 sj |
||
|
||
BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta'
|
|
|
Subject: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: catspaw49 Date: 12 Dec 00 - 10:59 PM There he is friends the non clear cut winner and future centrist, da' Shrub hisself and Daddy's little boy, President-Elect George W. Bush. The courts, and especially the Supreme Court of the United States did themselves no great honor in this decision, but it is over and once again we have an orderly change about to take place. Let's move on to 2004. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Allan C. Date: 12 Dec 00 - 11:00 PM (sigh) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Troll Date: 12 Dec 00 - 11:02 PM Thanks 'Spaw. I hope we can all pull together or it's gonna be a long four years. So. Pax? troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: katlaughing Date: 12 Dec 00 - 11:05 PM Sorry? We must watch different pundits or I puked over the intensive breaking know-nothing-yet news and missed the important bits. Last one I heard said it was good news for Gore???/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: GUEST,Mickey191 Date: 12 Dec 00 - 11:16 PM In my stupidity, I thought the Supremes would straighten it out. We would have been better off with Diana and the girls. Will we ever know how many ballots were stolen,changed, subverted or flushed?I can't abide the thought of that smug face for the next 4 yrs. Mickey N.Y. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: pict Date: 12 Dec 00 - 11:50 PM Is it definite? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: catspaw49 Date: 12 Dec 00 - 11:51 PM Sorry kat.........The Supreme Court remanding the case back to Florida basically said that a recount is OK if you have some provision and means of making it work within the time frame allotted. This is an impossibility making the decision final at this point. A good nod to Stevens and Ginsberg and Bryar for fine dissenting opinions, but the Court did not do anymore than cast their lot along ideological lines....except for Thomas of course who hasn't got enough brains to have an ideology. I'm sure Thurgood Marshall is rolling over in his grave, but that's another story. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Ebbie Date: 12 Dec 00 - 11:54 PM Rah Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Night Owl Date: 12 Dec 00 - 11:55 PM ahhh well.......where is Spiro Agnew when we need him??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: katlaughing Date: 13 Dec 00 - 12:01 AM oh fuck |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: GutBucketeer Date: 13 Dec 00 - 12:16 AM I think I will just go to the basement and start practicing my banjo. Call in in 2002 when it's time to work on the campaigns to vote all those partisian right wing JERKS, out of congress. I almost feel like I should move to Florida just so I can vote them out there. Oh well, at least I will get better on the banjo. Too depressed to do much else. Over and Out JAB See you in two years |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Joe Offer Date: 13 Dec 00 - 12:26 AM Am I the only one who thinks George W. looks suspiciously like Alfred E. Neuman? Wll, I'm sure that Molly Ivins will have a field day, now that Bush sneaked in the back door. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Night Owl Date: 13 Dec 00 - 12:28 AM well said kat!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: BlueJay Date: 13 Dec 00 - 12:43 AM I think Gore should go back to the Fla. Supreme Court and see if they are willing to try another recount, (acceptable standards, of course). To those who believe Gore should graciously concede, I say this bullshit has to be fought, even in futility. Some Democrats claim Gore will lose support if he fights on, but he'll lose my support if he stops. There are many others like me, pissed off enough to maybe want a little anarchy here for a change. The dissenting opinions say it better than I can, but lots of votes are uncounted, and public confidence in politics in general, and the Supreme Court in particular have been badly eroded. Dubya- If it must be, it must. I can't wait to see your smirking face revelling in your hollow victory. Hopefully the backlash will stop us from reverting to Reaganism and McCarthyism. BlueJay |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Troll Date: 13 Dec 00 - 12:48 AM Molly will indeed have a ball. I can hardly wait to read her collumns. As for Thomas, 'Spaw, we could have had Bork, but nooooo. Yes Joe. Unfortunately he does resemble Alfred E. Neuman. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: katlaughing Date: 13 Dec 00 - 01:07 AM I think we should help Ducks Everywhere Unite with a Just Say No to being Bushwhacked campaign!! Michael Moore has some very choice words about what he is calling a "coup." I will paste his message here for anyone I didn't email it to, if there is interest. katclickingherrubyredslippersandsaying"Thereisnopresidentbush,thereisnopresidentbush...." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Rick Fielding Date: 13 Dec 00 - 01:24 AM "Where's Spiro Agnew when we need him?" Hell, where's Lee Harvey Oswald? Just kidding (I think) Actually this is gonna be the most moderate presidency ever. And truthfully it should be fun to watch. Man, I'd hate to be an (identified) Nader voter right now. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Ebbie Date: 13 Dec 00 - 01:33 AM Oh, God, no, please. An assassinated president would give the party a martyr - I'm looking forward to seeing them just f a d e s l o w l y away. When it comes down to it, US/Americans have always been for fairness and the underdog. There have to be a lot of people out there who are a little queasy on how their aim was accomplished. I think the Republican party is doomed. Ebbie
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Banjer Date: 13 Dec 00 - 04:27 AM I too think Gore should keep on the fight. I certainly cant see much hope for any future elections in this country if some changes aren't made real soon. Step one is to get rid of the electoral college and let everyone have their one vote and let it count....Get absentee bellots in BEFORE election day and keep them sealed to be counted along with the rest of the votes. Maybe Gore won't win, but he can still do this country a great service by continuing to push for a better election system. He already has done us a great service by pointing out how flawed our present system is. It would be neat to be able to go back in time and see just how close some past elections really were and what difference the absentee ballots would have made had they counted. It is incomprehensible to me how they can announce a winner the very night or following morning of an election when there are still seven days before the absentee ballots must be counted!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: P05139 Date: 13 Dec 00 - 06:23 AM Hate to sound thick, but who's Lee Harvey Oswald??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: GUEST Date: 13 Dec 00 - 06:54 AM ...U.S. President John Kennedy's (official) assassin.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: InOBU Date: 13 Dec 00 - 07:27 AM God bless Justice Stevens (for you overseas the Sup Ct. Justice who wrote in his descent that the looser in this election was the people's faith in the Judge as empartical) and God save the nation, especially when the little retard is going to sink Social Security into a failing stock market the morning after he fires Alan Greenspan, the only human on earth who can save the market in the face of failing dot coms. (The bush family publicly hates Alan Greenspan. As to Lee Oswald, though our dear Brother Felding probubly meant something different, he is defendable only in the meaning that Oswald is the least likely to have killed JFK, perhaps the only one in the country who can be said not to be a suspect! So, I will choose to believe that Rick was NOT endorcing assaination. I also DO NOT endorce assasination. Rather, the final power in this nation is not the courts it is the PEOPLE! I again urge those who love freedom and liberty and the power of the people to choose their leader by the ballot to organise and STRIKE! Close the nation down, and restore democracy by refusing to work. this is the people's govenrment only so long as we have the courage to defend it. Fially, as with Justice Ginsburg, who, for the first time in the history of the Sup Ct, droped "respectfully" from "respectfully descent" in her responce to the majority's sell out of democracy, I descent and call on others to do so with thier feet. In a shared love of liberty and one big union, Larry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: alison Date: 13 Dec 00 - 07:45 AM well I've got floor space and room outside for a few tents.. come on over....... slainte alison |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: bflat Date: 13 Dec 00 - 07:55 AM And we have a loser... It is the national trust that the Supreme Court is anything but partisan. That is most unfortunate for the trust to have been eroded. I believe the positives in the aftermath will be improved voting procedures and an improved voter responsibility to ensure their vote is registered. But geeze, Bush the hollow presidency to come, or puppet politics. bflat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Willie-O Date: 13 Dec 00 - 09:00 AM were there to be a L.H. Oswald character in this scenario, he sure wouldn't be working against the Bush family. Remember, LHO was a perfect fall guy for a rather extensively (if inconclusively) documented conspiracy which involved the CIA, right-wing Cubans based in Florida, and some other interesting operatives, quite possibly including some of the Watergate felons. Bush family=Texas oil, CIA... notice that CNN has a subheading "Wall Street cheers Supreme Court"...doesn't say anything about the public reaction. trust no one... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Mrrzy Date: 13 Dec 00 - 09:08 AM It's a coup. Bush is a usurper. I'm waiting for all the civilized nations to say so and refuse to recognize the illegal govermnent, cut off trade, close embassies, and send their equivalent of the CIA to overthrow him... the Mossad could do it, too! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: katlaughing Date: 13 Dec 00 - 09:18 AM Sorry for the length of this, but I really think Michael Moore speaks well on this even if the action he calls for is now out of date. Sorry for those of you who may have already seen this:
From: Michael Moore Judgment Day O'Connor December 11, 2000 Dear friends, I'm sorry I haven't been able to write to you in the past couple of weeks. My mom became ill and had to have surgery. Everything went well and she is now recovering. My sisters and I are blessed to have our parents, nearing 80, still with us. Meanwhile, I guess some sort of overthrow is taking place right here in the good ol' U.S. of A. I knew the U.S. Supreme Court was dominated by reactionaries and conservatives. But, honestly -- I never, ever, believed it was... crooked. Until now. This Court appears ready to install a President who did not win the election. Can this really be happening? Everyone knows that if the votes are ever counted in Florida, Gore is the winner. George W. Bush knows that more than anyone -- that's why he's fighting so desperately hard to stop that count from ever taking place. If he felt he was truly the winner, his attitude would be, "Sure, go ahead and count the ballots, I'm not worried 'cause I know I'm the winner." But that's NOT what he thinks or knows. He knows he lost. EVERYONE knows he lost. Let's cut the B.S. If those 12,000 ballots ever get counted, George W. Bush is the loser and everyone with an I.Q. of over 70 knows it. Why would the loser insist on being given the top prize? Have you ever heard of such a thing? Not only that, he has convinced all the loser-lovers in the Florida legislature and the U. S. House of Representatives to grant him the victory in case he loses -- again -- in court. In every other nation on this planet, they have a word for this behavior -- and that word is "coup." George W. Bush and his allies in Congress, the Florida legislature, and the U.S. Supreme Court are trying to stage a coup, an overthrow of the will of the people. According to last Sunday's stunning front page story in the Miami Herald, had there been no shenanigans in the Florida election, the Herald calculates that Gore would have won Florida by 23,000 votes! You can check out this story byclicking here. The theft of this election didn't just start with Jeb Bush's girlfriend/Bush for President Co-Chairwoman/Bush delegate to the Republican Convention/Secretary of State Katherine Harris's refusal to count the ballots. Months ago, Jeb and Katherine sought to eliminate as many black voters as possible from the voting rolls. This is a mind-blowing story and I encourage you to read it by clicking here. The U.S. Supreme Court stopped