Need Succinct "Bush Stole Florida" Rebuttal

11 August 2004 | Lando Lincoln

[Lando Lincoln]

We've all been there.....a relative that insists some sacredly held leftist point is correct. In this case, it is my brother - who has far more conservative views than he knows. Well, in this case, he is convinced that Bush stole the election in Florida. Anyone who can direct me to a factual summary of those painfully long events, it would be greatly appreciated. I believe my brother to be intellectually honest and the "pesky facts" may sway him.

I only on the rarest occasion post vanities. Any help is appreciated.

Lando

[Sisku Hanne]

"The unspoken truth of the 2000 election dispute in Florida is always ignored by the left: Gore never led; not on election night, not after any statewide recount, not after adding the votes from county hand recounts, and not even in the exhaustive statewide post-election recounts conducted by the major state and national newspapers (in almost all of which Bush wound up ahead when any consistent method of counting was used.) Pick your method of counting chads, and it doesn’t matter. Bush won."
The Myth of the Stolen Election
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3364

See also Dave Kopel's thorough bashing of MM's assertions on this issue in "Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11" :
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

[finnman69]

Send em to the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html?ex=1092369600&en=5a6cba4c1b4b66f8&ei=5070

November 12, 2001

Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
By FORD FESSENDEN and JOHN M. BRODER

Acomprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.

[Poincare]

"He stole it fair and square."

[doc30]

Fellow Freepers, please forgive me posting this. I do so only in the spirit of "know thy enemy" and pertains to what Al Franken has been drooling out on his unentertaining radio show. He was commenting on this topic and told his microscopic audience that the "Bush Won the Recount" only applied to the selected counties involved, but that the media recounts done state wide, regardless of which standard was used, showed clearly Gore to be the Florida winner. How much of this is Franken-spew or is there any merit in this claim? I worry that this may turn into two conflicting stories in the media and the truth will be lost in the polarizing nature of the topic.

[Nascar Dad]

http://www.florida2000election.com/facts.htm

[G.Mason]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000#Florida_election_results

George W. Bush (W) 2,912,790 48.850 Republican

Al Gore 2,912,253 48.841 Democrat LOSER

[Question_Assumptions]

1) Several press groups did their own recounts. Bush won under almost every criteria except those specifically crafted to give Gore a victory. This is why the Supreme Court had to step in. The process was reaching the point where selecting the counting criteria would pick the winner.

2) The Supreme Court decision stopping the recounts was 7-2, not 5-4 as widely revised. Check it out and check out the reports from when it was given.

3) There is no evidence that minorities were disenfranchised. Ask a person making this claim to provide evidence if they claim there is some.

4) The state was called for Gore at least 10 minutes before the polls closed in the panhandle by several networks. There are claims, more credible than those that minorities were disenfranchised or elderly people misplaced their votes, that Bush voters on the panhandle got out of line rather than voting, costing Bush votes.

The reality is that the Florida election fell within the "margin of error" such that a minor adjustment here or that could have given either candidate the win. But in every reasonable recount by the press, Bush won, and the number of voters that Bush lost in the panhandle likely cancels any possible case of minority voter disenfranchisement that can be considered. What about all those Buchannan votes? It's entirely possible that hundreds voted for him in Palm Beach County. I believe he owns a house there. And the bottom line is that we can't assume that everyone who didn't vote for Gore would have any more than we can assume that every bad ballot was an intended vote for Bush.

Also, ask any Gore supporters if they are troubled by the legendary voter fraud in the Democratic Northeastern cities. My stepmother (a widow who married my father) had to tear the voting card for her first deceased husband out of the voting book in Hudson County, New Jersey to stop him from voting while dead. Does that sort of stuff trouble the Gore supporter as much as the unsupported allegations of voter disenfranchisement in Florida do? And while you are at it, ask them why Democrats consider asking a voter for identification to prove that they are who they claim to be before they vote "harassment". This demonstrates that Democrats have zero interest in fair elections. They will simply say anything and do anything to win, which is why leftist thugs need to be kept out of power.

