If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Former SCOTUS justice Sandra Day O'Connor now thinks that her vote to end the Florida recount in Bush v Gore might have been a mistake. Wow, ya think?   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 159
    More: Obvious, Florida Recount, Sinead O'Connor, U.S. Supreme Court, justice Sandra, mistakes, justices  
•       •       •

2410 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Apr 2013 at 11:57 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



159 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-29 12:33:17 PM  

GoldSpider: Lumpmoose: Could the Supreme Court have demanded a full recount and set things right? I don't know.

Which, if I understand correctly, would have been analogous to re-writing Florida's state election laws.


The Supreme Court doesn't rewrite unconstitutional state laws, they overrule them.
 
2013-04-29 12:34:36 PM  

Lumpmoose: The Supreme Court doesn't rewrite unconstitutional state laws, they overrule them.


So you think the lack of recount provisions made Florida's election laws unconstitutional?
 
2013-04-29 12:34:36 PM  
So, the most spectacularly stupid thing you've done in your life MAY have been a mistake?
 
2013-04-29 12:34:40 PM  
Oh well, no harm done, right?
 
2013-04-29 12:35:26 PM  

GoldSpider: heap: it's this really neat trick where you pretend there was only 1 side taking things to the courts. i think it's the 'I'm not touching you, i'm not touching you' of politics.

Only one side was trying to get the state to recount ballots where there was no such provision in the state's election laws.


odd that the florida supreme court disagrees with you. there's a reason 'bush v palm beach canvassing' starts with 'bush'.
 
2013-04-29 12:35:37 PM  

acefox1: Jeb Bush pressured every law firm in the state to stay away from Gore or not get any state business.


I don't doubt this, but I would like to see some proof of it, if only to make certain that if Jeb Bush makes any moves toward a presidential run he's driven away like a diseased animal.
 
2013-04-29 12:35:49 PM  

powhound: A team that should have won, but lost because of one bad call, never deserved to win in the first place. It's the fault of the team for putting themselves so close to the brink of failure in the beginning. What I am saying is that if Clinton had not splooged all over that dress, the war in Iraq would never had happened and many less people would have died in the aftermath of Katrina.

/go ahead, prove that I am wrong
//voted for the "lock box" guy


You were so close to making an excellent point, but then you screwed the pooch.

Gore was indeed just like the team that points to one bad call to rationalize an unnecessary loss, but the problem wasn't Clinton. Clinton was extraordinarily popular, which is why Gore's efforts to distance himself from Clinton were so ill-advised. That's just one example of the many unforced errors on Gore's part which led to his loss; others include his pathetic debate performance and his utter lack of any apparent passion for the job. For heaven's sake, the guy lost his home state!
 
2013-04-29 12:36:23 PM  

Lumpmoose: Not according to an independent survey conducted the following year.  Gore won under 4 different criteria if the entire state was recounted.  If Gore wore have gotten his selective recounts of just a few counties, he would have lost.  The Supreme Court probably should have demanded a full recount of the entire state or just stayed out of it.


Bullshiat.  The Florida Supreme Court completely fark'd up in its rulings and that Florida simply can't run an election.  You can have as many recounts as necessary but unless you have the culture and infrastructure to run a ethical election process in the first place - a recount doesn't matter.  The whole process from the election itself to both the Florida and US Supreme Courts decisions was a comedy of errors.
 
2013-04-29 12:37:56 PM  
Counterpoint:

i404.photobucket.com

i192.photobucket.com
 
2013-04-29 12:38:26 PM  

BMulligan: That's just one example of the many unforced errors on Gore's part


i still say attempting to swallow his wife at the convention was the death knell.
 
2013-04-29 12:39:02 PM  

FlashHarry: acefox1: My buddies who died fighting for Bush in Iraq all want to thank you for their sacrifice Sandra.

president gore: certainly no iraq war, possibly no 9/11.


I don't know why you think he would have stopped 9/11.  He would have inherited the same intelligence paradigm that Bush did, and I don't recall hearing any Gore campaign promises that would have changed that.

