Posted on 08/11/2004 12:45:43 PM PDT by 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 
IIRC, the extensive post mortems all concluded not only that Bush would have won under the improvised ballot standard Gore was demanding, but also that Bush would have won under any counting methodology with regard to the undervotes.
That leaves the overvotes (more than one choice for President). Overvotes, of course, were automatically discarded per Florida law, and Gore never asked that overvotes be examined. The open question, I think, is what would happen if you counted the ballots where someone punched Gore and then wrote in Gore at the bottom (or both punched and wrote in Bush).
Dubious criteria? LOL. You are a lost soul. Bug somebody else.
Or just do what Michael Moore does and make a sh!tty documentary or 6.
Try, "Wait until you see how many he steals this time!"
Your opponent will usually respond with a really stupid, somewhat sad or angry reply.
Because, if Bush was able to steal the election while not being President, obviously nothing is going to stop him this time.
Thus, you may lead them to consider the logical conclusion of their stupid "stole the election" premise - to stay home and not vote because the whole thing is fixed - our desired result.
Then they can remain extremely angry about the fact that they live in the freest and most prosperous country in human history and Bush is corrupt and stupid or something like that.
He interviewed Gore poeple, Bush people, poll workers, military guys who had their absentee votes thrown out, all sorts of people.
The loss of the military votes alone should make him furious. I just read this book although I have read Sammon's other books; I just couldn't face reading about the whole mess in 2001.
Bush is president, Gore is not.
Turn it around, Bush won every count, every recount, every time. He won the media recount by some of the most hard left media in the country, and by a larger margin than the official count!
Make them show you one instance where AlGore won a count.
Tell him to just go, now what was it that Cheney said?
www.glennbeck.com/news/08092004.shtml
But the better response is "Why did Al Gore concede a corrupted election when he was the sitting Vice President?"
It's fine when the looser compains after a defeat, but you have to be able to make your case, and Gore simply didn't
He had the best legal minds in the nation (David Boise(sp?) WhereTheHellIsHeTheseDays) and thy still lost in the courts becuase Gore didn't have a case.
The deeper problem of Florida ?
Because the DNC never had a soul searching inventory of who led them to a tri-fecta defeat in 2000, the same DNC leadership led them into a defeat in 2002 and will again in 2004.
In the Supreme Court, the Court ruled that Gore's proposed partial recount plan was unconstitutional, and left stand the state's official final count.
Remember, Gore initiated the court challenge ... and lost.
Bill Sammons' book is excellent.
Maybe by 'succinct' you meant something shorter than a book, but your brother's probably not bright enough to read anyway.
I just read the USA Today article (link posted somewhere above) and it mentioned that a second study was conducted to check the overvotes, but hadn't been completed when the article was published. The overvotes were ballots where more than one name in any given race was selected (not just for President), thereby automatically disqualifying the entire ballot. There were 110,000 of these and Franken may be referring to this recount for the entire state. But if a ballot is invalid because two people were picked, then they should never be counted. SCOTUS disagrees in the USA Today article.
Ask your liberal brother: If Bush is president "illegally" and he wins this election "legally", can he run for re-election in 2008?
Another Freeper asked a question similar to this and it sounded good to me.
Perhaps you could just ask them if they also see flying monkeys.
Ask a liberal: If Bush is president "illegally" and he wins this election "legally", can he run for re-election in 2008?
Another Freeper asked a question similar to this and it sounded good to me.
The most recent arguments revolve around the 'disenfranchisement' of (disproportionately) black voters. Something like 97,000 voters were allegedly taken off the registration rolls.
Nothing to do with the courts, or vote-counting, at all. This is the link, in case this is what your brother has been hearing:
http://www.gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=1&subject_name=Theft%20of%20Presidency
Ask him why Algore conceded defeat to Dubya, then called him back a few hours later to say he changed his mind.
How about: "Yes. We did steal Florida. And we conspired with the Supreme Court to illegally seize power in America in a political, bloodless coup. We now have concentration camps where we send dissenters....... ...........say, you aren't dissenting, are you?"
Then just stop and stare, with your cell phone in your hand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.