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 
Go on the offensive. Had Gore succeeded in stealing the election with voter fraud and throwing out the military vote, there would have been civil war.
They have zero evidence of Republican voter fraud or Republicans disenfranchising liberals but there is overwhelming evidence of Democrat fraud and their attempts to disenfranchise Republicans by legal action targeting expected Bush votes is recorded history.
Hereis an interesting fact that is often ignored by libs:
Floriday ranked 6th in terms of having votes thrwon out. 5 other states threw more out, including Illinois which Gore won. (Not sure what the other states are, you might want to research).
The libs act as if votes that were legitimately cast for Gore were thrown out. It is clear that ballots that were over-punched (for two candidates) or under-punched (for no candidate) had to be thrown out. Voting machines are not set up to be mind readers. Instead of the Supreme Court deciding what to do, the dems needed The Amazing Kreskin to figure out what was on the ballots.
Simple Answer: "Read the constitution".
To my surprise, the movie began with a dramatic rehash of the 2000 elections concluding, "If there was a statewide recount, under every scenario Gore won the election." Having read extensively on this issue I could not believe what Moore was insinuating. The New York Times, CNN, The Washington Post and the LA Times all did extensive journalistic investigations of this issue and all found that even if Gore had won the Supreme Court Case and a recount was undertaken in the specific Democratic voting counties (which is what Gore was asking for), Bush still would have won (34) (83). CNN has on it's "Indepth Special":
A comprehensive study of the 2000 presidential election in Florida suggests that if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a statewide vote recount to proceed, Republican candidate George W. Bush would still have been elected president. (121)
Suppose that Gore got what he originally wanted -- a hand recount in heavily Democratic Broward, Palm Beach, Miami-Dade and Volusia counties. The study indicates that Gore would have picked up some additional support but still would have lost the election -- by a 225-vote margin statewide. (121)
Now, these papers certainly lean to the left in their reporting, as seen by their endorsements of Gore in that election (118), and you can bet your bottom dollar that the journalists investigating this were hoping to cash in on what would have been the biggest journalistic scoop of the century. In my research I did find that there were studies done where Gore would have won under certain extenuating circumstances, hence the infamous indented or hanging chad scenario etc... (34)
In fact, the argument can legitimately be made that more people in Florida went to the ballot box intending to vote for Gore. However, short of reading voters minds, an election has to have parameters around which it can be conducted. Bush clearly won the election. The film shows tearful, almost all black, members of the house of Representatives on the floor of the house chamber railing against the 'disenfranchisement' of minority voters, denouncing the election as illegitimate and berating the Senate for not backing them (apparently, in a procedural flux, a single Senator had to co-sign to allow these representatives to proceed in taking further action)... The fact that the entire Senate and almost the entire house of Representatives recognized the legitimacy of the election is apparently lost on Moore, who resorts to race baiting in his desperate attempt to make his point. I wonder what all these Democratic Senators present for this 'gala' film opening thought of this. Will any reporters ever ask them?
