Posted on 09/10/2001 1:19:08 PM PDT by meandog
The ‘Accidental President’
Exclusive excerpt: The vote in Bush v. Gore was arrived at in secret conference. But this one determined who would be president. We didn’t know just how close it was—until now. NEWSWEEK’s David A. Kaplan goes behind the scenes
NEWSWEEK
Sept. 17 issue — As both campaigns and the entire country awaited the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bush v. Gore, the vice president couldn’t sit still. The vote would decide who’d win Election 2000. The process kept starting and stopping. Now, Gore needed to vent his emotions, with whatever degree of optimism he could muster.
for the rest of the story CLICK HERE
Of couse, Liberals have perfected the arts of history revison and selective memory...
If you think the last election was bad for voting fraud, just wait until 2002 and 2004. The DemoNAZIS will make the third world ballot stuffers look like choir boys. They will stop at nothing to steal the WH and the House of Representatives.
Katie Couric, koolaide drinker on krak.....
LOL!
I imagine Dick Gephardt in a similiar outfit (When he is not taking "Nair" baths with Gary Condit, a man of integrity). I see little Dick in a red bra, panties and garters. Under his SS uniform, of course.
The second thread includes some info about the author doing an online discussion on this Wednesday. He should be Freeped
There's no coincidence that these divisive stories are coming out now. There are 5 stories in Newsweek (and on the MSNBC site) about this. There's also Reno's announcement in Florida which will fan the flames. The DemocRATS and their presstitutes want to distract the President and the Republicans from the appropriations bills and from the business of the country.
They're also hoping that Bush will break his promise not to spend the Social Security surplus.
The Republicans in the House ought to honor that pledge and not put Bush in a position where he has to use a veto to honor his promise. This is an opportunity for the Conservatives to cut wasteful spending to "save Social Security." When it comes to a vote and no DemocRAT supports spending cuts, the Republicans will be able to say "Not one Democrat voted to protect your retirement funds in Social Security." It'll completely take away the Social Security issue for the Dems. The alternative will be for the Dems to support the spending cuts to preserve the Social Security surplus.
I'm tired of hearing pundits, even conservative pundits, suggesting that Bush should let any of the Social Security surplus be spent. If he does, it'll be worse than Bush Sr. and "Read my lips." Not only is he breaking a very popular campaign promise, but he's "endangering" social security at the same time.
Note, I'm not certain that preserving the "Social Security surplus" is necessarily good, especially in an economic slowdown. However, the time to consider that option was before Bush made the promises last year during his campaign and during the debates. If he backs of now, it'll be just as bad as "Read my lips" and "a tax cut for middle class Americans." I'm still not sure how Clinton got away with breaking that one. Bush won't get away with breaking the Social Security promise. He and the Republicans will lose big if they spend any Social Security $$$.
Here's a good place to detect the bias presented in this story. Read the paragraphs about Souter's personality then read the descriptions of Kennedy's personality. This is all stuff that is highly objective and is not straight factual reporting but is done to "paint a picture." All of the descriptions of Souter portray him as a circumspect man of character while Kennedy is portrayed as your crazy drunk uncle at the family reunion.
This kind of writing just rattles my teeth it's so over the top. But they pay his dingle berry to write this stuff and people still buy the rag he works for. Grrr!
That Lesko commercial always cracks me up. I notice it is on late at night or early in the AM.
Dr. Lott added another variable to the mix: the race of the election supervisor. His analysis reveals that having Democratic officials in charge increases the ballot spoilage rate substantially, but the effect is even stronger when that Democratic official is African American. Obviously no Democratic officials were out to disfranchise black voters, and the correlation points once again to the limitations of ecological regressions.
... The majority report speaks repeatedly of the alleged "exclusion" and "disenfranchisement" of "minorities" or "people of color." One section is headed "Votes in Communities of Color Less Likely to be Counted." But what information are we actually given about all those "communities of color"? We were amazed and disturbed to find that the crucial statistical analysis provided in Chapter 1 is narrowly focused on just one of the state's "communities of color" — African Americans. The discussion completely ignores Florida's largest minority group — people of Hispanic origin.
This is revealing of the Commission's constricted vision. The 2000 Census counted 2.3 million African Americans in Florida, approximately 15 percent of the total population. But the state had 2.7 million Latinos, almost 17 percent of its population. Astonishingly, Hispanics hardly get a mention in the majority report. How many Cuban-Americans in Miami cast ballots that were "rejected"?
...Based on witnesses' limited (and often, uncorroborated) accounts, the Commission insists that there were "countless allegations" involving "countless numbers" of Floridians who were denied the right to vote. This anecdotal evidence is drawn from the testimony of 26 "fact witnesses," residing in only eight of the state's 67 counties.
In fact, however, many of those who appeared before the Commission testified to the absence of "systemic disenfranchisement" in Florida. ...
When this report was presented to the Commission on June 8, Chair Berry stated that "we don't need evidence" to prove the charges of disfranchisement and discrimination.
...Based on extensive research, the Miami Herald concluded that the biggest problem with the felon list was not that it wrongly prevented eligible voters from casting ballots, but that it ended up allowing ineligible voters to cast a ballot.
In pursuing its attack on the purge list, the Commission completely ignored the bigger story: Approximately 5,600 felons voted illegally in Florida on November 7, approximately 68 percent of whom were registered Democrats. On June 8, General Counsel Hailes was asked why the report failed to address the issue of ineligible voters who cast ballots on election day. His response was: "That's not part of the scope of our report."
... There is also the additional question of voter fraud. On June 8, the Chair explained that the report did not look at the issue of voter fraud, since "fraud does not appear to be a major factor in the Florida election," and that, in any event, this was "beyond the scope" of the Commission's investigation. Thus, the report single-mindedly pursues only one kind of vote dilution (allegations that eligible voters were denied the tight to vote) while completely ignoring the other (allegations that ineligible voters were allowed to vote).
Facts: Republicans did not "disenfranchise" black voters. Fact: Mainstream press is ignoring evidence of Dem. fraud.
Liberals forget so easily .
Oh well . Noone seems to care that would matter up there on the all mighty hill .
They won't make the same mistake twice... I hope the election reform effort helps us(if there is one).
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.