the counting of the ballots this weekend and violated the law in doing so. They are allowed to grant a stay only if "irrevocable, irreparable harm" would happen if the votes were counted. Since when does the counting of our citizens' votes cause "irreparable harm"? Justice Antonin Scalia said (I'll paraphrase here), well, we believe Bush won and if we allow those votes from Florida to be counted and Gore ends up ahead, well, that would cause irreparable harm to a Bush administration. Yes, that is what he said! Look, let's be honest about something. Part of the reason we are in the mess we are in today is because AL GORE voted YES to put Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. Let me say this one more time so it sinks in to every Gore-loving head out there: AL GORE VOTED TO PUT SCALIA ON THE SUPREME COURT! The chickens sure have come home to roost for that blunder (and for the 11 Democrats who voted YES to give Clarence Thomas his narrow victory). Don't write me and tell me about the kind of Court we "might" get under Bush thanks to Nader. We already have it, thanks to Al and his Democrats. It's a tough pill to swallow. Listen, this fight today, Monday, December 11, 2000, is not about Al Gore. It is about the only thing that ultimately matters in a democracy -- the right to vote. The right to have a say in who will represent us. Gore got 300,000 more votes than Bush. Gore won. Gore will have more votes in Florida if those ballots are allowed to be counted. Gore won. I have no personal interest in seeing Al Gore in the White House. I did not vote for him. But I don't like liars, I don't like thieves, and I really hate cowards. Mr. Bush (that's what the majority of Americans will always call you, because we will not participate in your lie by ever calling you "Mr. President") -- we know what you are so afraid of. You are a coward for not wanting those ballots counted because you know the outcome. You know you've lost. You know the people have spoken. Be a man, for crying out loud! Go back to your ranch and let us get on with bugging the shit outta Al Gore for the next four years! Friends, if you do anything today, it must be to take a stand against this coup. If you live within a few hours of Washington, DC, I am asking that you pack the grounds of the Supreme Court the way any nation of citizens would do if their election was being stolen from them. The rest of you -- call Western Union right now! That's right, leave this 21st century technology of the Internet behind and return to the 19th century way of the telegram. They will not be expecting an avalanche of telegrams on their desks! Western Union still hand-delivers telegrams. Let's flood the offices of Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and William Kennedy (the only two conservatives on the Court who are not certifiable loons) within the next few hours and let them know the true will of the people. I am especially calling upon anyone who voted for Bush or Nader or Buchanan to rise above political ideology and take a stand for what you know is right. Here's how you send a hand-delivered telegram: 1. Call Western Union at 800-325-6000. Then wait for the live operator. 2. Tell the operator that you want to send a hand-delivered telegram that needs to get there within the next few hours. 3. It costs $17.95 for 15 words or less, and another $13.95 for the hand delivery. That's a total of $31.90. Most credit cards accepted. 4. The address is: Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (or William Kennedy), U.S. Supreme Court, One First Street N.E., Washington, DC 20543. I know thirty bucks is a lot of dough for many of you. Is our country worth $31.90? I think it is. If you truly can't afford it, then call the Supreme Court today and make your feelings known (202-479-3211). But I'm telling ya, forcing the Justices to swim in a sea of yellow telegrams -- that will have an enormous impact. It will make national news and inspire millions more to do the same. No one sees the phone calls coming in or the e-mails being sent. But those Western Union guys having to lug truckloads of telegrams up the steps of the Supreme Court... whoa! Call 10 people right now and ask them to join us. There will be plenty of time later to discuss the other issues pertinent to this election -- why 100 million citizens again did not vote, the way the rich bought and paid for both candidates, why I am personally responsible for this whole mess, etc. But right now -- TODAY -- we have to act like we have never acted before. Trust me, if they can get away with this, they can get away with ANYTHING. Maybe many of you are already convinced that they can. I am still clinging to some sort of strange hope that right and justice will prevail, that a few million of us can shock this corrupt court into coming to its senses, if not its own sense of self-preservation. The clock is ticking. Yours, Michael Moore mmflint@aol.com www.michaelmoore.com P.S. Send this letter to anyone you wish, asap. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Dec 00 - 09:38 AM Demand a recount!
Seriously (sort of) - Judge Thomas is married to a woman who is working at the Hertage Foundation in Washington coordinating rightwing recruitnment for Bush's.
And Justice Scalia has a son who is law partner to Ted Olsen who acted for Bush in the two cases he brought to rhe Supreme Court.
So that's two conservative Republicans who should have declared a conflict of interest, and disqualified tehmselves. Which means that the ruling stopping the count on Saturday was improper and illegal; and the ruling stoppuing further recounting last night was also imprper and illegal.
So it looks as if, as in the national vote and in the Florida vote, now in the Supreme Court, Al Gore in truth may have lost the battle, but he won the vote Maybe those titles had better be printed with quote marks - "President" Bush; "Justice" Scalia.
But what really matters isn't that you've got a creep in the White House instead of the man who has been called "The walking wardrobe" - it's the damage that has been done to yet another underpinning element of the constitutional settlement.
First the voting system gets discredited; now the totally politicised Supreme Court. And all in the cause of determining who should win an election. Elections come and go, but once you've screwed up the constitutional settlement, you've got real problems.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Jim Dixon Date: 13 Dec 00 - 11:25 AM This decision still confuses me. All the pundits are saying it effectively puts an end to Gore's chances, but they haven't explained exactly how, to my satisfaction. The decision seems to say that THEORETICALLY, there could be a recount, but PRACTICALLY it couldn't happen within some time limit. But I haven't heard anyone thoroughly explain how the time limit works. What would happen if they disregarded the time limit and went ahead with the recount anyway? I understand something like that happened in Hawaii in 1960. Hawaii had a recount that continued into late December, and based on the recount, certified a second slate of electors for Kennedy after having earlier certified a slate for Nixon. Nobody cared because Kennedy didn't need Hawaii's electoral votes. Nixon (as Vice President presiding over the Senate) ruled that Congress should accept the votes for Kennedy, and no one objected. People seem to be taking it for granted that EVEN IF the recount proceeds in a manner that satisfies the conditions set down by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court, and EVEN IF Gore WINS that recount -- that Congress will override the result and make Bush the president anyway. (The fact that the deadline has passed is what gives Congress the power to do this.) And THIS opinion seems to be based on the assumption that all the Republicans in Congress will vote for Bush. However, we know from the impeachment proceedings that SOME Republicans in Congress have independent judgment and a conscience that sometimes requires them to break ranks with their party. Wouldn't we expect SOME Republicans to vote for Gore (assuming that Gore wins the popular vote in Florida)? That being the case, isn't there some hope for Gore after all? Or am I misunderstanding the court's opinion somehow? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Bill D Date: 13 Dec 00 - 12:46 PM Gore needs to make a speech that acknowleges without 'conceding'... "I fought because I really thought it wasn't clear that Bush had won. If Bush had been a few hundred votes behind HE would have seen the logic in demanding recounts..And since the voting machines that gave the most trouble were in poor, black, mostly Democratic areas, I still suspect that if "truth" were known, I might have more votes, but the courts and the legislature and various forces have made it impossible to GET to absolute truth, so I must accept that Bush has won the struggle, if not the 'clear' victory, and I will, of course, do all that I can to support him and the country as we ALL attempt to keep this country moving and sane. And I DO hope that before another election of this sort happens, that the inequities that led to this awkwardness will be corrected!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: SeanM Date: 13 Dec 00 - 12:51 PM Jim, the problem is that the Supremes (minus Diana Ross) stopped the recount dead, then remanded the case back to the Florida Supreme Court late last night, stating that it's fine to go ahead with the recount on two conditions: 1) that the court provide for a uniform and constitutionally valid standard to recount by, and 2) that the recount be finished by December 12th. Now... considering that the ruling was issued at (I think) around 10 pm. EST, this gave the Florida court and ballot counters TWO FREAKIN' HOURS to accomplish the recount. Yes, it looks like the last recount is in... and that only five votes really matter. Long Live Bush, the Judicially Appointed President. Then again, it's not like this wasn't an obvious outcome to begin with. The reason the recount was stopped was that it might cause serious damage to Bush's presidency if it were found out that he were not really president. Duh. M |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: DougR Date: 13 Dec 00 - 12:55 PM Yep, I'm confident it was a gigantic right-wing plot that got to the U. S. Supreme Court. Of course had the Court voted to support Gore, it would be the greatest Court in the world, right? :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Jon Freeman Date: 13 Dec 00 - 01:10 PM It makes no difference to me whether Bush or Gore is in but I do think that this is a sad day for American justice. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Bill D Date: 13 Dec 00 - 01:14 PM we'll be mostly ok, though I dread the list of Republican appointees and agendas...but at least the cartoonists and comedians will be kept busy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: catspaw49 Date: 13 Dec 00 - 01:20 PM No Doug, a great Court would have granted the power back to the state to conduct the recount already begun under the stipulation that the method used met the letter of the law from a constitutional standpoint. In so doing, they would also have granted a time exception to the Safe Harbor provision of the Electoral College standard that allowed a complete and accurate count to be completed. And isn't it interesting that the "strong Constitutionalists" and state's rights advocates on this court decided to skip those previously held beliefs and said basically, to hell with the state and to hell with one man/one vote? Bork? Interesting thing about Bork. I detested his political views, but in terms of the Constitution he was one of the best candidates ever to be named. And for all that, his opinions and views were firmly held and I'd bet that he would have originally voted to not even hear this case. I hope that the recount and numbers are pursued under the Freedom of Information Act and I too hope we have serious reform before the next election.........including new voting machines!!! Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Midchuck Date: 13 Dec 00 - 01:22 PM Why does Bush being a twit and a liar make Gore a non-twit and a non-liar? Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: mousethief Date: 13 Dec 00 - 01:28 PM Actually, Doug, if they had voted unanimously EITHER WAY, I would have been happy. As it is they split along party lines, which means the court is not administering justice but playing favorites. First president in the history of the USA to be elected by the Supreme Court. What a title to go down in history with. Alex
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Dec 00 - 01:48 PM "Of course had the Court voted to support Gore, it would be the greatest Court in the world, right? "
The question before the court was whether it would allow a full count of the votes to go ahead. At stake were the rights of the voters, not the rights of the candidates.
