
Here in California we actually had a state legislator say something to the effect that just because someone was a constituent or voted for her didn't mean anything if they didn't contribute to her campaign. This in a public legislative hearing. She evidently felt she was elected to represent the interests of her campaign contributors rather than the people of her district. That she felt so wasn't that surprising; that she was dumb enough to say so in public was.
posted on December 13, 2000 07:20:12 AM
Bush didn't win the presidency, he was appointed. We may never know who really won the election. That will NOT be forgotten, nor should it be. He didn't even win the popular vote. The only "man-date" he got was that time he stopped for a beer with Cheney in drag.
posted on December 13, 2000 08:14:12 AM
IMLDS---you getting yelled down all the time on your posts has nothing to do with your beliefs and everything to do with your style. Everytime I read one of your posts I am thankful that I am only reading your words and not listening to them.
To quote a long time poster of these boards--who ironically hasn't liked my posts very much in the past either.
Spazmodeus---"I've been on this board for quite awhile now, and your posts are some of the most obnoxious I've seen."
posted on December 13, 2000 08:46:07 AM
Hey Zazzie...can we vote on that?
GWB was not elected...he and the US Supreme Court ran the clock out and he was appointed by default. He is a puppet, not a president. I do respect the office of the presidency...I do not respect how it was filled for this term. It was underhanded and not at all democratic.
posted on December 13, 2000 08:48:54 AMzazzie great posts. Thanks!
marwin You didn't answer zazzie's question about your support for Clinton.
[i]The idea is to support the one who wins.
There is nothing to be gained for us as a Nation, not supporting the next President.[/i]
It will have to be not just Bush but all the Republicans who took part in this travesty of justice and degeneration of democracy to do what's required to "bring the country together."
As for myself, and I feel certain there are plenty others like me, I'm 100% sure that Bush is neither man enough nor could he be President enough to unite ME. It just won't happen. He's a fraud, a liar, a cheat, with fascist /totalitarian tendencies.
Smirk on, Bush. Your presidency is DOA for at least half of the American people, and I can only pray half of Congress as well. You blew it when you wouldn't allow ALL Americans to find out who really won (and it wasn't you). I'd have supported you had you actually won, altho the vote suppression tactics in FL would have forever clouded your Presidency even then. (That's the one good thing about all this -- had Florida been easily won one way or the other, none of that stuff would've come out.) But you didn't win. It was handed to you by a partisan, selfish, small-minded and visionless Supreme Court which cared nothing at all about the effect of its actions on the country. Shame on them. They have only made the divisions between us all deeper and stronger.
Your win is, well, ultimately your loss (except we know you'll benefit financially -- that's your family's pattern, of course). There is no way you deserve the Presidency, and no way you ever will.
posted on December 13, 2000 09:16:33 AM
I've heard it said so much, 'I didn't vote for him, Bush will not have my respect or support' Maybe not here, somewhere....
I don't understand this. So the half that did vote for him, he is President to only them? Isn't he the U.S. President Elect, I mean for the whole U.S.?
When everyone talks about how those votes were not counted, or the Bush people trying to stop those counts. Those votes were counted, and then again. They were undervotes, which the machine didn't pick up any Presidential votes.
That is why Gore wanted them handcounted, to find intent. But what if, just a what if, a lot of those WERE for Bush, and were for Buchannan, and others that were on the ticket, or people simply did not vote for any candidate for President.
So first select counties were chosen to hand count. Then they were standards set by the Fl leg. on how to do this. Then those standards were disregared, then it was stopped. When a person is trying to guess at who that ballot had on it for President, you run into a lot of problems.
Yes a lot of people will count those votes now. But how will they count them? Will they set any standards for the scholars?
posted on December 13, 2000 09:32:10 AM
nearthesea,
"That is why Gore wanted them handcounted, to find intent. But what if, just a what if, a lot of those WERE for Bush, and were for Buchannan, and others that were on the ticket, or people simply did not vote for any candidate for President. So first select counties were chosen to hand count. Then they were standards set by the Fl leg. on how to do this. Then those standards were dissregared, then it was stopped. When a person is trying to guess at who that ballot had on it for President, you run into a lot of problems".