Where does Moore get this stuff from? The myth was built up and continues to be propgated by the nations prominent Democrats. At the Democratic National convention more than nine in 10 delegates say George W. Bush did not win the 2000 election legitimately. (140)
Democratic Presidential Nominee John Kerry had this to say in a speech before the AME:
Don’t tell us disenfranchising a million African Americans and stealing their votes is the best we can do. This time, in 2004, not only will every vote count – we’re going to make sure that every vote is counted. (141),
And he made similar remarks to the Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Push Coalition:
Don’t tell us it’s the best we can do when in the last election two million votes weren't counted. We live in the greatest democracy in the world. We must make sure every vote is counted and every vote counts. We can do better. And we will. (143)
Al Gore got wild cheers at the Democratic convention after saying:
And let's make sure that this time every vote is counted. (152)
Let's make sure not only that the Supreme Court does not pick the next president, but also that this president is not the one who picks the next Supreme Court. (152)
Bill Clinton also delivered some "red meat" to the delegates:
And this year, we're going to make sure they're all counted in every state in America. (APPLAUSE) (153)
Peter Kirsanow, an African American member (Bush appointee) on the U.S Commission on Civil Rights writes in the National Review:
The six-month investigation of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights found absolutely no evidence of systematic disenfranchisement of black voters. The investigation by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice also found no credible evidence that any Floridians were intentionally denied the right to vote in the 2000 election. (142)
In fact, Florida 2000 was not a startling anomaly. Ballot-spoilage rates across the country range between 2-3 percent of total ballots cast. Florida's rate in 2000 was 3 percent. In 1996 it was 2.5 percent. (142)
The next time Senator Kerry tells a black audience about massive disenfranchisement, he might also inform them that in none of the offending counties was the county supervisor a Republican — and in 24 of the 25 counties with the highest ballot spoilage — er, disenfranchisement — rates, the county supervisor was a Democrat. (In the remaining county, the supervisor was an independent.) (142)
Glitches occur in every election. Some glitches are massive, others not. This is not to downplay the problem, but to put it into perspective. For example, the number of ruined ballots in Chicago alone was 125,000, compared to 174,000 for the entire state of Florida. Several states experienced voting problems remarkably similar to those in Florida. But the closeness of the 2000 election in Florida, and the attendant electoral implications, placed the state at the fulcrum of a remarkable opportunity for racial demagoguery. (142)
Kirsanow's statement that the commission found no intentional disenfranchisement is correct. His assertion that the commission found no evidence of systematic black disenfranchisement is more nuanced. The sole Republican and an Independant on the commission wrote a minority dissenting opinion agreeing with Kirsanow and slamming the commission:
By basing its conclusion on allegations that seem driven by partisan interests and that lack factual basis, the majority on the Commission has needlessly fostered public distrust, alienation and manifest cynicism. The report implicitly labels the outcome of the 2000 election as illegitimate, thereby calling into question the most fundamental basis of American democracy. What appears to be partisan passions not only destroyed the credibility of the report itself, but informed the entire process that led up to the final draft. (144)
But the 5 democrats and one independant detailed in their main report the chaos of the election process and numerous inconsistencies and problems:
During Florida’s 2000 presidential election, restrictive statutory provisions, wide-ranging errors, and inadequate resources in the Florida election process denied countless Floridians of their right to vote. This disenfranchisement of Florida voters fell most harshly on the shoulders of African Americans. Statewide, based on county-level statistical estimates, African American voters were nearly 10 times more likely than white voters to have their ballots rejected in the November 2000 election. (145)
The minority report responded that this statistic "....is nothing more than a wild guesstimate."
Let us be clear: According to Dr. Lichtman’s data, some 180,000 Florida voters in the 2000 election, 2.9 percent of the total, turned in ballots that did not indicate a valid choice for a presidential candidate and thus could not be counted in that race. Six out of ten of these rejected ballots (59 percent) were “overvotes”—ballots that were disqualified because they indicated more than one choice for president. Another 35 percent were “undervotes,” ballots lacking any clear indication of which presidential candidate the voter preferred. (The other 6 percent were invalid for some other unspecified reason. Since they are ignored in the majority report, they will be here as well.) (144)
The problem is voter error, a term that astonishingly appears nowhere in the majority report. This is the central fact the majority report attempts to obscure. Some voters simply did not fill out their ballots according to the instructions. They failed to abide by the very elementary rule that you must vote for one and only one candidate for the office of president of the United States, and therefore their attempt to register their choice failed. Their ballots were rejected, and their votes did not count. (144)
The minority report offers more facts not contained in the majority report:
