I don't dwell on Bush v. Gore because I have felt so helpless to do anything about it (same for Ohio in 2004). One thing I said from the beginning was that no good would ever come from this administration, and that we would have to pay for the injustice that was done in 2000. And paid we have and will continue to do.
My hope is that the five Supremes who gave Bush the election, along with everyone who has supported him along the way, will be forever haunted by what they have done to our country.
Posted by Susan S at April 12, 2007 05:12 AMRehnquist is dead, so there are four left.
I know some have read this and know full well what happened, but it's still very true it's never discussed anyway.
We are treated as if we are powerless dweebs, worth nothing but exploiting by our lying ruling class. It's the last time those felons ever feel so confident about trying to pull something like this again.
Posted by paradox at April 12, 2007 05:20 AMgood on you that you are still energized by it all. but there is so very much to be outraged about (my son-in-law having to go back to Iraq for one thing), I've run dry on the outrage front. Right now I'm just numb.
Posted by majkia at April 12, 2007 05:48 AMTh rrtnl nvkng rsn, th dsjntd dmntd llgng cntrdctry nchrnc, gffw! Slf mrgnlz, lv l, nsst t's dffrnt l, sqndr yr dwndlng xstnc n nthngnss.
[Editor: ignore=off]The stolen presidential election of 2000 was a perfect storm: a conspiracy between business, military and energy interests, the rightwing US judiciary and the media, managed by a few uber-powerful American political families to control the outcome of the franchise.
Posted by Christopher at April 12, 2007 06:07 AMI think what horrified me most about the 2000 cluster---- was that the election theft was so underplayed. The part about the mob in suits and ties was placed on a back page.
True small-d democratic reporting would have made it a front-page screaming headlines kind of thing.
Christopher,
Good force summation of Bush v. Gore & Selection 2000. Empires always end this way. Ruling elites fob corrupt boob legacies to the controls & the whole enterprise soon hits the shoals.
At least, with the concurrent rise of internet tubes and demise of corporate media, delay of recognition and accountability are minimized. The elites may have been too cleverly grasping for their own good and made abundant lifelong mortal enemies in the bargain.
And Thanks, paradox. Your posts never fail to inspire and encourage me.
Posted by Pvt. Keepout at April 12, 2007 06:41 AMGood force summation of Bush v. Gore & Selection 2000.
Thanks, Pvt. Keepout. Now the usual suspects will object to the characterization of the stolen presidential election of 2000 as a "conspiracy," but that's precisely what it was.
Who can forget the CNN coverage of the Texas governor's mansion and Poppy and Babs Bush, sitting with Little Boots and Pickles, and the reporter asked the Bush men how they felt about the state after state falling into Gore's category?
Both Poppy Bush and Little Boots said, "That's impossible," their faces flush with confusion and alarm.
The election was stolen: fair and square.
Posted by Christopher at April 12, 2007 06:57 AMNo. I think it is important to undo the damage; to reverse the precedents that have been set since the 2000 election debacle. The best way to do that is by setting new precedents that rely on better systems. The new systems that work better gradually become new institutions. In fact, I think this work is in progress now. I think the patterns on which future "government" systems are based have already been defined, but they're not uncomplicated from the point of view of the status quo. Power isn't what it used to be.
It's no wonder, of course, that those who think of power in terms of money and might resort to stealing elections. I don't think election theft is anything new. The goal now is to test, prove, and implement a failsafe election system.
Posted by NealB at April 12, 2007 07:02 AMI'm liberal, I voted for Gore, and I think the Supreme Court intervention was bullshit, but the election wasn't stolen. A consortium of newspapers recounted the votes in November 2001. If the Supreme Court hadn't interfered, Gore would have lost the recount in Florida because his campaign only asked for manual recounts in four counties. He would have won a statewide recount, but that wasn't what he asked for.
Posted by croatoan at April 12, 2007 07:11 AMIt was a coup. The second of my lifetime, the first being the assassination of JFK. Banana republic style coup. Pure and simple. What more is there to say?
Posted by angel at April 12, 2007 07:13 AMDead on. The election was stolen, and Bush learned that ruling is synonomous with theft. No surprise he's breaking the law left and right ever since.