That "what if" is the point, and why does bush fight the finding out.
Believe that the challenge mechanism in law limits the number of counties that a candidate can request a recount for, the standards, such as they are, as written by the Florida legislature were not 'disregarded', but the recounts were stopped at the behest of bush. Noone was trying to 'guess'; they, both parties in attendance, were trying to apply the standards for a manual recount in accordance with existing law.
Haven't you read any of this?
It seems that justice is not blind, but many republicans sure are.
posted on December 13, 2000 09:41:31 AM
HEY, THERE'S AN IDEA!
SUPPORT SOMEONE JUST BECAUSE THEY WON!!!
A REVOLTING idea that is.
Support a Drunk, Drug abusing, lying, immoral, cheating, stealing, illiterate, corrupt, inexperienced, millionaire, daddy's boy moron to run our country...
posted on December 13, 2000 09:53:34 AM
i consider myself a middle of the road Democrat. i am not so blind as to think Clinton did not embarass the country with his shenanigans. i don't agree with everything every Democrat says or does and i certainly don't disagree with everything Republicans say or do. however, i have a sick feeling about the way the partisan Supreme Court "ran out the clock" and i just don't have a good feeling about Dubya. i don't think he has the knowledge or maturity to be a good president. i just hope he has the wisdom to defer to his cabinet and advisors on virtually all issues and that he gets a really good speechwriter and follows the teleprompter word for word so as to not embarass the country with what will be his now more closely followed words.
posted on December 13, 2000 09:55:08 AM
Had all votes been counted and YES, re-counted, and had Mr. Bush collected even MORE votes, then, yes, he would have WON. His (successful) attempt at disallowing those votes and forcing the court to stall for time, till reaching the deadline for recounting, is the very thing which will come to haunt his Presidency, because, as many have mentioned, NO ONE will ever know for sure...There is NOTHING worse than doubt. And DOUBT is plentiful. Were he so very great and superior, there would never have been that split down the middle. He would have been ahead from start to finish. THEN, and only THEN, would I be able to see him as President, even tho not one of my choosing. As it stands now, he is and will remain nothing but a WORD wearing an empty suit...or jeans, rather...
Mr. Clinton could not keep his pants up...well, neither could Mr. Kennedy, not Mr. Roosevelt, and many others....So, what's new?
But they did not go crying for a "Stay" to the Supreme Court. Why request a "Stay"??? A Stay of Execution? Because bush knew he was a lame duck, and the only way he could "get", not "win" the Presidency, was by rallying with his cronies in higher places.
I will always obey the law of the land, when fair, because that's the way I am...But I do NOT have to like the leader.
******************** Gosh Shosh!
posted on December 13, 2000 10:03:37 AM
Pocono said exactly what I was about to say, so now I dont have to bother, because he said it much better than I could anyway
I have a bad feeling about the next 4 years. Meanwhile, I dont think the rebublicans are happy with the idea that its GW. I think they are ecstatic that they WON, regardless of who it is the takes the seat.
posted on December 13, 2000 10:09:13 AM
IMO, when all the ballots are counted (by whomever) and it's publicly known that Gore should have legitimately won the election, he's the one who will look good to the American people and Bush will look like the rat he is. Bush will still be the president, but Gore will have more respect.
posted on December 13, 2000 10:11:09 AM
Yes, stusi, thanks to Florida's Sunshine Law.
And, who will set the standards for that?
If we couldn't have a count with set standards before, I sure as hell don't want them counted after Bush becomes President-elect, regardless of the result.
posted on December 13, 2000 10:14:10 AM
shosh- i don't think the court has anything to do with it. if it did i don't think we would ever see them again. something about an atomic powered shredder under the pentagon. i believe it comes under the freedom of information act. femme- there may not have to be any legal standards per se, but i can see a situation where different media entities publish different findings. unless they come to an agreement about revealing how many of all types of ballots(hanging, dimpled etc.)it may be another exercise in futility.