Iraq, well that's a no brainer, even any other GOP President wouldn't have got us into Iraq, that was all Bush and Cheney right there.
 
2013-04-29 12:39:38 PM  

GoldSpider: Lumpmoose: The Supreme Court doesn't rewrite unconstitutional state laws, they overrule them.

So you think the lack of recount provisions made Florida's election laws unconstitutional?


I don't know.
 
2013-04-29 12:40:17 PM  
i3.kym-cdn.com

Democracy is a great 'idea' we once 'had'.
Only took 13 years for SCOTUS to realize that subverting the will of the people might have been a poor precedent.
 
2013-04-29 12:41:17 PM  

heap: odd that the florida supreme court disagrees with you. there's a reason 'bush v palm beach canvassing' starts with 'bush'.


Well yeah, the Florida Supreme Court sided with Gore's argument for the selective inclusion of recounted votes, and Bush sued to stop it.
 
2013-04-29 12:41:51 PM  

nekom: He would have inherited the same intelligence paradigm that Bush did


it's hard to make the case that anybody would have done the same things with that inheritance that the bush administration did, however.

i actually think the default would have been to maintain the status quo - an expectation you'd have if you put your local dog catcher in the office -  but that isn't what the bush administration actually did.
 
2013-04-29 12:42:38 PM  

GoldSpider: Well yeah, the Florida Supreme Court sided with Gore's argument


yah, what does the florida supreme court know about florida law.
 
2013-04-29 12:43:33 PM  

NostroZ: Only took 13 years for SCOTUS to realize that subverting the will of the people might have been a poor precedent.


You people are such drama queens.  Don't let the fact that repeated tallies that included the recounts still had Bush winning Florida get in the way of your feeble hand-wringing.

I'm certainly not saying that the ultimate outcome was good, but SCOTUS made the right decision.
 
2013-04-29 12:45:12 PM  

Cletus C.: Lord_Baull: I am shocked that a SCJ would find the circumventing of democracy a bad idea.

Democracy was taking a beating in Florida. What she circumvented was a farce trying to pass itself off as democracy.



touche
 
2013-04-29 12:45:30 PM  

heap: yah, what does the florida supreme court know about florida law.


Evidently that it's fine to just wing it if the race is close enough.
 
2013-04-29 12:45:35 PM  

heap: GoldSpider: Well yeah, the Florida Supreme Court sided with Gore's argument

yah, what does the florida supreme court know about florida law.


A lot.  But Gore lost 7-2 on the selective recount/equal protection argument.  We can debate whether the 5-4 portion was a purely partisan vote, but it's hard to argue that Gore and the Florida courts made a mistake on the constitutionality of a limited recount.
 
2013-04-29 12:49:40 PM  

Nabb1: heap: GoldSpider: Well yeah, the Florida Supreme Court sided with Gore's argument

yah, what does the florida supreme court know about florida law.

A lot.  But Gore lost 7-2 on the selective recount/equal protection argument.  We can debate whether the 5-4 portion was a purely partisan vote, but it's hard to argue that Gore and the Florida courts made a mistake on the constitutionality of a limited recount.


if it matters, i was responding to somebody claiming that gore alone was dipping his finger into the electoral/judicial waters to his own benefit, which i find hilarious. the outcome wasn't really a matter of discussion - nor do i think it really has much to do with whether it is of itself a good decision or not. any decision that carries a no-precedent caveat comes from a court that knows it has the waft of doo-doo about it.
 
2013-04-29 12:50:26 PM  

Nabb1: heap: GoldSpider: Well yeah, the Florida Supreme Court sided with Gore's argument

yah, what does the florida supreme court know about florida law.

A lot.  But Gore lost 7-2 on the selective recount/equal protection argument.  We can debate whether the 5-4 portion was a purely partisan vote, but it's hard to argue that Gore and the Florida courts made a mistake on the constitutionality of a limited recount.


didn't make a mistake, I mean.
 
