Democrats & Liberals Archives

It’s not a “noble” thought at all. At best it’s naive for Mr. Perkins to think that the legal system will not be the deciding factor in closely-contested races where registration, voting, and counting problems are likely to occur. I’m not even talking about deliberate tampering. As we saw in Florida, the courts had to decide how to recount because Florida’s own laws were so poorly crafted. Does Mr. Perkins expect the campaigns to simply not send lawyers to argue such cases?

But I don’t think naivete is Mr. Perkins’s problem . I think he’s deliberately trying to lay the groundwork to paint those who would contest close races as anti-democratic crybabies, and even as traitors. He’s trying to make it sound like he’s talking about both parties equally, but he’s not. We’re talking about a sitting President, whose claim to his office is already establishes. We’re talking about voter intimidation and massive influx of new voters whose registrations are vulnerable to frivolous challenges, both problems that disproportionally affect Democratic voters. And most of all, let’s face it, we’re talking about Jeb Bush’s Republican-controlled Florida here.

He condemns Gore for putting his own interest above the national interest. Does Mr. Perkins suggest that Gore should instead have allowed Bush to become President without going through the due process of law, including laws which required recounts in Florida?

Mr. Perkins’s article is entirely disingenuous. He’s just trying to lay the groundwork to allow the media to discredit Democrats who might expose the rampant GOP voter fraud going on at this very moment. He has no “noble” intent whatsoever.

-Cf

Well, he definitely sounds like a Republican (another brother for Bush!), and I don’t agree with him that Gore was being “selfish”. (He was sticking up for the majority who voted for him.) What struck me as noble was the idea of taking the long view and trying not to harm the country. I guess I don’t really care whether this is a Machiavellian scheme on his part because he is just a no-name scribbler. If this is really all just about discrediting Democratic challenges, he is going to feel foolish if Kerry ekes out a narrow victory and the Bushies head to court.

Look fellas:

It’s going to be close, It’s going to end up in the courts, and half of the electorate is going to be mad as hell in the next thirty days. The political parties, and their supporters have done everything to expose the nerve-endings of the registered voters, and gone the extra step of rubbing them raw.

For better or worse, this is our political system at work. Both sides have a win at all costs attitude about this election. This could very well tear at the very heart of the fabric that supports our country. Both parties have also figured out that the voters are lazy and/or ignorant and are more willing to put their faith in what the “spin-meisters” are saying.

The key to changing this situation is getting to the truth. Not republican truth, not democratic truth, but simply “The Truth”. If anyone can figure our how to get there, I’m willing to listen.

There have already been legal challenges to registrations in Ohio and Florida. The Republicans legal machine is already intervening. There may turn out to be fraud in the missing absentee ballots in Florida. Jeb could wind up in jail. I believe this is a win at all cost election for GW. If he loses, there will be serious investigations into corruption and illegal acts. Republican problems are just beginning. If they win they may be able to stonewall their way through another 4 years like Reagan did, before having to face up to the charges mounting. Will Bush use senility to avoid charges?

Folks:

Here’s the real deal, and the ONLY deal as far as I’m concerned. Play by the rules that are in place. If someone does NOT play by those rules, then challenge it. But dont challenge in order to change the existing rules.

To put that into Woody’s 100 meter dash analogy, lets see how we would feel if the second place finisher tried to claim that since his legs are shorter, he should win based on having taken the most steps, or that the other runners should have to take an equivalent number of steps.

In New Jersey, Democrats challenged to change the rules in 2002, in order to substitute Frank Lautenberg for Robert Torricelli, a sure loser. The did so in spite of laws that say there is a set date by which you must make such a change, and that date had passed. I’m sure Republicans have done similar things as well, so lets not forget them in the process.

Changing the rules during or after the game is not acceptable. The rules have been made—-play by those rules. If they need changing, then A) they should have been changed PRIOR to the election, or B) should be changed for the NEXT election.

Gore went through due process up to the recount. After that, he went beyond it.

You all remember the famous story of Solomon and two women who claimed the same baby. Solomon offered to cut the baby in half and give each “mother” a part. The false mother agreed, but the real mother asked Solomon to give the baby to the other woman rather than see it harmed. She truly loved the child; the other woman just wanted to possess him.

Read the posts on both sides and ask yourself what Solomon would say.

Jack,

If you are implying that Republicans in general are more interested in “saving the baby” than Democrats, that flies in the face of the facts. As Greg pointed out, the GOP has ALREADY taken this election into the courts.

And remember that it was Bush who went to the Supreme Court in 2000, and it was his ideological allies who wrote one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court in order to safeguard his victory. (Speaking of making up rules as you go along, they didn’t even want their new rules to hold in the future!) Not only were they willing to undermine people’s faith in the electoral system, they willing to sacrifice their own institution, too.

Joe,

Your approach assumes that the rules are unambiguous. Otherwise, both sides will claim the high ground.

All I need to know is what people are saying today. Neither side knows who will win. Many Republicans are saying that we should honor the winner. Democrats are objecting. What does that tell you?

That four more years of Bush would be a cataclysmic disaster? :)

…the real mother asked Solomon to give the baby to the other woman rather than see it harmed. She truly loved the child; the other woman just wanted to possess him.