Posted by Avi Green at April 12, 2007 07:27 AMThe fact remains that an activist, rightwing US Supreme Court, inserted itself in the 2000 presidential election.
In its December 12 decision that overturned a manual recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court and settled the 2000 presidential election, the United States Supreme Court based its historic conclusion on one principle: that it is fundamentally unfair to use widely varying and contradictory standards when determining whether votes are to be counted.
On this point, there was a strong consensus: seven of the nine Justices agreed. Ironically, two of them, Justices David Souter and Stephen Breyer wrote tough-minded critiques of the way the manual recount was conducted in Florida but then went on to dissent from the main opinion.
In other words, most of the Court agreed there were serious issues of equal protection, but two balked at the remedy.
It also helped that four of the justices are close, personal family friends of the Bush dynasty.
firstly, any recount in FLA would have failed to take into account false or fraudulent voting methods. It is exactly those "hanging chads" type undervotes that appear to give Bush the extremely slight edge. His brother was Govenor, his Campaign Mgr was Sec. of State/FLA in charge of the polls. The fix was in. Make no mistake, this was planned. Remember, prior to the election the GOP was readying a drive to contest the results. But their assumption was that Bush would win the popular vote and Gore the electoral. They were caught off guard when the opposite happened, but their ace in the hole was that W and Jeb were brothers and FLA would provide the tipping point either way. But more off guard was the national Democratic Party, who failed miserably to understand what would happen if, "for the sake of the country", the Dems failed to fight the results. Their gentlemen's take on the FLA vote and electoral result has and will haunt that party forever.
Posted by T2 at April 12, 2007 07:46 AMI've always felt the election was stolen, but was willing to move on. However, after 9/11, when Democrats were considered akin to terrorists, and later when many of us opposed the war, I realized this was a coup. I got very angry. I'm still very angry. To fight back, I joined the local Democratic committee and started working for our candidates. I also started reading blogs, and now send news stories to my friends who don't and won't get the full story otherwise. My husband, a good soul who will always vote for Democrats but doesn't want to get involved, doesn't believe a word I tell him and says I'm still angry because Gore lost in 2000. Oh, well.
Posted by pol at April 12, 2007 07:46 AM"If the Supreme Court hadn't interfered, Gore would have lost the recount in Florida because his campaign only asked for manual recounts in four counties. He would have won a statewide recount, but that wasn't what he asked for."
Jesus Christ. Gentle reader, this totally wrong and you've been spun.
Gore asked for recounts in three counties because that's what Florida's assinine statutes demand he do. It was never a choice on his part, it's what the law says. Never knew that before?
Furthermore, it's all fucking irrelevant, because the Florida State Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount at the end of the appeal process anyway.
Gore did get a statewide eventually. Overvotes clearly showed him winning, but we'll never know what happened because the Supreme Court then stole it!!!!
I know Gore won Florida because of Palm Beach, let alone all the rest. Al Gore won Florida, he won the country and we are gone as a democacy. Gone!
Go ahead and sneer, bendito, it will never work. Motivated for life, it's fucking mine by the way, so I get to live it doing everything I can seeting that Republicans lose. Sneer away if you must.
Posted by paradox at April 12, 2007 07:52 AMI agree that Christopher's summation is wonderfully concise and accurate. It's not just the vote counting that we MUST correct, it's all of the voter suppression, database purging, Jim Crow voter Identification laws and government corruption for the benefit of one party rule, as is perfectly illustrated by the Attorneygate scandal now unfolding.
This truly is a conspiracy. The future consipritors are being trained by the thousands in the College Republicans, the Federalist Society, the Republican Lawyers Assn. and many more clans, of which I'm sure we're unaware. It's backed by the extreme wealth of a very small, very much recently enriched cabal of families, of which the Prescotts and the Bushes are part. The worst thing we can do is to feel overwhelmed, or numb. For this fight, we must all be Paradox!
By the way Steve, Bendito has long since failed to pass the Turing test. The ranting, incoherent hit and run postings indicate corrupted software.
Posted by DeminNewJ at April 12, 2007 07:59 AMWhat part of the US Constitution did the Supremes use as their justification for intervening? Artcle II Secion I Clause 2 says it is the state legislature that determines how the electors are chosen not the Supremes.