2013-04-29 12:51:28 PM  

heap: if it matters, i was responding to somebody claiming that gore alone was dipping his finger into the electoral/judicial waters to his own benefit, which i find hilarious.


I'm pretty sure none of that would have happened if Gore hadn't challenged the initial tally.
 
2013-04-29 12:53:17 PM  
Nabb1:
didn't make a mistake, I mean.

yah, from context i assumed as much.
 
2013-04-29 12:56:18 PM  
over 100,000 Iraqi's would agree with you, but they were murdered for profit.
 
2013-04-29 12:56:34 PM  

GoldSpider: heap: if it matters, i was responding to somebody claiming that gore alone was dipping his finger into the electoral/judicial waters to his own benefit, which i find hilarious.

I'm pretty sure none of that would have happened if Gore hadn't challenged the initial tally.


you do realize that's about 13 hypotheticals away from me giving a shiat, right? i was talking about what actually happened.
 
2013-04-29 12:57:08 PM  
It was a wash.

Let's be honest, the count was down to a few hundred out of an entire state, If we accept the fact that no system is perfect (and no system is) then we also have to accept that sometimes shiat happens.  One extra-heavy flu season would have been enough to change the total, or one major car accident blocking a highway.

The truth is we (the People of the United States of America) had bought the Bush lie.  The narrative that both sides were the same, so vote Bush because he can't do much.  We were comfy, we were happy, and those of us paying attention were more concerned with the upcoming dot-bomb.

And until 9/11, we were right.  Dubya's administration was rife with corruption and handouts to the evangelicals and corporate kleptocrats that got him elected but he was rapidly losing support for it and even his most friendly media was treating him like we currently treat Onion Joe Biden.  China was at the top of the headlines for all their assorted dickery, we were paying attention to the economy, and Bush was looking to be a 1-term president.

Then the twin towers fell and everything else that happened, happened.  We stopped paying attention to what was important and started spending all our time panicking about some idiots in the desert.  We handed Dubya the power and political capital to do everything that had stymied him and took it with a smile.  We ignored China while it continued to swindle and cheat and steal in exchange for campaign money and we let the GOP do some record-setting gerrymandering for over a decade.

But like the proverbial bus that could run over you tomorrow, that's farking luck.  One industrial accident could have turned Bush' arguable lead into an overwhelming lead, all you can do is move on.  In 2000 we didn't know what we were getting, largely because we were willfully ignorant but we did it anyway.  In 2004 we knew EXACTLY what we were getting, and we were deluding ourselves to pretend differently.

If Hitler's mother had gotten an abortion, history would have been different, but do we blame her doctor for the choices her son made?

And would the world be a better place without the Bushes and Hitlers and Stalins of history repeatedly teaching us the lessons we keep forgetting?
 
2013-04-29 12:58:26 PM  

Diogenes: Well, saying, "We shouldn't have accepted it" is significantly different than saying, "Our decision,  after accepting it, was wrong."


This.   However, it's the most revealing thing I've heard her say.   I'm expecting her to come out and say it's a misquote after watching her do the talk show circuit and dodge every question.  Her best interview was between John Stewart and Paul Rudd.
 
2013-04-29 12:58:58 PM  

TheBigJerk: The truth is we (the People of the United States of America) had bought the Bush lie.


Speak for yourself sonny.  Out here on the West coast we know stupidity when we see it.
 
2013-04-29 01:03:39 PM  

TheBigJerk: It was a wash.

Let's be honest, the count was down to a few hundred out of an entire state, If we accept the fact that no system is perfect (and no system is) then we also have to accept that sometimes shiat happens.  One extra-heavy flu season would have been enough to change the total, or one major car accident blocking a highway.

The truth is we (the People of the United States of America) had bought the Bush lie.  The narrative that both sides were the same, so vote Bush because he can't do much.  We were comfy, we were happy, and those of us paying attention were more concerned with the upcoming dot-bomb.