The majority report argues that much of the spoiled ballot problem was due to voting technology. But elected Democratic Party officials decided on the type of machinery used, including the optical scanning system in Gadsden County, the state’s only majority-black county and the one with the highest spoilage rate. (144)
Republican-appointed commissioners were never asked for any input in the composition of the witness list or in the drafting of the report itself. (144)
An outside expert with strong partisan affiliations was hired to do a statistical analysis without consultation with commissioners. (144)
We asked for a copy of the machine-readable data that Professor Lichtman used to run his correlations and regressions. That is, we wanted his computer runs, the data that went into them, and the regression output that was produced. The Commission told us that it did not exist—that the data as he organized it for purposes of analysis was literally unavailable. Professor Lichtman, who knows that as a matter of scholarly convention such data should be shared, also declined to provide it. (144)
Who is Professor Lichtman? Brief searches yielded some interesting results. He wrote an endorsement on the back of Bill Clinton's recent book, "My Life" (147). During a later redistricting dispute in Florida he was called as the main Democratic witness:
The Legislature called two political scientists who challenged the logic and conclusions of the Democrats' top expert witness, Allan Lichtman, the history department chairman at American University. (146)
He was also called as a Democratic witness in Arizona:
But the Democrats had a statistics expert of their own. Professor Allan Lichtman, chair of the American University history department, cited studies that show the gap closing and called the year-old Commerce study obsolete. (149)
On January 14th 2004 he gave an interview with CNN:
"Now you have George Bush coming along. His dad tried to get into space and failed. His dad didn't have the vision thing. So here is George Bush. He's not going -- he's now going to prove he has the vision thing that his dad didn't have." (148)
"He he's even going to top Kennedy. He's not just going to the moon, he's going to Mars. The problem is he doesn't want to make it hard. Where is he going to pay for it? Is he going to ask his rich buddies out there in corporate America to pony up and pay what could be a multibillion dollar price tag?" (148)
"What's on the table now won't do it. We needed that $5 trillion surplus that's has gone a glimmering and suddenly become a $500 million deficit." (148)
"The other thing is there are lots of other goals that might be more relevant to life here. What about cutting fossil fuels by 50 percent? Or doing something about global warming or fixing up the electric grid? All those questions are going to be asked by George's Bush's critics." (148)
Professor Lichtman has a blog on the History News Network, which is filled with Bush bashing. A recent entry states:
Today, a charge by John Kerry that the Bush administration was the most corrupt in American history would also engender widespread skepticism. Yet there is good reason to believe that such a charge is once again correct. (149)
Besides his partisanship, Lichtman also has a personal conflct of interest - his academic reputation. On CNN:
WOODRUFF: Well, whatever the poll numbers are showing these days, history may be on Al Gore's side in his bid for the presidency. Allan Lichtman, dean of history at American University, some years ago, created a system for predicting the outcome of presidential elections. I asked Lichtman to explain the 13 keys to the presidency and what they bode for this year's presidential hopefuls. (150)
WOODRUFF: Now, and you're saying it's been accurate every time you've applied these keys since 1984? (150)
LICHTMAN: That's correct. Well ahead of time, it has predicted the outcome of every election from 1984 to 1996. (150)
WOODRUFF: But having said that, the pluses for Al Gore, you're saying, far out -- or outweigh the negatives? (150)
LICHTMAN: The pluses narrowly outweigh the negatives. That's why Gore is going to win. (150)
In sum, from the brief research I have done it is certainly suspicious that: 1. The commission based it's majority report on hidden research which cannot be replicated (as the work has not been shared). 2. The 'expert witness' who did this research seems to be a partisan Democrat. If the majority commission was truly looking to come clean in their investigations, their actions make little sense. 3. The minority report neglects to mention that Dr. John Lott, their statistician, is clearly a staunch Republican as seen by his website. (151)
The majority commission found problems with voting procedures for a number of other groups including the disabled, elderly, Jewish, Puerto Rican and Hispanic. Despite the fact that the only group not on their list are white Christians, the report really just seems to show that problems existed across the board. Whether the problems fell disproportionately on any group in particular is unclear. In my judgement, it is a shame that the commission succumbed to partisan squables and was unable to give a united report, and that both selected partisan researchers to put forth their findings. But it is notable that even the Democratic majority commission report found that there was no Republican effort to 'steal' or influence the election, or disenfranchise black voters.
This is from my review of fahrenheit 9/11.
http://www.neoperspectives.com/farenheight_911.htm
Why are you so quick to cave to a defensive posture??
Why on earth do you need a "succinct rebuttal" at all?
Man, do you ever have the wrong default mentality going on!
Gore never once had more votes than Bush in Florida. Bush ended the night with more votes than Gore, and he kept ending up with more votes than Gore every time the votes were recounted.