Posted by JohnT at April 12, 2007 08:08 AMGreat rant Paradox. You speak for me. Your quite right that SCOTUS gave him all the permission he needed.
Posted by Judith at April 12, 2007 08:15 AMAnd then there's Ohio 2004.
The state was promised to George Bush despite exit polling that spelled overwhelming victory for John Kerry.
Republicans (and liberals still weary from the 2000 Florida fracas) derided anyone who doubted Bush's victory as lunatics in "tinfoil hats."
The media did little to question the validity of the Ohio election results. Even the Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as "conspiracy theories."
Posted by Christopher at April 12, 2007 08:21 AM"The elites may have been too cleverly grasping for their own good and made abundant lifelong mortal enemies in the bargain."
Pvt. Keepout, how right you are. Count me as one of the enemy.
Posted by Judith at April 12, 2007 08:22 AMWhy do we continue to allow Benito to post?
Posted by Judith at April 12, 2007 08:28 AMFolks, I think the time has come to define what Benditto truly is, a Seagull Troll. He modus is to fly in, crap all over things, then fly out. Fortunately, seagull crap is easy to wash off. The right is constantly accusing us of wearing tinfoil hats. What they fail to see is that the tinfoil hats are not to ward off the NSA mind rays, but rather to avoid being crapped upon by Benditto and his Seagull Troll Brigade.
Posted by Trieatalot at April 12, 2007 08:31 AMThe Sniper needs to go.
Posted by Judith at April 12, 2007 08:56 AM"The fact remains that an activist, rightwing US Supreme Court, inserted itself in the 2000 presidential election."
It took 28 years, but the left finally understood what the right said about activist courts and Roe vs Wade.
Poetic.
That said, lets not pretend Gore didn't have his pal Ginsberg on the Supreme Court, shall we?
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 12, 2007 09:06 AM"What part of the US Constitution did the Supremes use as their justification for intervening? Artcle II Secion I Clause 2 says it is the state legislature that determines how the electors are chosen not the Supremes."
I think they used 'equal protection' clause.
All 9 judges knew exactly what they were doing when they made that ruling. The vague 14th amendment was simply the justification.
The simple fact is that no election system can verifyably distinguish between such tiny (600 votes out of 6 million) margins.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 12, 2007 09:17 AM...and thus ended the Republic.
Posted by Jim DeRosa at April 12, 2007 09:28 AMI guess we'll see just how blantant the powers are when we have to face the '08 presidential election results.
Think they won't do it again? Well think again.
Thanks. That's a pretty good stretch.
Posted by JohnT at April 12, 2007 09:56 AMThe Right doesn't understand that historians will absolutely be zeroing in on the stolen election of 2000 as the seminal event that pointed the way to the corrupt modus operendi of Bushco. Bushism was conceived in original sin, and the res ulting lawbreaking and abuse all naturally follows.
We have not begun to come to terms with understanding how deeply our national institutions failed us in 2000, and how degenerate and moribund we have become as a democratic people. We don't have the vitality and energy to reform ourselves, or protect our most revered political traditions, which is indicative of a nation in severe decline.
We still refuse to adopt adequate election reform legislation, and to amend the constitution to make every vote count equally in the presidential elections. More evidence of the self-inflicted retardation resulting from the rise of know-nothing "conservatism".
Posted by euzoius at April 12, 2007 09:58 AMMaybe historians should worry about the 'stolen' election of 1960 before moving on to 2000.
Guess the joke was on Kennedy, though. After bringing in LBJ to shuffle votes to bring Texas to his side, LBJ turns around and wacked him 3 years later.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 12, 2007 10:12 AMlordanus, Your stinking up Steve's site.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 12, 2007 10:17 AM"It took 28 years, but the left finally understood what the right said about activist courts and Roe vs Wade."
Well, it may have taken us 28 years, in your opinion, but I can assure you we understand all too well now, which will make your life difficult in the future.
Posted by Judith at April 12, 2007 10:28 AMFlorid-duh is the land of swiped elections as the Tilden Hayes contest was the precedent and fed the rise of Racism and Jim Crow.
Then you have American Narcissism and shallowness where Gore was dissed for failing to be 'sexy'. Adlai Stevenson had that problem before. Face it, we have become a nation of shallow dungbats with the attention spans of voles and room temperature IQ's.