Maybe a fair and full count vote would have revealed that Bush did in fact have a majority. He clearly thought it wouldn't, but so what? What Bush thought and what Gore thought were nothing to do with the concerns of the court.
The wishes and preferences of the candidates and their backers were completeloy irrelevant. The only thing that mattered was that the will of the voters wshould be accurately identified, and that the will of the voters should be sovereign.
And a court that recognised that, and ruled accordingly, conmpletely ignoring the individual party political preferences of its members - yes, that would have been a court worthy of some considerable respect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: GUEST,Parthenon Date: 13 Dec 00 - 01:54 PM As a non-US citizen I can take great pleasure in the screw-up of the elections, and the total farce (if it were not so serious) in Florida. After years of the US preaching to socialist countries and developing nations on the correct way to run an election, they have been most efficient in proving to those same nations how flawed their own system is. Whilst feeling very sorry for the US public in having to suffer Bush for the next few years, I think it is about time that the patronising Yanks, particularly the international journalists such as CNN, had the smug expressions wiped off their faces. This is not because I supported Gore, but that it was patently obvious to anyone with an IQ greater than their age than Bush is just a front man for his daddy's rich pals. His whole life has been spent hiding behind daddy's riches and influence, and, left to his own devices it is unlikely that he could run a hot-dog stand, never mind the so-called (by its inhabitants) "the greatest nation on Earth". The time has now come for the powers that be in the US to stop telling other nations how to run their politics, and to turn their attentions inwards to sort out their own problems. At the next US elections there should be UN appointed inspectors to ensure fair play. I suggest representatives from Iraq, Libya and Zimbabwe would be appropriate. To disprove the reader's thoughts that I am anti-American, let me say this. I have just watched the greatest statesman of this generation live on TV - Bill Clinton. Pity he couldn't keep it zipped up! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Jim the Bart Date: 13 Dec 00 - 02:07 PM ...not with a bang, but a whimper... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Jim Dixon Date: 13 Dec 00 - 02:20 PM Nobody has answered my question yet. If (as SeanM says) the Supreme Court simply said, "Midnight Dec. 12 is the deadline," the question remains, WHY DID THEY SAY THAT? They must have been basing this on something. What was it? Again, if you set a deadline, there has to be some implied consequence if you miss the deadline. I THOUGHT the implied consequence was that Congress would PROBABLY override the vote. Is there any other consequence? Why? Doesn't anybody out there understand this decision? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Kim C Date: 13 Dec 00 - 02:34 PM My question has always been ------ how does anyone know that those recounted votes wouldn't yield extra votes for Bush too? Why would they only give votes to Gore? As I have said before, in EVERY election there are votes disqualified for a variety of reasons, and this one isn't any different except for the photo-finish factor. Ain't neither one of em the brightest crayon in the box, if y'ask me. And in every election, someone wins and someone loses. That means somebody's unhappy regardless of the outcome. Either way, let's drop it and get on with life as we know it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Dec 00 - 02:50 PM here's a link to all the Supreme Court bumf Good GRief! Look atb that stuff.
I'm still curious about the point I raised up the thread a bit - if a Supreme Court makes a ruling, but that is dependent on the votes of members of the court who ought to have disqualified themselves because of conflict of personal interests, is there any mechanism for doing anything about it?
An equivalent thing happened in the Pinochet saga, where it was decided that one of the judges in what was the equivalent of a Supremt Court hearing should have disqualified himself, because he was too closely linked with Amnesty - so they had to have a re-hearing with a different panel of judges. (Using only 3 judges or so at a time means you can do that kind of thing.)
Maybe, in the present case, there is an argument which can be made that "Justices" Thomas and Scalia were not in a sufficiently serious conflict of interests. But it is very easy to imagine a more extreme case - bribery or blackmail for example. Does the US system really have no remedy against bent judges in the Supreme Court? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Little Hawk Date: 13 Dec 00 - 02:56 PM Yup. We gotta winner. But more importantly, Spaw, we gotta loser...the general public, who have once again been fleeced by 2 political parties which stand for very little except a desire to ve in power...at the price of 3 billion dollars in campaign funding, which might better have been spent addressing some key social problems...like homelessness, for one...like free access to public health care, for another. - LH
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: mousethief Date: 13 Dec 00 - 02:56 PM McG: Absolutely none, short of assasination, I'm afraid. They are the highest law in the land, bar none, and a law unto themselves. The only thing that can be done is, if the president and the Senate both agree, the court can be "stacked" with any number of new judges. The absolute count of judges on the court is not fixed. But this has happened infrequently, and seems to be fraught with other difficulties. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: M.Ted Date: 13 Dec 00 - 03:18 PM Jim, the court simply said that, since the Florida supreme court had accorded importance to the deadline of Dec 12, because they felt that it had been the intent of the Florida Legislature that the electors be selected by that time so that they could take advantage of the "Safe Harbor" provision in federal legislation--that the Florida Supreme Court would have had to address the problems related to uniform recount standards and and conducted their recount according to these standards in time to meet the Dec 12 deadline. The problem is that this decision seems to make the right of voter to have his vote properly counted subordinate to administrative and procedural rules set by the Legislature--It goes counter to the idea that, any law or policy which, in its execution, violates basic rights guaranteed by the constitution, or which runs counter to the principles of the Constitution, should not be allowed to stand--
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: catspaw49 Date: 13 Dec 00 - 03:45 PM Yeah Ted....And Jim, I'm sorry, but I thought that the Safe Harbor deadline I used above explained your question. Even without it, the electors don't meet til January and that time could have been allotted. By the SC invoking the the deadline on the Safe Harbor date and then also stopping the count til there was only 1 1/2 hours left ON that date................yeah, right. As to the other question you raised Jim about the Republican that might go for Gore in the Congress.........I think that's too much to expect of any political animal. You may go against your party on a bill or piece of legislation, but to vote outside party lines in this case would be political suicide. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Dec 00 - 04:05 PM Well, there are all kinds of reasons people do commit suicide - and being in all the history books as the fella who fixed the presidency migt be tempting for some person whio was feelig a bit of a nonentity. I've known bloody minded old local, politicians who might do just that kind of thing.
What's to lose? A lot of people you likely don't like any more anyway who wouldn't talk to you? And you'd have a great career doing lecture tours.
The point is up to now it would just have been a futile gestyure, making no diffeence. But now, it just takes two of them to do it, they'd turn the whole thing round, and they'd be heroes to millions...