And until 9/11, we were right.  Dubya's administration was rife with corruption and handouts to the evangelicals and corporate kleptocrats that got him elected but he was rapidly losing support for it and even his most friendly media was treating him like we currently treat Onion Joe Biden.  China was at the top of the headlines for all their assorted dickery, we were paying attention to the economy, and Bush was looking to be a 1-term president.

Then the twin towers fell and everything else that happened, happened.  We stopped paying attention to what was important and started spending all our time panicking about some idiots in the desert.  We handed Dubya the power and political capital to do everything that had stymied him and took it with a smile.  We ignored China while it continued to swindle and cheat and steal in exchange for campaign money and we let the GOP do some record-setting gerrymandering for over a decade.

But like the proverbial bus that could run over you tomorrow, that's farking luck.  One industrial accident could have turned Bush' arguable lead into an overwhelming lead, all you can do is move on.  In 2000 we didn't know what we were getting, largely because we were willfully ignorant but we did it anyway.  In 2004 we knew EXACTLY what we were getting, and we were deluding ourselves to pretend differently.

If Hitler's mother had go ...


Don't disagree, but I still think it's vital to make the election process as robust and unimpeachable as possible for the people that do show up.
 
2013-04-29 01:04:12 PM  
Legal experts have noted that the Court has not cited the decision even once since it was made, which some interpret as a testament to its soundness is what you'd expect from a decision that starts out saying 'don't you dare use this decision as precedent for anything'.


ftftfa.


Nabb1: acefox1: Also IIRC the Gore team was a few out of state lawyers working out of a strip mall since Jeb Bush pressured every law firm in the state to stay away from Gore or not get any state business.

"A few"? I remember that free-for-all.  There were HUNDREDS of lawyers working for both campaigns and perhaps even thousands more working on amicus briefs.  Believe me - no one got the short shrift on representation in that case.



If I recall correctly, Enron made large financial contributions to Bush's legal team, didn't they? And very soon after, our national energy policy was written behind closed doors with input from god knows who, and Bush made it so that Presidential records would remain sealed for a few decades longer than they used to be, so we'll all be dead before historians figure out conclusively how much the Crooked E personally benefited from having Bush as President...
 
2013-04-29 01:07:23 PM  

heap: you do realize that's about 13 hypotheticals away from me giving a shiat, right? i was talking about what actually happened.


I don't really know what your point is, honestly.  Gore sued, won, and Bush counter-sued.  If your big point is that both camps filed lawsuits, I guess you get the cookie.
 
2013-04-29 01:09:05 PM  

phaseolus: Legal experts have noted that the Court has not cited the decision even once since it was made, which some interpret as a testament to its soundness is what you'd expect from a decision that starts out saying 'don't you dare use this decision as precedent for anything'.


ftftfa.


Nabb1: acefox1: Also IIRC the Gore team was a few out of state lawyers working out of a strip mall since Jeb Bush pressured every law firm in the state to stay away from Gore or not get any state business.

"A few"? I remember that free-for-all.  There were HUNDREDS of lawyers working for both campaigns and perhaps even thousands more working on amicus briefs.  Believe me - no one got the short shrift on representation in that case.


If I recall correctly, Enron made large financial contributions to Bush's legal team, didn't they? And very soon after, our national energy policy was written behind closed doors with input from god knows who, and Bush made it so that Presidential records would remain sealed for a few decades longer than they used to be, so we'll all be dead before historians figure out conclusively how much the Crooked E personally benefited from having Bush as President...


Nah, 50 years means there will still be people alive, it will just have been long enough no one will want to send any surviving perpetrators to jail.

Also, possibly statutes of limitations.
 
2013-04-29 01:09:49 PM  

Lumpmoose: Don't disagree, but I still think it's vital to make the election process as robust and unimpeachable as possible for the people that do show up.


The best time to do that, evidently, is right in the middle of an election.
 