We have somehow come to conflate vital things like elections with witless popularity contests like American Idol and now suffer for our shallowness.
In America it is hip to be stupid and shallow but the EU learned its lesson after an Austrian Demagogue destroyed the place. We are living through the most horrific object lesson of our life times about the perils of shallow narcissism but I wonder if the lesson will sink in as Russian Tanks aren't likely to reduce our cities to rubble after the bombers start the job.
Posted by Chris Rich at April 12, 2007 10:57 AM"stolen election of 1960"
Dance, little Repub monkey! Earn your keep! Bells and whistles, make noise, push the shiny buzzer!
Hey, they've got Krispy Kremes three cubicles down! Hurry your GOP ass on over and get your fair share!
Posted by euzoius at April 12, 2007 10:57 AMThe 2000 election was both the epitome of the neocon movement and also -- because of how it happened -- the incident that spawned the anti-neocon movement.
If Gore had simply won the popular vote but lost the electoral college that night I, like most Gore supporters, would have been depressed but would have accepted it. However, it soon became apparent that the vote count in Florida was a mess -- and that all the errors favored Bush. When you add in the Palast article about the Florida vote supression that he wrote just before the election and which was front page news -- in England -- it fast became clear that a sizable majority of Florida voters preferred Gore, but that Jeb Bush and his minions had worked hard to distort the vote for George. The only question was whether the legal system would allow this fact to be recognized.
In the 5 weeks that followed we learned a lot -- about US media, about the courts, about Republicans, and about Americans. And everything we learned was bad.
It was obvious that the basic principle of democracy -- count all the votes -- was irrelevant to the media. We kept hearing millionare pundits saying how the American people demanded a resolution now -- when the American people for the most part were happy to wait if it meant that all the votes were counted.
It was also obvious, in a horrible foreshadowing of what was to occur during the Bush administration, that the experts in the technology involved were going to be ignored in favor of lots of media face time for Republican party hacks. The simple technical truths about vote counting and the 1960s vote-a-matic technology kept getting obscured with Republican slogans.
But the worst was that we learned that most of the TV media really, really, really wanted Bush to win. I remember how shocked I was at this on election night. Back before the internet there was a foolproof way to figure out the exit poll results before they were announced: pick a few talking heads who favored one candidate or the other and watch to see if they were happy or sad -- they all pretend to be "objective" but their facial expressions betray them. On election night 2000 we all remember how the faces of Gore supporters like Begala were happy early on and worried later, while Bush supporters like Britt Hume were the opposite -- worried early and happy later. What shocked me was how almost all of the supposedly objective talking heads had their facial expressions match Hume's: Crowley, Schneider (I didn't know then that he was an AEI hack), O'Donnell, Williams, Lehrer(!) -- all but Rather, Jennings, and that "presidential historian" they used to have on. Of course even the pretend Democrats like Cadell were happy when the results shifted to Bush. Silly me -- I'd heard "liberal media" so often that I'd bought into it.
So, we learned the media favored Bush, that they didn't care about accuracy or facts, and that they didn't honor the principles of the Constitution or democracy (another foreshadowing of what was to come). We learned that Republicans will do anything -- anything -- to win, and that the media will cover for them. We also learned about the authoritarian traits of Republicans. Their ignoring of data and facts, their silly arguments they repeated again and again -- their accusing the Democrats of doing exactly what they themselves were doing. Remember Barbara Olsen? She was the poster child for all these behaviors before she died and Coulter became her spiratual heir apparent (Coulter was around then, but Olsen got a lot more TV time).
Seeking objective reporting in 2000 was hard. Web sites like Counterpunch, Onlinejournal, Cursor, Commondreams, and Wsws were about all we had then. Dailyhowler was only once per day on a given topic. I can't remember if mediawhoresonline, buzzflash, and democraticunderground were running then or if they started just afterward. However, the pickings were slim -- you used to really have to dig.
Now of course we have a whole host of web sites and through the process of natural selection the best ones have risen to the top. Many of them actually make money and have research staffs. The movement is still grass roots, but it's getting organized. And the impetus was the election of 2000.