That doesn't mean I expedft it to happen. But I know the arguments I'd be trying to use if I was tryingh to persuade someone to do it, and they sound quite convincing to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Bill D Date: 13 Dec 00 - 04:09 PM "how does anyone know that those recounted votes wouldn't yield extra votes for Bush too?" might.....and did a little...but neither Gore NOR Bush thought it would help Bush..every time they did a bit of recounting, Gore gained...Bush KNEW he'd rather not have more counting...he was slightly ahead, and the rule is, STOP while you're ahead!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: catspaw49 Date: 13 Dec 00 - 04:41 PM Well Mac, its true that someone might do it, although it'd be one helluva' long shot. If it would wind up in Congress, it would be in January with the new and VERY close senate. And if the senate ends in a tie, the the VP, as Pres.protem of the senate would cast the deciding vote. during that session of Congress, the VP will still be Al Gore..............gee, I wonder how he might vote? Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Ebbie Date: 13 Dec 00 - 04:58 PM Spaw, aren't the votes certified on December 18 and that is why they set the arbitrary deadline of December 12? We seem to have a couple of entities in this country that have always been sacrosant, the IRS and the US Supreme Court. The IRS is more vulnerable these days (finally!) but the Court has the last word in any argument they feel fit to consider. I don't suppose one can sue the Court?? Who would you go to? Jim Dixon, don't forget that though we in this country will have to live under the will of the Bush2 administration, you guys aren't safe either. I will not rest easy with a president who believes that execution is the single best approach to violence and who is comfortable in saying to the world that he is sending out a 'chilling reminder' to terrorists and any other perceived enemy. Given the Shrub's career history, I can picture our new president on the knee of a ventriloquist. So, the question is: Who will be the ventriloqist? Happy New Year, everybody! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Jim Dixon Date: 13 Dec 00 - 05:43 PM Spaw: Thanks. I guess. So there was a state law in Florida that said the recount HAD to end by Dec. 12, or else the legislature would name the electors? And the USSC simply upheld that law? Is that what it boils down to? OK, so here we go again: The consequence of missing the deadline is that the Florida legislature ignores the recount and selects Bush electors. Yes, they COULD do that and they WOULD do that, but damn it, if they DID do that, I would expect that a few of them would lose their seats in 2002. Which is what I would like to see happen. We need a scapegoat! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Bill D Date: 13 Dec 00 - 07:33 PM ventriloquist?..Jim Baker is doing pretty well, so far |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: NightWing Date: 13 Dec 00 - 07:55 PM NPR political commentator Kevin Phillips spoke for a very inciteful few minutes this morning. He compared this election to that of Hayes in 1876. His conclusion is (roughly) the Republicans stole this election same as they did then. And unless I'm mistaken, Phillips is NPR's resident conservative (???) You can hear his comment at the two links below. I don't know how long they keep their shows on the web, so if you want to hear it, go soon. Commentary (14.4 | 28.8) -- Commentator Kevin Phillips looks to past presidential elections and says he believes there is a parallel between Republicans' actions in Florida now, and in 1876. (4:50)
BB, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Dec 00 - 08:07 PM "The rule is, STOP while you're ahead" Right Bill, that's the way the man thinks.
Of course the normal rule in elections is you count all the votes, and then you know who got more, and that's the winner. And if it's close you check them by hand. All of them.
Well, that's how they do it in countries with a democratic voting system. Pretty radical stuff!
I think the most appropriate thingh might be for people to take the P out of the man, and refer to him as "Resident Bush"... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Ebbie Date: 13 Dec 00 - 08:12 PM LOL, McGrath! Resident Bush is good- I can live with that. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Ebbie Date: 13 Dec 00 - 08:17 PM News Conference: Mr. Resident, what is the situation at... Evening News: Resident Bush at the White House today said that... The presidency succession goes from Resident to Vice Resident to Squeaker of the House to ... I like it. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: raredance Date: 13 Dec 00 - 08:33 PM How come Anotonin Scalia always gets 2 votes on the court? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Bill D Date: 13 Dec 00 - 08:40 PM because he has "Yassuh" Thomas cast his 2nd one... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Bill D Date: 13 Dec 00 - 08:44 PM (awww,,,that was not nice of me...but it sure seems like it) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: MMario Date: 13 Dec 00 - 09:08 PM and a concession speech |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Dec 00 - 09:21 PM Now here is a very interesting piece, that indicates how at least one of the members of the Supreme Court had some extremelt relevant experience personally, when it comes to deciding who gets to vote and who doesn't. Read it and weep... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: DougR Date: 13 Dec 00 - 09:42 PM Al Gore made a great speech tonight. It was difficult for him to do, I'm sure, but he did it with real class. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Amos Date: 13 Dec 00 - 09:42 PM I find the piece on Rehnquist's possible shady past completely believable. His entire "sonsensual" opinion was riddled with meretricious, specious and tormented logic. It was an appalling example of the power of reason being twisted to serve the power of alliance. The entire odor of the Republican case has been one of mechanism over principle, and tortuous detail being allowed to blockade clearly senior concerns such as the protection of the franchise in a State. The Supremes were wrong in interceding, wrong in attributing excessive intercession to the State Supreme Court, wrong in attributing the Consitutional right to name electors to the "legislature" instead of to the "State, as defined by the legislature as a part of the State" (meaning subject to judiciary oversight) wrong in interfering with the rights of the State to govern itself, and wrong in their assessment of the Florida Supreme Court's actions as distortions. The real champions last night were the dissenters. Every single one of those writing in dissent spoke clearly, logically, with lucid logic and an effort to weigh correctly the importance of the different vectors in play. I am awestruck at their fluency and clarity of discourse under such pressing circumstances. It really did show that some of our best legal minds are right there on the Supreme Court; unfortunately overweighed by a Chief Justice's influence totally embroiled in politics instead of law, and the slippery slope of expediency instead of clear jurisprudence. The Supremes are tortuous and tainted as a whole, but their dissenters did a beasutiful job of crying out for what the American way could mean in the right hands. I am disgusted with the entire machinery of the President-elect's supporters and their facile embrace of glibness and shallow self-serving rhetoric in place of simple clarity. They have riddled a beautiful process with lies; not for the first time, or the last. The process will survive and come back (we can hope) stronger for its abuse. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: DougR Date: 13 Dec 00 - 11:33 PM I hope my Liberal friends on the Mudcat had an opportunity to hear the interview Tim Russert did tonight with Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. The Senator, in my opinion, is one of our great Americans. For those of you who are not familiar with him, he held the seat, as a Democrat, that held the seat in the U. S. Senate that is now occupied (or soon will be) by Hillary Clinton. As acrimonious as it may appear our country is at this time, we will come together. We would also have done so, had Al Gore won the election. I'm not sure anyone, other than an American, can understand that. I don't say that smugly, I just think that is the way we are. The Democrats will simply hit the ground running trying to see that Bush doesn't get a second term. The same would be true of Republicans, had Gore won the race. Far left-wingers will not be satisfied. Nor will far right-wingers. Both will be disappointed with GWP's leadership. I think Bush will try to find the middle ground, and I devoutly hope he can find it. Those who have suggested, or feel, that he is a lightweight will, I belive, be surprised. :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Bill D Date: 13 Dec 00 - 11:42 PM I am willing to be surprised...but I am not holding my breath till Dubya impresses me, as I don't look good in blue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Jon Freeman Date: 14 Dec 00 - 12:11 AM Well Doug I hope for all of you that proves true. As an observer, the saddest thing to me is that I have heard Americans tell me that the US is the greatest democracy in the world. The greatest democracy in the world would surely want everyone entitled to have a vote has the oppertunity and to ensure that these votes are counted and collected as accurately as accessibly and as fairly as possible. The US has failed in this task and I doubt that anyone from outside the US will ever take the claims of being a democracy seriously unless reforms/ re-evalution of systems are made. Please don't get me wrong, I am not trying to attack Americans, there are plenty of wrongs in the UK too. Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Ebbie Date: 14 Dec 00 - 12:51 AM Doug R, I really do hope you are right. But can you give us a preview of his mental prowess, or any example at all of something that makes him special? If you can/do it, then we can say at crucial moments, Hey, I already knew that! You'll be famous. I did like what Pete Laney said about him- but then I know nothing about Laney. For all I know, he borrowed money from Dubya- or more likely lent him some. Just kidding. For the sake of this country, though, I hope we get right to work on addressing some real flaws in our election process and logistics. I'm no more impressed with Bush than I was impressed with Reagan- and yet I knew lots of people who liked Reagan a lot. Even my family -conservative, religious, anti-divorce people to whom family meant everything- liked Reagan, an airhead who had a problem differentiating between fantasy and reality, a divorced man leading a dysfunctional family. He had charm, true; as Helen Hayes, grande dame of the movies, said, I never knew that he was such a good actor. The things I know about Bush make me uneasy: pro-development,(ANWR is a goner);led by military minds from whom I have not heard one inspiring word; willing/eager to bend the law and allow/urge others to do the same in order to become president (Notice Gore didn't say Bush was 'elected' president, he congratulated him on 'becoming' president); John McCain looked somewhat uncomfortable tonight when he was asked about Bush's omission of Campaign Reform in his speech and said rather tentatively that he has not been told of any change in Bush's promise to him in regards to the reform... Bush has no charisma, is a poor speaker and his body language does not even come close to what his words are saying. He is difficult to watch and to listen to. Frankly, he comes across as a party machine puppet- But as I said, Doug, I hope you're right. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Dec 00 - 07:44 AM I imagine most Americans will patch it up and shrug it off and get on with things. There's not much alternative. A lot of you will turn away disgusted and alienated, and confirmed in a totally cynical view of politics and poiticians - and espeiclly of judges.
America, and democracy itself has been betrayed. That sounds over dramatic, but it is really is true, and it's nothing whatever to do with who might or might not be the beter President.
A man who thinks that snatching a victory is more important than defending democratic processes has managed to prevent a recount which he thought would show that he didn't in fact win the vote. And he has been rewarded with a paper victory. And a party politicised clique controlling the highest court in the land have colluded in this.
It's not impossible that a fair vote might in fact have confirmed his victory. He didn't think it very likely. Maybe over the coming weeks and months a recount will be carried out to put the record straight one way and another. Though it won't affect the result. And it dioesn'tbreally matter anyway the intention was sufficient. "Trust the people" he had said. Like his father said "Read my lips."
The central thing, which keeps on being ignored, is that it didn't really matter all that much who won. What mattered was that the decision of the voters should be respected. It's not about Bush or Gore, or their right to be elected or treated fairly and so forth. Their wishes and preferences and rights and so forth are completely irrelevant.It was about the rights of the voters.
And when it came down to it, the political machine and the Supreme Court decided that their rights are in the last resort a secondary matter, compared with the administrative convenience of the system, and the political ambitions of a few fat cats.