Jack, that’s a really good description of Gore letting Bush possess the White House because he loves this country. Thank you.

Gore went through due process up to the recount. After that, he went beyond it.

When exactly do you think Gore went beyond due process? At which point did he break the law?

-Cf

Gore went beyond existing law to demand recounts where we were supposed to figure out the voter’s intent. It goes beyond the possible. Elections are not that precise and never will be. The first recount was fine. Gore should have stopped after that.

Richard Nixon, who was not a particularly nice guy, did not pursue a challenge in 1960 despite his (well founded) believe that many of the counts in Illinois and Texas were fraudulent. Old tricky Dick evidently had more class.

When the media did all the counts after the elections, Bush won still. And after the Gore lawyers were finished with the accusations and innuendos, they could not produce even one case of intentional voter suppression. It is a lot easier to accuse if you don’t have to prove it.

The proper course would have been for Florida to submit no electors, depriving both candidates of a majority of the electoral vote. But that also was not an option Gore’s lawyers favored.

So instead they created the big lie of being robbed in Florida, which has caused great damage to our republic here and abroad. It has been repeated so often that many people believe it. But that does not make it true.

Jack, you said a lot of debatable stuff, but you totally didn’t answer the question. What law was broken?

-Cf

No law was broken by Gore, but he did break with bipartisan tradition. In doing so, he went beyond existing laws. Laws can be flexible, as AG Ashcroft has shown. There was no justification in Gore going further. He just lost later. Gore’s behavior was just lack of class and bad for the country. Nixon had more dignity in 1960.

It is also true that Republicans broke no laws. All those fevered stories spread just after the election and since have come to nothing on further examination.

Gore went beyond existing law to demand recounts

I though the Florida court system did that.

The first recount was fine. Gore should have stopped after that.

If I remember correctly, there never was a statewide recount. Which, of course would have lead to a Gore victory:

“Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, Gore erased Bush’s advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes.”

But seriously, Jack. You Republicans need to let 2000 go. It’s over. We’re so tired of you guys bringing it up.

I am confident that Bush won Florida in 2000. I let it go in 2000. But Democrats did not. A couple weeks ago I heard on NPR about the 2 million blacks prevented from voting in Florida. The moderator questioned that number, but agree that there were a lot. I checked the census. There are only about 2 million blacks living in Florida in 2000. If all men, women and children had been denied the vote, it would have reached that number.

Talking about Florida in 2000 as an example of a stolen election is an example of the big lie. Repeat it, and it becomes accepted fact.

My position on Florida has been the same since 2000. It was a close race. Probably a statistical tie. Either candidate could have won. Bush won the first count. He won the automatic recount. There was no evidence of significant wrongdoing, so it should have been over then.

There was no evidence of significant wrongdoing, so it should have been over then.

Speaking of big lies… you must have a different definition of wrongdoing. Take stripping people from the voting rolls because they’re Black and their name vaguely resembles that of a felon — I would call that wrongdoing. In fact, I would call it an outrage. And this was done on a systematic, statewide basis.

Your concept of litigants ignoring the law doesn’t make sense. JUDGES ignore the law. See Scalia, et al.

By the way, both you and Perkins bring up the old saw that Nixon didn’t challenge the 1960 election. That isn’t exactly true, as this story explains:

The Republicans pressed their case doggedly. They succeeded in obtaining recounts, empanelling grand juries, and involving U.S. attorneys and the FBI. Appeals were heard, claims evaluated, evidence weighed.

This election shouldn’t have been so close. But the reasons it was ‘close’ remain to be seen—or, should I say, they may never be seen. Consider the fact that hundreds of thousands of new people registered and were forced to fill out provisional ballots — which will probably never be counted in states that aren’t deemed “close enough”. Many absentee voters weren’t allowed to vote, even though they never received their ballots. Republican canvassers admitted to shredding Democratic registration forms. The judges who ruled that Republican challengers were allowed at the polls were Reagan and Bush appointees. Voters—especially Black and Hispanic voters, and voters in historically Democratically districts—were systematically disenfranchised: since no one made enough of an issue of the very stories that the Guardian and others broke about voter fraud in the 2000 election, it’s only gotten worse. Karl Rove and others knew just what to do. The swing states made extensive use of ‘black box’ voting; Diebold, a major contributor to the Bush campaign, PROMISED the state of Ohio to Bush! They’re the ones who made the voting machines without a paper trail. See http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp for a list of problems. And exit polls showed that Kerry won.

How do you fight against a machine that decides you voted for someone else—and you don’t know? How do you fight for your vote when you’re told “sorry, there aren’t enough ballots” or “sorry, your registration isn’t quite right. You’ll have to fill out a provisional ballot that probably won’t be counted.” Seriously, people: HOW COULD THAT BE ALLOWED TO EXIST IN A DEMOCRACY???

I can’t believe that the majority of Americans have voted Bush in again? This was the americans chance to show the world that the people had a voice and could help improve their tarnished image across the world. Well if they have managed to vote Bush in…then they are as dumb as their image abroad. You had your chance America and you messed up again. You’ve made your bed and the world has no sympathy for you.

You stand as a divided country and a nation that lacks respect.