Posted by anony at April 12, 2007 11:12 AM"Dance, little Repub monkey! Earn your keep! Bells and whistles, make noise, push the shiny buzzer!
Hey, they've got Krispy Kremes three cubicles down! Hurry your GOP ass on over and get your fair share!"
Uh huh. Keep singing the "Bush stole 2000!" tune. You might be able to convince yourself and the rest of the lemmings it's actually true.
The funniest thing about it is that 62 million Americans bitchslapped you clowns and put the so called "worst president in history" back into office for 4 more years.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 12, 2007 11:40 AManony--really good points, especially about the rise of the web sites after the 2000 theft, willfully aided and abetted by the nation's "press".
Posted by euzoius at April 12, 2007 11:41 AMThe funniest thing about it is that 62 million Americans bitchslapped you clowns and put the so called "worst president in history" back into office for 4 more years.
And moths find themselves drawn to their deaths in open flames.
Go figure.
Posted by snark at April 12, 2007 12:19 PM"put the worst president in history back into office for 4 more years"
Yep, any election but the topic at hand.
RNC tactic #1: divert the discussion.
Posted by euzoius at April 12, 2007 01:06 PMParadox, the history books will validate you. That was the beginning of this nightmare. And the current "scandal a week" is merely the tip of the iceberg. The Bush gang may have done to the departments of our federal government what they've done to Iraq -- destroying both was the intent wasn't it?
Posted by Marie at April 12, 2007 01:10 PMWithin a year of Bush's leaving office the facts about direct, ex parte communications during November and December of 2000 between the Bush people in Houston and Scalia's chambers will come to light.
Historians will eventually decide that 12/12/2000, not 9/11/01, was the big body blow from which our Republic did not recover.
Unless we elect Al Gore. The Jesuits who taught me moral theology always maintained that true restitution for theft requires the restoration of the thing stolen, and not some substitute, to the person from whom it was stolen, and not some surrogate.
Gore in '08 -- Deus vult!. Not just a politician, but a walking, talking, one-man Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
Posted by Davis X. Machina at April 12, 2007 02:53 PMRNC tactic #1: divert the discussion.
No, that's tactic #5.
Tactic #1 is demean/insult/slur/discredit the source. Tactic #2 is say the other side is doing the same thing. Tactic #3 is deny the claim using distorted or completely fabricated evidence. Tactic #4 is blame Clinton (either one). Tactic #5 is change topic.
Posted by anony at April 12, 2007 02:58 PMWithin a year of Bush's leaving office the facts about direct, ex parte communications during November and December of 2000 between the Bush people in Houston and Scalia's chambers will come to light.
I wonder if such communications ever happened. Scalia has been in goose-step ... oops, I mean "lock-step" ... with the gang for decades. His action was obvious, and he wouldn't have needed any communication.
The one I wonder about was Bush appearing on TV on election night and saying how he was "pretty darn confident" of a victory in Florida given the word he received from "those actually counting the votes". A strange moment -- and if you google it now you can't find reference to it -- you need to go to Lexis-Nexus as those articles have been removed from the web.
I often wonder if the purpose of that appearance was to trigger some action in Florida -- say, some people waiting for notice from the Bush campaign -- without leaving traces such as phone records.
Posted by anony at April 12, 2007 03:04 PM"Within a year of Bush's leaving office the facts about direct, ex parte communications during November and December of 2000 between the Bush people in Houston and Scalia's chambers will come to light."
And you think the 7 Democrats on the Florida Supreme court are so bipartisan, right?
The Supreme Court decided the outcome of the 2000 election because it could. Such is a byproduct of the current imperial judiciary. Want to reverse this trend? Start by telling the courts to shove it when it comes to Guantanemo Bay and the war.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 12, 2007 07:01 PM"Tactic #1 is demean/insult/slur/discredit the source. Tactic #2 is say the other side is doing the same thing. Tactic #3 is deny the claim using distorted or completely fabricated evidence. Tactic #4 is blame Clinton (either one). Tactic #5 is change topic."
And considering all you bunch do is toss every insult imaginable at the President and compare him to Hitler, looks like your side can't even manage tactics 2-5.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 12, 2007 07:02 PMlordtyranus2: On the one hand, Bush has had a very long line of ex-aides who have criticized his administration. Every one of these aides has been routinely dismissed as "disgruntled" or worse by the Bush Fealty Cult.