Sad and pathetic. The only winners are the cartoonists. Bush is a cartoonists dream... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Midchuck Date: 14 Dec 00 - 08:42 AM I am not here to defend Mr. Bush - I think the tragedy was when Bush and Gore got their respective parties' nominations, not when one ended up the winner - but when I hear complaints about him that include "has no charisma" and "is a poor speaker," I tend to think that if that's all the people who don't like him can find to complain about, he may be a better person than I'd figured him to be.... I have heard that he will be deputizing all the Texas Rangers as Federal Marshalls, and directing them to round up liberals and other suspects, so some of you had best go into hiding. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: sophocleese Date: 14 Dec 00 - 10:49 AM I heard that Jaty Leno made a great crack aolong the lines of: "Its a fight between Bush's intellect and Gore's integrity. Shouldn't they settle it in Small Claims court?" The corruption is out in the open and far more blatant now. Those that are running the show don't even care about looking as if voting matters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Jon Freeman Date: 14 Dec 00 - 12:17 PM No Midchuck I have to disagree with you. Part of the sadness is that the personalities of these people has been used to cloud the real issue which is one of democracy and fairness. I'd guess it is difficult to see clearly when you have a preference towards one candidate or party but try stepping back and looking in from the outside: If it is decided that a vote should take place to elect someone to represent thier country (or club or PTA or anything else for that matter), every effort should be made to ensure that these people can accurately express their wishes. This is surely central to the concept of democracy and is where the US in this instance have failed. McGrath is quite correct in stating "America, and democracy itself has been betrayed". Jon |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: katlaughing Date: 14 Dec 00 - 01:00 PM The cynicism is going to get worse and I do not believe people are going to be willing to forget any of this. We need a peaceful revolution, a grassroots movement of citizens who demand a fair system for voting etc. InOBU's call to action may be our only hope. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Dec 00 - 01:31 PM Bush could be the best president the USA has ever seen. It still wouldn't be worth the damage that he has done to his country and to democracy by the way in which he achieved office. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: GUEST,mikes msg Date: 14 Dec 00 - 03:48 PM "Let's Look At the Bright Side of Life!" December 14, 2000 Dear friends, Hail to the Thief! On this dark, dark day in American history, I prefer to see the next White House as half-full instead of half-empty! That's just the kind of kooky optimist I am. Instead of brooding over the antics of our Supreme Court Jesters, I'd rather focus on what makes this country great. Such as all that hooey our 7th grade civics teacher told us about how ANYONE can become President of the United States. She was right! It's true! ANYONE just became president. Let this be a lesson to my younger readers -- listen to your teachers! You know, I always like it when life is a win-win situation. Gore won the "popular" vote, so I guess that means George W. won the unpopular vote! Everyone goes home with something. OK, put away that Gillette double-edged razor and flush those sleeping pills down the toilet -- tonight is a night for celebration! It's time to count our blessings, to thank the Lord for what we have been given, to reach out and touch someone, to.... To make a list! A list of all the silver linings in this cloud on its way from Austin to D.C. Yes, there are a number good things that will come out of all this madness. Consider these silver linings: Silver Lining #1: Ralph Nader QUADRUPLED the Number of Votes He Got in '96! Continue to ignore his supporters, continue to trash him, and the Democrats will lose AGAIN in 2004. If there is one lesson that had better be learned after all the acrimony dies down it's that the Democratic Party can no longer elect a President without the millions of disgruntled voters who demand an end to the death penalty, a law that provides free health coverage for all, prison time for corporate crooks, a doubling of the minimum wage, a cut in Pentagon spending, and a host of other issues. You don't have to agree with all these positions, but if you choose to ignore them, you do so at your own peril. These last five weeks have done more to turn off millions of Americans to BOTH the Republican and Democratic parties than a hundred Nader super rallies on C-Span could ever hope to do. Trust me, Nader will quadruple his vote again in 2004. That's 12 million voters next time. Count on it. Come home, Democratic Party, come home. Silver Lining #2: Someone Is Going to Count Those Votes In Florida. That's right. Thanks to one of the best Freedom of Information Act laws in the country, any citizen or media outlet in Florida may demand to have the ballots hand-counted. The Miami Herald has already filed their request. If they don't do it, I will. Within the next month or so, this one truth will be proven and revealed: Gore got more votes than Bush in Florida. Gore won. Which will lead us to our next silver lining... Silver Lining #3: The Bush Presidency Will Be Crippled. The nation will know Baby Bush only as an illegitimate president. He will be nothing more than an illegal squatter in the Oval Office. Not only will he have no mandate, he will have no business being there. He will get little or nothing done. Put a fork in his administration. It's cooked before they even have the parade. Silver Lining #4: George W. Bush Likes Naps, Video Games and Taking the Day Off To Go Fishing. Just in case the hubris of Silver Lining #3 is slightly off, we can be sure that Bush is just lazy enough and just dumb enough so that he won't find the time to do too much damage to the country or the world. The people to keep an eye on will be the cabal he brings to Washington with him. They will require the rest of us to give up napping or going fishing. The video games we keep. Silver Lining #5: Strom Thurmond Is Not Long for This World. I say this with absolutely no animosity or disrespect. I hope he lives an even longer life. But I think even Strom would agree -- if you make it to 98, you get the brass ring, and you also know that your days are numbered. Whether forced to retire due to ill health or having to leave the Senate because of a higher calling, when Thurmond goes, the Democratic governor of South Carolina is going to appoint a Democratic senator and that will give the Democrats a 51-49 majority. When that happens, more chaos for Bush, more roadblocks, more trouble for his agenda (though not THAT much trouble, considering that the same rich guys who fund Bush also fund most of these Democrats). Silver Lining #6: Thank You, United States Supreme Court! By being so blatantly partisan, you can bet that a post-Thurmond Democratically-controlled Senate is sufficiently ticked off to stop any Bush nominee who is too extreme. And, thanks to this week's 5-to-4 blunder, you have been tricked into doing something none of us ever thought we would get you to do. You have taken a stand against "states' rights!" Yes, that evil concept that the founding fathers agreed to in order to keep the slave states happy has just been dealt a death blow -- by you! We expect to hold you to this new standard. You also made clear your strong support for the equal protection clause in the Constitution. Great! You can prove your new allegiance to equality for all by ordering an investigation as to why one in three black voters in some Florida precincts were not allowed to vote. Silver Lining #7: We Will Now Have a Nationwide Uniform Ballot. No more chads, no more Karnack. No more the rich getting the foolproof high-tech vote scanners, and the poor getting antiquated machines that don't work. May I make a radical suggestion? A piece of paper and a Number 2 pencil that one uses to mark an "X" in a square, and then a cardboard box with slit on top that you put the piece of paper into! That's the Canadian way. Last month, they hand-counted thirteen million paper ballots in under 4 hours! We look like idiots. This has to be the first bill passed by the new Congress. Silver Lining #8: Everyone Finally Knows the Awful Truth: "One Person, One Vote" Is a Lie. Good. Now we can do something about it. We need a system of proportional representation. That would guarantee that everyone's voice is heard. Remember that other civics lesson -- "majority rule, minority rights"? Proportional representation means if your party got 10% of the vote, you get 10% of the seats. A number of local governments in the U.S. have switched to this much fairer and representative system. In the meantime, we have our best chance now to dump the Electoral College (or, at the very least, reform it so that every states' electors are proportioned to the percentage each candidate got). Silver Lining #9: We Will Never Have To Look at James Baker or Warren Christopher Again. 'Nuff said. Silver Lining #10: With Bush In the White House, Evil Has No Mask. From now on, unlike during the Clinton/Gore years, when the poor are forced into greater hardships, when the innocent are executed, when our First Amendment rights are stripped from us, when our family's jobs are shipped to sweatshops overseas, when a record number of personal bankruptcies continues to rise, when abortion remains unavailable in 86% of the counties in the country, the liberals and Democrats will not sit silently by. It's hard for them to organize any real opposition to a Democrat in the White House -- "I mean, he's one of US! At least he's not a REPUBLICAN! We MUST support him against those EVIL REPUBLICANS!" And then he does nearly everything a Republican would do -- and gets away with it. Bush won't get away with it. Liberals and Democrats will be forced to finally take a stand. All will be well until the next election. Sleep tight, my friends, and don't let the bogeyman scare you. It's only a dream... it's only a dream... Yours, Michael Moore mmflint@aol.com www.michaelmoore.com |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: kendall Date: 14 Dec 00 - 03:58 PM well said McGrath.. while the clearly partisan Supreme Court, and the Florida authorities put their silly rules above the will of the people, my faith in our justice system has sunk to a new low. Things havn't changed that much since the Dredd Scott decision. It's a black day indeed. First Renquist, then Thomas and now this... I have two questions..Doug, why would anyone vote for Bush? and, Guest Parthenon..now that it is obvious that the USA is in no position to tell the rest of the world what to do..who will? Will Europe rise up and fight Saddam Hussein? or will you let him run roughshod over his neighbors like Hitler did? What are we bid for the mantle of leadership? What will you do when we say "Screw it, it's not our problem..you deal with it"?? I know there were some intelligent people who voted for Bush,but, I'll be horse fucked if I can understand why.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Dec 00 - 04:20 PM Yeah, but taking about Bush is just providing an excuse for evading the real issue. It must be much worse for people who actually thought Bush was a good man, who was sincere about trusting the people and bringing people together and that.
I think people who'd sooner have seen Gore in the White Hiouse and are angry about that need to imagine what it must feel like to be an honest Republican right now.
I mean the ones one who haven't managed to convince themselves that it was all Gore's fault, and that Bush and co were right to do then things he did in obstructing a full recount, in case it went the "wrong" way. All that shame that's been brought on the USA, all that damage caused to its institutions - and all just to win a piffling election.