[Bonaparte]

You will have to document all claims.

Once you do that, your sources will be challenged.

Therefore, you are well-advised to include some credible liberal source.

A good one is...

Breaking The Deadlock: The 2000 Election, The Constitution And The Courts, by Richard A. Posner (federal judge), Princeton University Press, 2001

[Revolutionary]

It was Gore and the Liberal Florida Supreme Court that tried to steal the election. The U.S. Supreme Court stopped them.

The Florida Supreme Court tried to change the rules after the election was over. Why? It would give Gore and his lackeys time to manufacture votes. If the Bush team would not have been Johnny on the spot, the Gore group would have manufactured the required votes.

In fact the delay caused by the Florida Supreme Court caused a tough decision on whether to pursue the massive Democrat voter fraud or sweat out the count. The elimination of over half of the military absentee votes made it closer than expected for the Bush camp.

I believe the Circuit court also ruled against the Florida Supreme Court. But it was a polite smack up side the head that the Florida Supreme Court ignored.

[InvisibleChurch]

"He stole it fair and square."

I like to think so...(as i would tell a lib)

[kaylar]

Here's the FR thread to which I was referring : Nat Hentoff : Justice Scalia was right"

[grundle]

Let's take a look at a paragraph from Article II Section 1 of The Constitution of the United States of America:

http://www.midnightbeach.com/jon/US-Constitution.htm

"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector."

This means that they have to go by the rules that were made by the state legislature. And these rules must be made before the election takes place.

The Democrats in Flroida tried to change the rules by use of the courts. And they tried to make these changes after the election had already taken place.

The U.S. Supreme Court said you can't do that.

If you want to change the rules, then you must do it through the state legislature. And you must do it before the election takes place.

Also, if you're going to have a recount, it must be across the entire state. The Democrats only wanted recounts in heavily Democratic districts.

They did many counts and recounts. Bush won every count, and every recount.

[yeswecan]

I am still looking for more information on the story broken by British lefty Greg Palast that suggested possible hanky panky on the part of Florida election officials in eliminating qualified voters from the registration rolls based on dubious criteria that they might be felons.

Even if this story eventually turns out to have merit in favor of the the Rats, it is selective outrage. It does not take into account voting irregularities in other states, or the effect on panhandle voting of an early call of Florida for Gore by the media.

Nevertheless, if anyone has any information confirming or refuting this story, please let me know.

[BufordP]

This isn't a short answer. However, if they throw any obsure inanity your way, this page probably has the answers. You'll just have to get back to them

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electionfaq.htm

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electiontime.htm

[HIDEK6]

How about, "Go f*** yourself!"

[Cboldt]

There is always the Cheney approach, only used in private mind you.

Don't knock yourself out trying to change your brother's mind. Liberals cheat, including using family relationship to keep conservatives from being more effective.

[mathluv]

I have heard that - once from Nancy Skinner, another time in the past week. Supposedly a state-wide recount would have gone for Gore - but not the one that Gore himself asked for. The recount called for by Gore would never have gotten him the vote.

Of course, if Gore could have won his own home state, FL would not have mattered.

Also, I have never heard ANYTHING about the other states that were very close, but that W would not dispute, or ask for a recount.

[Atlas Sneezed]

1. Bush wanted to follow the rule of law. (Gore wanted to change the rules.)
2. Bush wanted to treat all counties equally. (Gore wanted vote-expanding recounts only in a few counties where he knew that would expand his vote count.)
3. Bush won every count ever made.
4. The SCOTUS voted 7-2 that the Gore-proposed, SCOFLA-adopted selective recount was illegal.

[Kozak]

Here's what I tell em.

Yup, we stole it. We learned from the best of em. Daley, Johnson, Kennedy, all the pro's. Payback's a b#tch eh?

Don't bother arguing with them, you won't convince them.