On the other hand, Bush's opponents have pointed out that he has routinely violated US law, the US constituation and International Law, and that he is thus a war criminal.
The fact that you cannot see the difference between these two acts is revealing.
Posted by anony at April 12, 2007 07:17 PMThe fact that you cannot see the difference between these two acts is revealing.
Il Duce ha sempre ragione, dude.
Posted by Davis X. Machina at April 12, 2007 07:30 PMFirst let's stand up and applaud this rehash of old tripe. Must be a slow news day or the troops must be feeling down and needed a jazzing here.
Then let's applaud those couragous Curcuit Court Judges, many of them Democrats that heard some 71 complete cases in just five weeks. Many of the 71 cases were brought forth by Democrats. Just about all this cases were decided in favor of Bush. Democratic judges finding for Bush. Must have been the law that was served...and served well, right? Then David Boise(sp) or his designate appealed up to an even friendlier court...the Florida Supremes. The first two findings by this court were purely political and outside the current law of the state and SCOTUS remanded them back to the state for more work. The third finding, several of the Florida Supremes got the message being sent by SCOTUS. They still found for Gore, but a more narrow finding of 4 to 3. The Chief Justice among the minority. Sometimes, I think it was a shame to stop what happened next within the state. All those volunteers recounting the vote. Problem was the counting standard...not universal, not set. I would have liked to put you folks at ease with their count...the whole state recounted, but for the standard problem. Hanging chads, the error rate of each feeding of punch cards through the counters. No two feeds getting the same total...endless recounts. Now you folks are upset about electronic voting. The recall of Gray Davis initial case to the California Supremes heard by the norrow three judges, showed the error rates of various methods. Funny the testifying of those experts place the punchcard system with the lowest error rate and E-voting as the highest with scaned votes somewhere in the middle. Great reading that case...look it up. The Florida Curcuit Courts were very abused by this recount barage of court cases and their findings were just cast aside for the Florida Supremes. What a waste of these judges time. The poor accused in the state had to take a back seat for this. I know the Bush people went through the Federal Court in Atlanta for relief in Florida. All wasn't one sided, but the majority of the contest was on the Democratic side.
Then there's the case of unfairly weighting these votes over say New Mexico, or Iowa, or Wisconcin, or even California and just to make Ga6th happy, Georgia. By drawing attention to just these votes it lessened the quality of my vote cast. More votes were spoiled in Georgia than Florida. Alas, no interest there...the vote was too big to overcome. California threw out over a million votes cast...too big a difference to matter. New Mexico quietly recounted their votes and came close to the original count. Wonder about Iowa and Wisconcin? Then there's always St Louis keeping the vote open late into the night.
Now to the media. Remember the VNS or Voter News Service the networks paid for. VNS didn't seem to work very well for a close election. Two years later the tried to use this service again and found the results even further off. The DNC Chair couldn't mobilize the vote out west very effectively because the party depended on this service too. They were blind in 2002 and lost bigger than they were expecting. The 2004 vote as covered by the media was equally poorly covered. The speaking by the heads never matched the results on the screen. Took till after 11 PM central time to change the tone to a W victory.
Back to 2000, the networks called Florida in the seven o'clock hour with western Florida still voting. They called the state with Bush up by two points for ALGORE. Wonder why Austin was so in shock...thats why. Then they pull the 'call' and finally call the state for Bush. Many errors here by the networks. Fortunate for me, Bush was ahead. He had the race from a lead point of view. Counts were not messed with by anyone connected to the GOP. These volunteers work very hard to get the count right. Very hard, they should be commended for the job they do. Unfortunately, this recount stuff sure sullied the job they did. My candidate may have done something had he been on the losing side of the initial vote. He may have, but, I am sure he would have never gone to the extremes that ALGORE did. Contesting a national election never comes out well. All it does is create doubt, at a time when we need more people active in the voting process. Casting responsible votes for good candidates. This doubt is horific. We should have a certain count, one that EVERYBODY has faith in. Sure small problems may occure during this process. They should be local problems and not nationally created. Overall, Americans should have a certain faith in the count.