Here's what I do whenever I hear some ignorant assclown make the ludicrous claim that "Bush stole the election" - - I immediately shake my head and guffaw, "Please don't tell me you're still pissed that the scumbag Democrats couldn't steal the election from Bush! (Har, har!) Oh, man - - you're pathetic!"
See, you have to put the shoes on the right feet.....
I like it! Can I use it????
yes, you may
Look....anybody who doesn't get it now....will never get it....don't waste your time
Say what? Posner is one of the most renowned and respected conservative federal judges in the U.S. Not a liberal at all. Google his name and you'll see.
And to all those that said Katherine Harris rushed to get the election certified - she was required by Florida law to do this (the law is something that Democrats don't like to follow)
"Section 102.112, Florida Statutes, provides that the county canvassing board must certify the county returns by 5 PM on the 7th day following the general election. The performance of this duty is mandatory; there are no exceptions provided in the law. In fact, a $200 a day personal fine is imposed on members of the county canvassing board for failing to meet this deadline"
Again, Section 102.112, Florida Statutes, which deals with the duties of the county canvassing board, provides, "If the returns are not received by the time specified, such returns may be ignored and the results on file at that time may be certified by the department." Section 102.111, Florida Statutes, is explicitly mandatory. It provides, "If the county returns are not received by the department by 5 PM on the 7th day following an election, all missing counties shall be ignored, and the results on file shall be certified."
Mike, is that you? How's Mom& Dad? Can't talk sense into the little brother either, so I gave up.
All the screw ups were in Democrat controlled counties? Dade and Palm Beach Counties are pretty blue and the elections officials were Dems.
They need to take lessons from Chicago and St. Louis in how to make every vote (and then some) count and count and count....
Lando
And one other point..if the 2000 election had been decided by human beings looking at a dimpled, hanging, or pregnant chad and deciding the voter's "intent" - you might as well have raised the hammer and sickle over our country.
You spelled that wrong...it should read "SCOFFLAW" ;-)
lovely!! going to do that tonight in my little political/karoake group
The Florida results were close. Gore was correct in asking for a recount. But here is where the problems begin. He should have immediately asked for a recount of the entire state...that could have been accomplished within the timeframe alloted by Florida election law. But no, Gore's people pushed for and rushed into a vote recount in the 3 most heavily democratic counties---with no standards of what constituted an actual vote (the hanging chad kerfuffle, trying to gauge the intent of the voter, etc). Republicans rightly protested.
By the time some standards had been set in place it was too late to conduct a recount as per Florida election law. Kathleen Harris simply was enforcing Florida election law by not extending the deadline for the recount.
When Democrats say there are stacks of uncounted ballots in Florida, what they really mean is there are stacks of ballots where it is impossible to determine the intent of the voter.
The United States Supreme Court stepped in when it became obvious that the Florida supremes were going to ignore Florida election law.
If one were going to argue that Bush stole the election, one might say that the US Supremes overstepped their authority by intervening. I am not knowledgeable enough on the powers of the Court to offer comment on that charge.
How'd I do?
HAVE HIM PROVE THAT THE MILITARY VOTES WERE COUNTED. As much as I have read on the subject, I have never seen this addressed in any credible manner.
I think we all know--including the gorons--that President Bush would have had even MORE votes had these absentee ballots not been dirty-tricked-Carvilled-Begalaed-Daleyed out of the way.
Sorry, but there has never been any documantation on WHETHER THESE VOTES HAVE BEEN COUNTED. That's why it's his negative to prove.
Here's the hard, insensitive, truth for those people whose votes were disqualified -
If your vote was disqualified by a voting machine, it was because you didn't vote correctly. The error is your mistake, not the machines. The butterfly ballot was available to review weeks in advance at the library, internet, or newspaper. There were people to answer questions if you weren't sure how to vote. If you had messed up a ballot, they would have given you a new ballot to use. You should not have assumed that there would be an interpreter for every different language at your voting precint. If millions of people have died for this republic's freedom and right to vote, you can spend a few hours before you vote making sure you know what you are doing. Don't tell me you only dimpled the chad but you meant the vote to count. The chad had to be entirely pushed out to be counted as a vote. There is no middle ground for a vote. You only have yourself to blame!
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.