2013-04-29 01:13:41 PM  

GoldSpider: I don't really know what your point is, honestly.  Gore sued, won, and Bush counter-sued.  If your big point is that both camps filed lawsuits, I guess you get the cookie.


when you're the guy proclaiming that only 1 side tried to game to their own benefit, i get to laugh at you. that's my cookie, and it was delicious.
 
2013-04-29 01:16:45 PM  

StopLurkListen: Counterpoint:


I've seen your first image posted a few times; what is the context of it?

Where/when was it taken and what are the people chanting (or screaming, etc.)?
 
2013-04-29 01:20:41 PM  
I put people who believe it was some kind of stolen election in the same camp that I put "truthers" in...the FEMA camps.
 
2013-04-29 01:21:45 PM  

GoldSpider: Lumpmoose: Don't disagree, but I still think it's vital to make the election process as robust and unimpeachable as possible for the people that do show up.

The best time to do that, evidently, is right in the middle of an election.


Ideally, no, of course smack-dab in the middle of an election isn't an optimal time to fine tune said election process, bbut, honestly now, what are/were the chances that improvements would take place at some other time?

We depend on a functioning electoral process for our government, and while during the election might not have been optimal, the entire Presidency (and thus, the direction of the country) hung in the balance. In context, making it as good of time as any.

/just my 2 cents
 
2013-04-29 01:22:57 PM  

TheBigJerk: It was a wash.

Let's be honest, the count was down to a few hundred out of an entire state, If we accept the fact that no system is perfect (and no system is) then we also have to accept that sometimes shiat happens.  One extra-heavy flu season would have been enough to change the total, or one major car accident blocking a highway.

The truth is we (the People of the United States of America) had bought the Bush lie.  The narrative that both sides were the same, so vote Bush because he can't do much.  We were comfy, we were happy, and those of us paying attention were more concerned with the upcoming dot-bomb.

And until 9/11, we were right.  Dubya's administration was rife with corruption and handouts to the evangelicals and corporate kleptocrats that got him elected but he was rapidly losing support for it and even his most friendly media was treating him like we currently treat Onion Joe Biden.  China was at the top of the headlines for all their assorted dickery, we were paying attention to the economy, and Bush was looking to be a 1-term president.

Then the twin towers fell and everything else that happened, happened.  We stopped paying attention to what was important and started spending all our time panicking about some idiots in the desert.  We handed Dubya the power and political capital to do everything that had stymied him and took it with a smile.  We ignored China while it continued to swindle and cheat and steal in exchange for campaign money and we let the GOP do some record-setting gerrymandering for over a decade.

But like the proverbial bus that could run over you tomorrow, that's farking luck.  One industrial accident could have turned Bush' arguable lead into an overwhelming lead, all you can do is move on.  In 2000 we didn't know what we were getting, largely because we were willfully ignorant but we did it anyway.  In 2004 we knew EXACTLY what we were getting, and we were deluding ourselves to pretend differently.

If Hitler's mother had

gotten an abortion, history would have been different, but do we blame her doctor for the choices her son made?

And would the world be a better place without the Bushes and Hitlers and Stalins of history repeatedly teaching us the lessons we keep forgetting?


That was worthy of a Janeane Garofalo Air America rant back in the day.

Hitler AND Stalin!


 
2013-04-29 01:23:33 PM  
Miichele Bachman prototype:

www.fourandsix.com
 
2013-04-29 01:24:08 PM  

GoldSpider: heap: if it matters, i was responding to somebody claiming that gore alone was dipping his finger into the electoral/judicial waters to his own benefit, which i find hilarious.

I'm pretty sure none of that would have happened if Gore hadn't challenged the initial tally.


You are doing your darndest to warrgarble and muddy the facts, so for other readers here are the actual circumstances of the 2000 Florida election.

By pre-existing Florida law, any candidate can challenge the election results county by county, any one county, several, or all FL counties.  Gore did so, for some FL counties.   There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, end of story.