And it could just as easily have been the other way round, with Gore cheating his way to victory in the same way, in an alternative universe, where it was in his interest to obstruct the voting, with the backing of a compliant Supreme Court. There is no doubt many of the people who have been crying foul would have been defending and supporting the very same actions if they had been dione by theit man. And as the euphoria of "victory" wore off, they'd have been left with a sick feeling. The decent ones would, anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: InOBU Date: 14 Dec 00 - 04:26 PM Sent to me by a friend....< Don't Blame Me - I voted for Gore...I Think. If God Meant Us to Vote, He Would Have Given Us Candidates. Honk If You Love Al Gore! (use the button on your steering wheel). Jews for Buchanan What popular vote? I voted - Didn't matter My parents retired to Florida and all I got was this lousy President. Grant? Harding? You ain't seen nothing yet! DON'T THROW AWAY YOUR VOTE... LET KATHERINE HARRIS DO IT FOR YOU! Who is this Chad guy and why is he pregnant? Bush trusts the people, but not if it involves counting. Now do you understand the importance of user-testing? One person, one vote (may not apply in certain states) The election can't be broken. We just fixed it. Banana Republicans George W. Bush: The President Quayle We Never Had Campaign spending: $184,000,000. Having your little brother rig the election for you: Priceless. The last time somebody listened to a Bush, folks wandered in the desert for 40 years Cheers, Larry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: mousethief Date: 14 Dec 00 - 04:30 PM On a mailing list I'm on, they've taken to calling him President-Appoint instead of President-Elect. The first president appointed by the supreme court, instead of the other way around. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: NightWing Date: 14 Dec 00 - 05:00 PM Someone on All Things Considered last night made a comment connecting the prospects for a Bush presidency (II) and the Bush v. Gore case: "Bush will make a lousy president and a lousy precedent." GUEST:mikes_msg pointed out that under the Freedom of Information Act SOMEONE will count the ballots ... and soon ... and we'll actually KNOW (Silver Lining #2). Any bets on the physical ballots getting lost, damaged, or destroyed before Florida can be forced to give them up? On that same All Things Considered show last night, a woman actually suggested that the ballots be destroyed rather than allowing anyone to count them. Gee, do you think she might be a Bush supporter? You win! Looking forward to four years of mild nausea at the antics of our governments: federal and all the states. With immense luck and some hard work perhaps we can make a few changes at the mid-terms and it'll only be two.
BB, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: NightWing Date: 14 Dec 00 - 05:00 PM Someone on All Things Considered last night made a comment connecting the prospects for a Bush presidency (II) and the Bush v. Gore case: "Bush will make a lousy president and a lousy precedent." GUEST:mikes_msg pointed out that under the Freedom of Information Act SOMEONE will count the ballots ... and soon ... and we'll actually KNOW (Silver Lining #2). Any bets on the physical ballots getting lost, damaged, or destroyed before Florida can be forced to give them up? On that same All Things Considered show last night, a woman actually suggested that the ballots be destroyed rather than allowing anyone to count them. Gee, do you think she might be a Bush supporter? You win! Looking forward to four years of mild nausea at the antics of our governments: federal and all the states. With immense luck and some hard work perhaps we can make a few changes at the mid-terms and it'll only be two.
BB, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: kendall Date: 14 Dec 00 - 07:49 PM I think I'm going to be sick... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Bill D Date: 14 Dec 00 - 08:25 PM 'Michael Moore' is a liberal Rush Limbaugh...Lordy!,,I was for Gore, and cringe at the idea of 4 years of Bush, but that sort of blather by M. Moore does no good. He is a troll in the worst sense. And as for Strom Thurmond...'ol Strom is pretty resiliant, and may get his final 2 years in office that he wants in order to be a 100 yr. old Senator, but then who knows who will be elected? And a FAR worse problem is the Tom DeLays and Newt Gingriches and Orrin Hatches that the Republican keep dredging up and foisting on us. Some of those guys scare the pants off me with the agendas they seem to be heading toward! well, we shall see...perhaps the close votes in Congress will dilute the problem a bit... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Troll Date: 14 Dec 00 - 10:40 PM So. The Miami Herald will count the ballots and then we'll know. We'll know what? That the ballots have been counted? What safeguards will be in place to insure that the count is fair and accurate? Which ballots will be counted, all of them or just the "under vote"? Is it all the ballots in the state or just the ones fron Miami-Dade? Too many questions here folks. Bill D Thank you for your lines on Michael Moore. I agree with your description. As for the call for a nationwide strike, Larry, I thought you had better sense. If you will stop and think for a minute- put aside your anger and THINK- you will realize what a disaster that would be. A total shutdown would have people starving and freezing to death before things could be returned to working order. It has been estimated that NYC has about a two day reserve of food. What then? And what if your strike does succeed? What then? A president elected by mob rule? Is that what you want? And that the next time a piece of necessary but unpopular legislation is passes it's BACK TO THE STREETS! And then the military takes over to "restore order" and it's "Hello Somoza". No, I really don't think I can give you my support on this one. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Troll Date: 14 Dec 00 - 10:40 PM So. The Miami Herald will count the ballots and then we'll know. We'll know what? That the ballots have been counted? What safeguards will be in place to insure that the count is fair and accurate? Which ballots will be counted, all of them or just the "under vote"? Is it all the ballots in the state or just the ones fron Miami-Dade? Too many questions here folks. Bill D Thank you for your lines on Michael Moore. I agree with your description. As for the call for a nationwide strike, Larry, I thought you had better sense. If you will stop and think for a minute- put aside your anger and THINK- you will realize what a disaster that would be. A total shutdown would have people starving and freezing to death before things could be returned to working order. It has been estimated that NYC has about a two day reserve of food. What then? And what if your strike does succeed? What then? A president elected by mob rule? Is that what you want? And that the next time a piece of necessary but unpopular legislation is passes it's BACK TO THE STREETS! And then the military takes over to "restore order" and it's "Hello Somoza". No, I really don't think I can give you my support on this one. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: kendall Date: 14 Dec 00 - 11:01 PM What's the difference between the Miami Herald counting the votes or the republican operatives doing it? The fact is thousands of people were screwed out of having their votes counted. Democracy just went down the drain.The rest is commentary. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Troll Date: 15 Dec 00 - 12:20 AM WHAT Republican operatives? There were between 2 and 3 million votes thrown out nationwide. It happens every election. If Gore had waited until the votes were certified and THEN raised a challenge, it would have gone straight to the Supreme Court.There would have been time to conduct a recount with approved standards in place instead of standards which varied, as Gore lawyer David Boies admitted to the US Supreme Court, "from individual to individual." The Gore team were offered the chance to ask for a state-wide recount before, I believe, Judge Sauls. They declined. I've been asked why Bush didn't ask for a state-wide recount. Why should he? He'd won! For those who want to scrap the electoral college, let me ask you this. Would you have the World Series decided on the basis of who scored the most runs overall? No. It's the best 4 out of 7. Same way with the electoral college. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Troll Date: 15 Dec 00 - 12:41 AM Sorry. She started to crash and I didn't want to lose the above. And, really, it's best that way. The large, metropolitan areas can't overpower the more rural states. I don't think I'd like to be governed by someone who only had to appeal to the Metropolitan Eastern Seaboard (Boston to Washington) Greater Chicago, South Florida, Dallas/Ft. Worth, and Greater LA to win. I don't think they would have my best interests at heart. Gore could have gotten his recount if he had played straight but he and his lawyers decided to end-run the constitution by relying on the heavily Democrat Florida Supreme Court to rule for them and give them carte blance' to count ballots by whatever standards they chose. It didn't work and they, and the country, lost out. They may or may not recover their political fortunes but the stain they have put on our electoral process will take a lot of scrubbing befora it's gone. If anything good has come out of this whole fiasco, it is that, by next election there will be standards in place to insure that this sort of thing never happens again. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Ebbie Date: 15 Dec 00 - 01:36 AM Spin doctoring, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Troll Date: 15 Dec 00 - 03:37 AM No Ebbie. It's all true and can be verified. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Dec 00 - 06:12 AM Could someone tell me why this is being talked about by so many people as if it was about the rights of the candidates. It's not, it's about the rights of the voters, which should be far far more important.
"This is not about Gore. This is about us", to quote one of the people protesting about the way in which some of it was handled. And that is the answer to troll's remark: "I've been asked why Bush didn't ask for a state-wide recount. Why should he? He'd won!"
Because he knew that a lot of people had voted and not had their vote counted, including a lot of people who voted for him, that's why. His first duty was to the voters, and not to himself. (And that also applied to his little brother Jeb, who has surely destroyed any hoe he ever might have had of going any further in politics.)
It seems to me that people defending what happened are mesmerised by the fact that it helped their man to win, as if that somehow made things right. Would that kind of thing have been all right if Gore had been the one with a few hundred votes in hand, and Bush had been asking for the manual recount? Or does it only apply when it helps the man you support?