[ edited by stusi on Dec 13, 2000 10:19 AM ]
posted on December 13, 2000 10:23:03 AM
What I was trying to say, but it does tend to be a bit controversial in here right now that, there were standards, passed in FL on hand counting in 1990. During the process of the hand counting, those standards were 'thrown out', as attested by not only Rep. observers, but 'non partisan' ones also. The 'counters' were using all different methods of counting these 'uncounted' votes. That is why the suit to stop, or at least get a set standard in place, and this happened the first time, with enough time to do this.
The FL SC also extended the deadline for certification. The Sec. of State went by that deadline. I understand there are alot of opposition to what she did. But what did she do, but go by what the FL Supreme Court told her to do.
Yes I am sure the press will count these votes. But, by which standards, or methods will they count them? I am sure historians, scholars and the like would like to count them too, and to them, which standards are they going to adhere to?
And for the record, I didn't say of whom I voted for, or any party affliation.
I see a lot of people getting very emotional over this.
Ok another picture: What IF (sorry another what if ) Bush had won, (as it really does look almost a tie, with a not a landslides lead by Gore in even the Popular vote) with no suits files, no hand recounts demanded etc etc. Would all Gore supporters be ok with this?
I see 'dirty politics' (if you want to call them that) on both sides.
The people here today, that are angry. This has been one long election 'night'. Batttles have been fought on both sides.
Undervotes abound in this nation. The reason, of course, what happened, is because it ended with a close, close race in Florida. (also FL has a very large electorate) If this happened in say, a state with a smaller electorate vote, I wonder if the same battles would have been fought.
Generally Flordia has gone Republican, someone can look that up... Gore fought a long hard campaign in Florida, for just that reason, he did up till the last minute, late into the night before Election Day.
They both campaigned hard for this. It, unfortunatly had to end up this way. What shall we do about it now? I would hope that some kind of unification of the country would happen.
One more thing: Gore has not conceeded yet, yes I know, he has a speech planned for later, but who's to say what he will say?
posted on December 13, 2000 10:31:19 AM
nutworker(sorry, i don't have my spellcheck on) has already posted both speeches as only he has inside information on all political(and religious) issues.
posted on December 13, 2000 10:33:38 AM
With regard to the Florida sunshine law, it has already been proposed by Gov. Whitman of N.J. to seal the ballots. I wouldn't be suprised to see this happen. One of the reasons the Supreme Court gave for the suspension of the recount was the threat of grave harm to the Gov. Bush should the new tally favor Gore while they were deciding how to rule. Look for voices to demand the sealing of the Florida ballots for the "good of the nation".
Humanity I love; it's people I can't stand
posted on December 13, 2000 10:46:43 AM
Look, in my mind it is pretty simple.
I applauded and supported some of what Reagan
did. I was in horror and fought against some of what he proposed.
I applauded and supported some of what Bush did. I was in horror and fought against some of what he proposed.
I applauded and supported some of what Clinton did. I was in horror and fought against some of what he proposed.
I don't see this changing the next 4 years. I did not love Bush - and I could not support Gore. I will likely applaud some of what he does and be in horror at some of what is proposed.
But I never have stopped being proud to be an American. I thank God that I live in a country where I can disagree with the leader of the country and not be tossed into a pit for my "crime".
What I do dislike is when people like Alec Baldwin made statements that he would leave the country if Bush was elected.
What a sad and lost attitude to take - that he feels that the value of the whole country - of all of us - - the total of our hopes and dreams - rests with one temporary leader who will be replaced in 4 or 8 years.
The president is a very minor part of our strength and value as a nation in my opinion. And I think that is the way it should be.
was obviously a quite deliberate and discourteous misspelling of networker67's ID. The statement very narrowly skirts the basic etiquette requirements set out in the CGs. Please keep those requirements in mind as you post.
[ edited by Shoshanah on Dec 13, 2000 12:02 PM ]