Also by pre-existing FL law, if an election is too close to call, there must be a statewide recount of all ballots.  FL Supreme Court noted that, and authorized a statewide recount.   That recount was never completed, and thus FL's existing election laws were not followed.

In most of the statewide recount scenarios, conducted after the election by a team of people from several national media organizations, Gore would have won a statewide recount.   The Bush team successfully shut down or changed existing FL election law, not the Gore team.

The reason the statewide recount was never completed was that the Bush team filed suit to stop the recount.  Stopping the recount would have violated or revised FL election laws, and the Bush group knew that.   The US Supreme Court stepped in to a FL state matter and ruled for Bush, in one of the most oddly written SCOTUS decisions ever.   The FL election was not allowed to follow existing FL election laws.

Now Sandra O'Connor has some qualms?  At the time of the election, O'Connor should have recused herself from this case, because she publicly became upset when the media initially announced that Gore had won Florida, with her husband explaining that they would have to wait another four years before retiring to Arizona.
 
2013-04-29 01:28:29 PM  

El Pachuco: GoldSpider: heap: if it matters, i was responding to somebody claiming that gore alone was dipping his finger into the electoral/judicial waters to his own benefit, which i find hilarious.

I'm pretty sure none of that would have happened if Gore hadn't challenged the initial tally.

You are doing your darndest to warrgarble and muddy the facts, so for other readers here are the actual circumstances of the 2000 Florida election.

By pre-existing Florida law, any candidate can challenge the election results county by county, any one county, several, or all FL counties.  Gore did so, for some FL counties.   There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, end of story.

Also by pre-existing FL law, if an election is too close to call, there must be a statewide recount of all ballots.  FL Supreme Court noted that, and authorized a statewide recount.   That recount was never completed, and thus FL's existing election laws were not followed.

In most of the statewide recount scenarios, conducted after the election by a team of people from several national media organizations, Gore would have won a statewide recount.   The Bush team successfully shut down or changed existing FL election law, not the Gore team.

The reason the statewide recount was never completed was that the Bush team filed suit to stop the recount.  Stopping the recount would have violated or revised FL election laws, and the Bush group knew that.   The US Supreme Court stepped in to a FL state matter and ruled for Bush, in one of the most oddly written SCOTUS decisions ever.   The FL election was not allowed to follow existing FL election laws.

Now Sandra O'Connor has some qualms?  At the time of the election, O'Connor should have recused herself from this case, because she publicly became upset when the media initially announced that Gore had won Florida, with her husband explaining that they would have to wait another four years before retiring to Arizona.


Ohsnap.jpeg
 
2013-04-29 01:28:50 PM  

Testiclaw: StopLurkListen: Counterpoint:

I've seen your first image posted a few times; what is the context of it?

Where/when was it taken and what are the people chanting (or screaming, etc.)?


That's the so-called Brooks Brothers Riot.  Hundreds of "paid GOP crusaders" descended upon South Florida to protest the state's recounts, with at least half a dozen of the demonstrators at Miami-Dade paid by George W. Bush's recount committee.  Several of these protesters were identified as Republican staffers and a number later went on to jobs in the Bush administration.

That is, they were pretending to be FL citizens protesting the recount process, but were actually out-of-state GOP staff interfering with the FL election.
 
2013-04-29 01:29:34 PM  

Testiclaw: StopLurkListen: Counterpoint:

I've seen your first image posted a few times; what is the context of it?

Where/when was it taken and what are the people chanting (or screaming, etc.)?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks_Brothers_riot

The Brooks Brothers riot is the demonstration at a meeting of election canvassers in Miami-Dade County, Florida on November 19, 2000, during a recount of votes made during the 2000 United States presidential election. Hundreds of "paid GOP crusaders" descended upon South Florida to protest the state's recounts, with at least half a dozen of the demonstrators at Miami-Dade paid by George W. Bush's recount committee. Several of these protesters were identified as Republican staffers and a number later went on to jobs in the Bush administration.