What happened in 2000 created a lack of faith and that lack lead some of you to feel something wrong happened in Ohio in 2004. Funny that the 2002 vote seems to get overlooked, no appearant problems. Logical, must have been something wrong...my candidate didn't win. We didn't have that feeling in 1988 or 1992 or 1996. Amazingly, people seem to like the 2006 results. Many of the very same election workers as in 2004. Better results for Democrats, where were all the contestings, the lawyers must have felt very lonely after that November night. No work.
And you people have also used this Florida 2000 to flavor Americans against a very nice president. To cast these last six years as less than they are. Never before in America has this been done. Some tried to turn against Lincoln and Johnson back there in the 1860's, but never to this degree. The 43rd President of the United States is the legitimate elected president period.
Posted by peter at April 12, 2007 09:50 PMPosting while drunk again, peter?
"to flavor Americans against a very nice president". Priceless.
Posted by euzoius at April 13, 2007 06:57 AM"On the other hand, Bush's opponents have pointed out that he has routinely violated US law, the US constituation and International Law, and that he is thus a war criminal."
Sadly, nobody else drinks the koolaid and beleives this bullshit. By your criteria every President is a war criminal.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 13, 2007 08:01 AMlordanus, Your credibility is at question here? I forgot, you have no credibility.
Posted by Seven of Six at April 13, 2007 08:07 AMlordtyranus2: Cute attempt to change the topic. Rather subtle -- seems like you've been doing this a while.
The point stands -- there is a difference between 1) dismissing every critic of a Presidential Administration as "disgruntled", possessing "irrational hatred", or worse, and 2) analyzing the actions of a president and arguing that the actions are illegal. The first avoids engaging in real analysis -- the second is the product of real analysis.
Fundamentally it comes down to this: do you decide to a) study facts and adjust your theories to fit [and, subsequently, perform more research to test the theories] or b) start from the conclusion and seek arguments to support it?
In truth, even the most objectively-trained humans have some of (b), which is why the scientific method is all about review and retesting.
However, some people exhibit behaviors that are pure (b). These people can be at any end of the political spectrum, but the behaviors tend to be highly concentrated amongst authoritarian followers -- religious and political -- who start with a doctrine and/or leader as the source of truth and then built arguments from that postulate. It's common for these people to have a very strong group membership component to their self identity, and they commonly buy-in to a "you're either with us or against us" philosophy.
Unfortunately for these people, real dialogue is not possible as there can be no give-and-take. Double standards are common, because when the person says "your side is wrong because it took action X" the person is really just saying "any side but my side is always wrong". Later, when this person's "side" performs action X, the person doesn't see any problem with it. That's because the problem was never with action X, that was only an excuse -- the problem was with anyone not on his own "side".
Furthermore, a person who believes "you're with us or against us" has a retarded ability to distinguish between viewpoints different from their own. In an extreme example, the way some members of the Bush Fealty Cult believe that the ACLU -- who promote civil rights to an extreme -- is aligned with Al Qaeda -- who believe in no civil rights, only their interpretation of the Koran. Such a belief is ridiculous on the surface, but it follows from a "with us or against us" formulation.
There are various terms for people like this. "Authoritarian follower" is an academic term. On comment boards they are often referred to as "trolls".
Posted by anony at April 13, 2007 11:30 AMDon't forget that the ruling in Bush v. Gore stated that it was NOT to be taken as precedent-setting, that it was for this single case only.
Posted by bartcopfan at April 13, 2007 03:52 PMOh, and troll? The Bush/Hitler comparisons come pretty easy when his grandpa was convicted under the Trading with the Enemy Act of doing business on behalf of Adolf's industrialists.
Did YOUR grandpa do business w/ Hitler's buddies? Mine didn't.
Posted by bartcopfan at April 13, 2007 03:55 PMAnd another thing, cite the ideological differences between Nazis and Bush Republicans on these issues:
Women's rights,
Contraception,
Abortion,
Gay rights,
Expression of non-majority religious belief,
Atheism,
Separation of Church and State,
Judicial Independence,
Racial Equality,
Workers' rights/unionism,
Minimum Wage increases,
whatever other issues I'm leaving out that I invite posters to add....
I predict you'd need a feeler gauge to discern any difference between the two.
Don't forget that the ruling in Bush v. Gore stated that it was NOT to be taken as precedent-setting, that it was for this single case only.