(I gather there are moves by Republicans down in Florida to get the votes sealed for the next right years "in the interests of national security" - which strikes me as pretty impressive cheek, though hardly surprising. However I gather, these are "considered unlikely to succeed." I'd have thought that some kind of accident, like fire or flood, would have a better chance...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Troll Date: 15 Dec 00 - 07:12 AM It IS about the voters but it's simpler to refer to the candidates. All the valid votes were counted McGrath. There were ballots that were just plain wrong. The voters did not follow instructions. Here, in my home county, we use an optical reader system. The instructions on the ballot clearly stated-with a diagram- that the oval had to be completely filled in order for the vote to register. But according to our Supervisor of Elections, they had quite a few ballots where the oval had an "X", a check, or just a line or had the space left blank. So how do you count these. Florida law states that voter intent is the guiding factor and if a mark was made the vote should count. But what if there IS no mark? Then what? What if the ballot is double punched? The intent of the voter cannot be determined. Yet the Gore team tried to say that if the rest of the ballot was Democrat, then the presidential choice would have been Democrat also. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Thats a guess, based on what they wanted it to read. They asked for, and got, a count in Palm Beach County. They didn't get enough votes to win. So THEN, they went on to Broward county and they still couldn't make it. Even with changing the standards as they went along, they couldn't make it. On to Miami-Dade. Instead of getting enough people together to count all the percincts at once, they started off with the three that were most heavily Democrat I believe that their plan was to try to get enough votes to win and stop counting at that point. But they ran out of time. And remember, Gore could have had a statewide count. He didn't want it. He wanted to count only those precincts in those counties that would give him the best chance of winning. It was wrong that he did it. It would have been wrong if Bush had done it. Gov. Jeb Bush has already appointed a Democrat to come up with a plan to insure that Florida, at least, never has something like this happen again. I haven't heard of an attempt to seal the ballots. Sounds pretty stupid if you ask me. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: InOBU Date: 15 Dec 00 - 07:53 AM Dear Troll: The bush campampain has been accused of the big lie aproach to contoversy, not the small overstatements, as with Gore, but the BIG lie, such as Gore turned down an offer for a full state count, not true, no way no how. In fact, though he in deed did not call for a full state count at first, he did after about two days, and the other side ALLWAYS opposed any recount, including a full state count. As to strike, I don't expect anyone who voted for bush would know much about the labour history of this country, however, we did, once have a general strike, in Seatle, and people were fed and taken care of well, it is just that no money exchanged hands, and funny enough, without the exchange ritual, things still worked! As far as election by the mob, was Aquino elected by the mob in the Philapines? I seem to remember some words about when in the course of human events... when the will of the people is set aside by a tyrant, we have an obligation to inforce the will of the people. I don't believe this fat and lazy nation will stand for its own demcracy, and so we will sit and consume McDonnalds while watching who wants to be a milionaire, while the Banana Republicans and "Justice" Scalia et al, steal our democracy from under their overfed noses. Send for Billy Bragg... Larry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Greg F. Date: 15 Dec 00 - 08:07 AM I honestly wish Phil Ochs was still alive to comment on this travesty of justice. He's missing a real opportunity here & his take on the Bushwapologists would be priceless. Maybe Tom Paxton's working on something.... I don't think we could convince Billy Bragg to repatriate, tho- more's the pity. Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Troll Date: 15 Dec 00 - 08:18 AM Larry, I didn't get my facts from the Bush campaign, I got them from the national news. David Boies was asked, in a Florida court,if the Gore team wanted a recount of the entire state and he said no. What Gores people said to the media and what they said in court are two different things. Yes, you could have a general strike in one or two cities for a short time and probably get through it ok. But what happens when the food and fuel runs out? I think that you are being terribly over-dramatic. The simplest way to take back what has been lost is to get every citizen involved. The truth is that the Democrat establishment doesn't WANT the citizens involved. Thats why they push the bread-and-circuses giveaways. They'ed like to get 60% of the country on entitlements with the other 40% working their asses off to pay for them. Just think! Permanent power! They would win every election hands down. You're a lawyer. why not tell everyone what was unconstitutional about the 7-2 decision? Or, for that matter, the 5-4 decision? troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: mkebenn Date: 15 Dec 00 - 08:22 AM If God wanted us to vote, He'd have given us canidates..LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: John P Date: 15 Dec 00 - 08:26 AM I didn't vote for Gore, I voted against Bush. I've never heard him say anything other than canned platitutes, but the big reason I voted against him was to try to stop the Republican coalition from controlling all three branches of our government. As long as this coalition includes the religious right, there will be pressure on the rich and powerful to give lip service to some ideas that frighten me. The Repulbican party seems to want to get government off the backs of large corporations and put it in our bedrooms instead. I see no chance for gay rights to move forward on a federal level. I thought the Republican party was all about individual freedom? This is one of the most basic conflicts between the ideologies of the two main parts of the coalition. But since few gay people vote for Republicans, the individual rights crowd won't live up to their ideals and tell the "live according to my morals" crowd to back off. Abortion, for many, will return to the back alley. If we could find a way to stop abortion from happening, that would be great. But all we will do is turn a lot of otherwise normal, law-abiding citizens into criminals. There is not much chance that the Republicans will do anything ending our support of the illegal drug trade. Well, it's unlikely the Democrats would have either, but there was a slightly better chance. I would be interested to find out how much cartel money goes into the campaigns of our most anti-drug politicians. Who is benefiting most from the war on drugs? The "christian" right will also be working overtime to get the federal government to force the states to allow tax money to go to religious schools. What state rights? What separation of church and state? Why isn't quoting the Bible on the floor of Congress as a reason to vote for or against something considered a major ethical infraction? Why should I pay to have children receive state-sponsored religious educations? How is this anything other than unconstitutional? My wife made an interesting point about all the news people saying the Supreme Court was losing the faith of the public. She said, "What do they care? Who can do anything to them? They are there for life and there is no higher authority." I have a perception that more conservatives than centrists or liberals believe that the ends justifies the means when getting themselves into power. Sorry, that's enough ranting for now. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: InOBU Date: 15 Dec 00 - 08:37 AM Sure thing Troll: Constitutionality comes down to where the court draws lines, for example, they take a law designed to create inclusion and power for the decendants of freed slaves, and particularly to protect their right to be involved in the politic of their naiton, and the present court interprets that law to say the education is not a fundamental right, therefore, a state can distribute education funds unequally, poor communitites can get underfunded underachieving schools and that does not fly in the face of the constitution, and voting is a fundimental right, and even though there are efficent voting machines in parts of florida and stone age methods in others - that is not the violation of the constitution, the violation is using a different standard to look at the product of an efficent machine and a stone age machine, give me a break, if your five year old used that standard to choose sides in a game youd tell the kid to play fair. As to over dramatic, it is the fact that many americans see this as being only as important as a sports game that is part of the problem. I went to an innercity high school when there were still battles to get safe and comfidential abortions for the poor. I remember the good humor and spirit of my classmate who died in an attempt at a self induced abortion. I have worked in northern Canada with hunter gatherer natives, and I know the damage to the very fragile environment of the artic that is likely under a bush administration, I have a mother who is in her eighties, and the ieda of sinking Social Security funds into a failing stock market while likely canning Alan Greenspan (who the bush family is publicly not very fond of...) is a bad bad idea. The majority of the american people voted to keep these things from happening, now already there is worry among our alies in NATO, already China - a nuclear power is worried by bush's plans at a continuation of the rediculos star wars concept, it aint funny magee and it is not the supper bowl. Cheers, Larry PS repatriate B B? Was he possibly born here????!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Greg F. Date: 15 Dec 00 - 08:58 AM No, Larry- was definately born in the UK. Wrong choice of word- or maybe wishful thinking- on my part. Or I need another cup of coffee. :-) Best, Greg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: InOBU Date: 15 Dec 00 - 09:02 AM How bout a cup of tea, on me next time Bragg is in town, One of my favorites meetings, I had the pleasure of introducing Bill Bragg to Arthur Kenoy, the Rosenburgs last lawyer... BB signed my Uilleann pipe case, great day, however, I am afraid if my pipes ever go missing, they'll get sent to him! Cheers, Larry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Kc Date: 15 Dec 00 - 09:03 AM Well i'm not from the US, in fact across in Europe it all look like a big mess. I'm not sure U lot will C it this way but in think they might as well do a re-vote as a recount, cos some great professors did a suvey and showed that most people who vote actually voted wrong anyway. I'm not intending to offend anyone or anything, thats just my simplistic view and a complex politacal subject. Kc ( my non mudcat friends agree wi me on this subject) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Troll Date: 15 Dec 00 - 09:25 AM There is nothing in the constitution, to my knowledge that puts education in the hands of the Federal Govt. It is the job of the states. If the states get federal money to use in their school system they must abide by federal guidelines. "Seperate but equal" went out almost 50 years ago and court ordered integration was the order of the day with cross bussing etc to achieve racial balance. It is not the job of the Supreme Court to dictate how a school district shall allocate its' funds. I agree that some schools are under-funded but it is up to the state to correct this inequity unless it can be shown that federal law is being violated. My wife teaches in a rural school in a relatively poor county so I am very familar with the money issue. As to the voting machines, I believe I covered the Miami-Dade machines in an earlier post. Let me add that the new optical reader machines are very expensive and Miami-Dade is nearly broke. There was no deliberate effort on the part of anyone to disinfranchise anyone, regardless of what the race demagogues say. In order for your vote to count, you DO have to follow the instructions. In my precinct they were posted on the wall AND written on the ballot itself. If you don't follow the instructions, your vote isn't counted. I can't see a problem with that, can you? You play by the rules or you don't play. As for the Arctic, I don't know that I've heard Bush say anything about it. I guess that the fear is that he will open it up to oil exploration but I've heard nothing one way or the other so far. The missle defense system is not something that I know a great deal about but I don't think it's Star Wars. Reagan was sold that bill of goods by Teller and no part of it ever worked. As I said, I don't know enough about the missle defense system to have formed an opinion. As for canning Greenspan, I rather doubt it since the man he's choosing for Sec of the Treasury is a Greenspan protege'. His name escapes me at the moment. Something needs to be done about Social Security or our kids will face a 50% tax to keep it afloat.The present system doesn't work. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Troll Date: 15 Dec 00 - 09:33 AM The Treasury Sec. will probably be William McDonough, President of the New York Federal Reserve, a Democrat who has formed a close relationship with Greenspan. His appointment should help act as a bridge to the Democrats. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Whistle Stop Date: 15 Dec 00 - 12:14 PM Bush did say (in one of the debates, at least) that he is in favor of opening the arctic refuge to oil exploration and production. It was one of the few moments in the debates when the policy differences between Bush and Gore were clearly laid out. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution that was cited in the recent Supreme Court decision arguably applies to a lot of things that aren't explicitly mentioned as being federal responsibilities -- including public education. There are real disagreements about the extent to which the federal government can legitimately encroach on the prerogatives of the states, but the trend over our past 200-plus years has been to transfer more of the critical decision-making functions to the federal government. Often the mechanism by which this is accomplished is federal funding -- for education, highways, welfare, environmental protection, and a whole host of other issues. As Troll correctly states, the general rule is, if a state accepts federal money, it has to conform to federal guidelines. Given the ways that our society has changed since the late 18th century, this progressively centralized approach to governing only makes sense -- "local" issues are much narrower than they used to be when people lived their whole lives largely unaffected by what was happening outside of their state's boundaries, when each state had its own currency, there were no interstate highways, and even such fundamental questions as slavery were left to the individual states to decide. Like a lot of Americans, I'm appalled at what the Supreme Court has done, and I predict that it will be cited by historians for decades to come as an example of the Court overstepping its bounds for political purposes. However, the decision has been made, without bloodshed, and in accordance with the laws of the land (even if they were somewhat creatively interpreted). All of the principals have accepted the decision. Let's see how the guy does -- I don't have high hopes, but I would love to be proven wrong, and I know enough history to know that some of our greatest Presidents were not that highly regarded when they first took office. Let's also keep in mind that he will be kept in check by a divided Congress, and the fact that there's no way he can claim this election as any sort of broad public mandate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: kendall Date: 15 Dec 00 - 12:32 PM On the bright side...the transfer of power will be done without tanks in the streets. How many countries can say that? Also..after all the howling and name calling, we must face that fact that what happened was not Bush's fault, it was not Gore's fault. No, it was OUR fault for nominating that pair! We could have had Bradley, they could have had McCain. As Pogo said "We have met the enemy, and, he is us"! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Troll Date: 15 Dec 00 - 12:58 PM AMEN BROTHER! troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Dec 00 - 02:27 PM Even the Supreme Court admitted that there were lots of votes that had not been properly counted, it just voted that it was too late to do anything about counting them fairly.