The demonstration was organized by Republican operatives to oppose the recount of 10,750 ballots during the Florida recount. The demonstration turned violent, and according to the NY Times, "several people were trampled, punched or kicked when protesters tried to rush the doors outside the office of the Miami-Dade supervisor of elections. Sheriff's deputies restored order." DNC aide Luis Rosero was kicked and punched. Within two hours after the riot died down, the canvassing board unanimously voted to shut down the count.


The controversial incident was set in motion by John E. Sweeney, a New York Republican who was nicknamed "Congressman Kick-Ass" by President Bush for his work in Florida. "We were trying to stop the recount; Bush had already won," said Evilio Cepero, a reporter for WAQI, an influential Spanish talk radio station in Miami.
 
2013-04-29 01:31:57 PM  
Thanks for the information regarding the "Brooks Bro's Riot"...

Can't believe it wasn't all over the news.

Damn liberal media.
 
2013-04-29 01:39:20 PM  

Testiclaw: Thanks for the information regarding the "Brooks Bro's Riot"...

Can't believe it wasn't all over the news.

Damn liberal media.



Must have been the same "lib'rul meedyuh" that de-bunked the Hussein statue fiasco.
 
2013-04-29 01:42:36 PM  

GoldSpider: Lumpmoose: Don't disagree, but I still think it's vital to make the election process as robust and unimpeachable as possible for the people that do show up.

The best time to do that, evidently, is right in the middle of an election.


That's when the law is tested, which is why it may be when it comes in front of the judiciary.
 
2013-04-29 01:45:04 PM  

El Pachuco: GoldSpider: heap: if it matters, i was responding to somebody claiming that gore alone was dipping his finger into the electoral/judicial waters to his own benefit, which i find hilarious.

I'm pretty sure none of that would have happened if Gore hadn't challenged the initial tally.

You are doing your darndest to warrgarble and muddy the facts, so for other readers here are the actual circumstances of the 2000 Florida election.

By pre-existing Florida law, any candidate can challenge the election results county by county, any one county, several, or all FL counties.  Gore did so, for some FL counties.   There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, end of story.

Also by pre-existing FL law, if an election is too close to call, there must be a statewide recount of all ballots.  FL Supreme Court noted that, and authorized a statewide recount.   That recount was never completed, and thus FL's existing election laws were not followed.

In most of the statewide recount scenarios, conducted after the election by a team of people from several national media organizations, Gore would have won a statewide recount.   The Bush team successfully shut down or changed existing FL election law, not the Gore team.

The reason the statewide recount was never completed was that the Bush team filed suit to stop the recount.  Stopping the recount would have violated or revised FL election laws, and the Bush group knew that.   The US Supreme Court stepped in to a FL state matter and ruled for Bush, in one of the most oddly written SCOTUS decisions ever.   The FL election was not allowed to follow existing FL election laws.

Now Sandra O'Connor has some qualms?  At the time of the election, O'Connor should have recused herself from this case, because she publicly became upset when the media initially announced that Gore had won Florida, with her husband explaining that they would have to wait another four years before retiring to Arizona.


Stop with all your facts, it's destroying our version of reality.
 
2013-04-29 01:53:01 PM  

nekom: I don't know why you think he would have stopped 9/11.  He would have inherited the same intelligence paradigm that Bush did, and I don't recall hearing any Gore campaign promises that would have changed that.


you may be right. but i still go back to the clinton team, led by sandy berger, who told the incoming condi rice team that OBL was the "number-one threat facing america." bush then ignored it, rather concentrating on stem cells and reviving star wars. i don't know if 9/11 could've been stopped under gore; but i'm doubtful his NSA would've ignored a PDB entitled, "bin laden determined to attack in america."

then again, louis freeh's FBI was completely hamstrung by his technophobia and turf wars, so you may be right.
 
2013-04-29 02:05:15 PM  

EyeballKid: Must have been the same "lib'rul meedyuh" that de-bunked the Hussein statue fiasco.


What are you referring to here?
 
Displayed 50 of 159 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report