From a law standpoint that was a massive smoking gun, and is one of the key reasons Bush v. Gore and Dred Scott are cited as the two worst Supreme Court decisions ever.
Lay people tend not to get why this was such a problem, and of course the US media couldn't be bothered to delve into that level of detail.
The problem is that EVERY appeals court decision has to set a precedent. The appeals process requires that judicial interpretations of higher courts set guidelines for lower courts to follow. Otherwise you'd have chaos, with each case interpreting the law new for the first time.
If this had been a decision honestly arrived at, they might have stated that the decision 1) would apply only to very, very limited set of circumstances, and 2) listed those circumstances. This is called a "narrow" ruling. Legal people usually find narrow rulings to be frustrating and even sometimes cowardly, since they often just defer ruling on a controversial issue. However, the court has issued lots of narrow rulings in recent years, so at least such a ruling would have been consistent.
Instead, the majority said "there can be no precedent here" due to the "special circumstances" of this case, but they didn't spell out the alleged cirumstances. By doing this they admitted that their interpretation of the law was incorrect, for this case only, and that they could not permit any other court to do the same.
In essense, whichever Scalia aide wrote the ruling admitted, as openly as he/she could, that the "special circumstance" was "a Democrat might win the election."
Posted by anony at April 13, 2007 04:21 PM"Oh, and troll? The Bush/Hitler comparisons come pretty easy when his grandpa was convicted under the Trading with the Enemy Act of doing business on behalf of Adolf's industrialists.
Did YOUR grandpa do business w/ Hitler's buddies? Mine didn't."
Strawman much? Hitler died before Bush was born...
Maybe we should condemn living people who actually did despicable things...like Robert Byrd's KKK lynchings and filibuster of the Civil Rights act.
Posted by lordtyranus2 at April 13, 2007 06:32 PMThe claim that Florida was 'called' 'in the 7 o-clock hour' while the western part of the panhandle was still at the polls is technically accurate, but wholly misleading.
Why? Because it was called at... 7:45 pm. People who were going to vote in northwestern Florida were already in line, or had already voted, at that late hour, just 15 minutes before the polls were to close there. Various GOP partisans have claimed that 'thousands' or even 'tens of thousands' of GOP voters were discouraged from voting when they otherwise would have. This is nonsense. What, were they EN ROUTE, and then turned around? Or on line at the polls, then heard the news on the radio or a television set at the polling place, and then decided to not vote for any of the races, including for POTUS, and went home without voting at all? Please.
Posted by sofla at April 13, 2007 06:33 PM"Maybe we should condemn living people who actually did despicable things...like Robert Byrd's KKK lynchings and filibuster of the Civil Rights act."
Whoa--DUDE!! YOU have evidence Byrd was personally involved in lynchings?!?
LET'S SEE IT!! I'll be the first to condemn it--IF you've got it.
Byrd was a KKK member, yep, and I agree that made him an asshole when he was younger. He's since repudiated it.
(Oh, and in case you're thinking of bringing it up next, Al Gore's dad (Al Senior) said his vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was his greatest regret.)
Now, will YOU condemn Strom Thurmond's lifetime of race-baiting politics (while hiding his race-mixing-resultant 50-plus-year-old daughter until his death)?
And as far as strawmen go, I'm not asking W to condemn Hitler, dumbass. I'm asking W to condemn his grandfather (and the source of much Bush family wealth) for working on behalf of Hitler's industrialist cronies.
Besides, I'm still waiting to hear you expound the policy differences between Bush Republican'ts and Nazis in the areas previously listed....
Shorter Peter;
I'm not going to mention Bush's campaign chairwoman was the Sec. of State purging thousands of elgible black voters from the rolls, or her endless efforts to delay and deny a recount, or the Supremes limiting this special states rights' case to Bush and only to Bush and nobody else past, present or future in the US, because that would create confusion in the tiny little minds of the peasents-uh, citizens-and Georgie Bush is such a nice man, yes, he is, he pats me on the head and everything, despite that Iraq thing. And igoring 9/11. And Katrina. And huge deficits. And Lawyergate. And Plamegate. And...
Posted by Blue Jean at April 14, 2007 02:36 PM