Thousands of votes which had been rejected by machines were in fact never checked to identify wehether they were valid votes or not. Being rejected by a clapped out machine does not mean they were not valid votes. In cases where "undervotes" were checked, it was discovered that quite a lot of them were in fact perfectly valid votes. And the reason that all the undervotes were not checked was because of the obstruction by Bush and his supporters.
I do not believe that supporters of Bush would have seen this as a fair way of proceeding if it had been done by their opponents. I also think it is quite likely that there are Gore supporters who would have been just as dishonest if the positions had been reversed - but that is pure speculation.
And honestly, troll: "There was no deliberate effort on the part of anyone to disenfranchise anyone". Obstructing a recount which aims to check whether "undervotes" were valid is a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise people. It was deliberate, and it was successful.
"No tanks on the streets" as a basis for self-congratulation. Don't tempt fate. That's the kind of thing they said in Northern Ireland in the 50s and 60s when people complained about the gerrymandering. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: GUEST,petr Date: 15 Dec 00 - 02:49 PM the 100 million people who didnt vote were right! your vote doesnt count. 1. Just in off the AP wire... BUSH SUES SANTA AUSTIN, TX - Dec.15 - Attorneys for Texas Governor George W. Bush filed suit in federal court today, seeking to prevent Santa Claus from making his list and then checking it twice. The complaint seeks an immediate injunction against the beloved Christmas icon, asking the court to effectively ban his traditional practice of checking the list of good boys and girls one additional time before packing his sleigh. The suit, filed in the Federal District Court of Austin, Texas, asks a federal judge to "hereby order Mr. Claus to cease and desist all repetitive and duplicative list-checking activity, and certify the original list as submitted, without amendment, alteration, deletion, or other unnecessary modification." "There are no standards for deciding who is naughty, and who is nice. It's totally arbitrary and capricious. How many more times does he need to check? This checking, checking, and re-checking over and over again must stop now," said former Secretary James Baker. Baker further claimed that unnamed GOP observers witnessed an elf remove all boys named Brad from the "nice" list, filing them under "naughty" instead because "everyone knows all boys named Brad are brats." Gov. Bush cited the potential for unauthorized list tampering, and blasted what he called the "fuzzy math up there at the North Pole." "Their security is really awful, really bad," said Bush. "My mother just walked right in, told 'em she was Mrs. Claus. They didn't check her ID or nothing." Meanwhile, Dick Cheney, Gov. Bush's running mate, issued a direct plea to St. Nick himself. "Mr. Claus, I call on you to do the honorable thing, and quit checking your list. The children of the world have had enough. They demand closure now," Cheney said, adding that his granddaughter has already selected a name for the pony that she's asked for. Santa Claus could not be reached for comment, but a spokes-elf said he was "deeply distressed" by news of the pending legal action against him. "He's losing weight, and he hasn't said 'Ho Ho Ho' for days," said the spokes-elf. "He's just not feeling jolly." 2. BREAKING NEWS: GOD OVERRULES SUPREME COURT VERDICT Bush to be smitten later today In a stunning development this morning, God invoked the "one nation, under God" clause of the Pledge of Allegiance to overrule last night's Supreme Court decision that handed the White House to George Bush. "I'm not sure where the Supreme Court gets off," God said this morning on a rare Today Show appearance, "but I'm sure as hell not going to lie back and let Bush get away with this bullshit." "I've watched analysts argue for weeks now that the exact vote count in Florida 'will never be known.' Well, I'm God and I DO know exactly who voted for whom. Let's cut to the chase: Gore won Florida by exactly 20,219 votes." Shocking political analysts and pundits, God's unexpected verdict overrules the official Electoral College tally and awards Florida to Al Gore, giving him a 289-246 victory. The Bush campaign is analyzing God's Word for possible grounds for appeal. "God's ruling is a classic over-reach," argued Bush campaign strategist Jim Baker. "Clearly, a divine intervention in a U.S. Presidential Election is unprecedented, unjust, and goes against the constitution of the state of Florida." "Jim Baker's a jackass," God responded. "He's got some surprises ahead of him, let me tell you. HOT ones, if you know what I mean." God, who provided the exact vote counts for every Florida precinct, explained that bad balloting machinery and voter confusion were no grounds to give the White House to "a friggin' idiot." "Look, only 612 people in Palm Beach County voted for Buchanan. Get real! The rest meant to vote for Gore. Don't believe me? I'll name them: Anderson, Pete; Anderson, Sam, Jr.; Arthur, James; Barnhardt, Ron..." Our Lord then went on to note that he was displeased with George W. Bush's prideful ways and announced that he would officially smite him today. In an act of wrath unlike any reported since the Book of Job, God has taken all of Bush's goats and livestock, stripped him of his wealth and possessions, sold his family into slavery, forced the former presidential candidate into hard labor in a salt mine, and afflicted him with deep boils.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: mousethief Date: 15 Dec 00 - 02:56 PM Petr: a couple of gems! Thanks! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: AND WE HAVE A WINNER.........sorta' From: Skeptic Date: 15 Dec 00 - 03:27 PM troll, I will agree that there wasn't any conspiracy to disenfranchise anyone, minorities. It appears to have happened anyway. If so, does the fact that it wasn't some great conspiracy make it any less of a problem, any less a wrong? Yes, the demagogues on both sides are in full swing. I listen to Jesse Jackson and then to Rush Limbaugh and it's a difference in kind, not type. They cloud the core issue of how we screwed up the fundamental right to vote. The company hired to purge the voter rolls added fuel to the fire. To someone who already believes there is some conspiracy against minorities (as many do), the problems the firm had and have were "evidence" of the intent to disenfranchise. The heavy Republican ownership "proves" something is up. Ah, but that doesn't mean there's a conspiracy, you say? True. But its in the same class as "evidence" of the liberal media conspiracy. 'Tis in the eye of the beholder. A conspiracy thrives by ignoring evidence to the contrary. The problem remains that people were (or felt they were) cheated out of their right to vote. A majority of the Court (before they wimped out) agreed that with a different time line, the recount should occur. Or, from the other side, if Bush hadn't worked so hard to delay the issue... or if Gore had filed earlier.... people still "know" (in the sense of a belief versus an opinion) that they didn't get to vote. Or a neighbor didn't. Or they know someone who knows someone........ That is the great damage done. I don't like Bush and think the reality is that he faces four years of gridlock (even moderates from his party are making noises like a loyal opposition). He faces a nation that will always know he didn't win the popular vote and feel like maybe he didn't win in Florida. He faces a world that is still trying to figure out how a country like ours could screw up so royally. Continuing to play the blame game is an easy way to aviod addressing core issues. Why do a lot of minorities feel they were dienfranchised? Blaming Jackson or Sharpton is like blaming Gore or Bush, a way to avoid the issue. And if it turn out they were disenfranchised, then what? Regards John |
|
Subject: THIS THREAD IS FULL From: mousethief Date: 15 Dec 00 - 03:32 PM This thread is too big. Join me over in the new one
Thanks, |