Posted on 11/11/2001 6:49:42 PM PST by PianoMan
Somehow I think they felt that reason was the better path to take in this case solely because they would be fighting something bigger than they are if they didn't -- remember this is the newspaper that, over the years, was able to speak in flowery, effusive praise of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
It is pure speculation, we never will really know what could have been nor need we. It is best to go by the Constitution as we did, that's why we have it.
Nor will the New York Times and the rest of the total central control oriented mainstream press ever deal with the reality of the corruption of the voting in minority precincts, which would be necessary to have an accurate full recount anywhere.
I figure Gore did not want to count the over votes becasue he knew they were fruadulent and did not want that to come out. Image getting your hands on the ballets for a few seconds and quickly adding an extra hole for Gore with a stiff wire. If the vote is for Gore, no effect, if the vote is not for gore, you get an overvote. One would guess that because the votes were so close to 50/50 the overvotes should also be close to 50/50. Bush got 29,000 so Gore should also have got around 29000. However he got 40000 more than that. That is in all likelyhood the amount of ballots Gore's fellow RATS cheated with.
AMEN!!!
He was right.
There have been races in which we were allowed to cast, say, a total of three votes amongst six or more candidates for three open seats on a board. In cases like that, I have frequently just voted for my favorite candidate, and not cast my other votes, on the theory that in a close race, my 2nd and 3rd choices could out-poll my top choice and knock them out of contention. This being the case, I would be outraged if someone would take it upon themselves to assume that since I voted for one candidate, I must have intended to vote for two others as well, and to try to guess for which two candidates I "intended" to vote. Such an approach would actually NULLIFY my actual voting intent, and would effectively disinfranchise me.
I also refuse to vote for a candidate if they are running unopposed for an office. I am NOT a rubber stamp. My unmarked ballot is intended to be a political statement. Interpreting it as an "undervote" and attempting to discern who I might have intended to vote for also effectively NULLIFIES my actual voting intent, and effectively disinfranchises me.
It is the height of arrogance to assume that a blank ballot that is cast by a voter is intended to be anything other than a blank ballot. There may be any number of reasons why a voter may wish to cast a blank ballot. Some might make more sense than others, but in a system of free elections, the right to cast a blank vote for any, all, or no reason should be every bit as much a right of a voter as the right to cast a vote for any particular candidate. To effectively deny a voter the right to cast a ballot for NO candidate is every bit as anti-democratic as is denying a voter the right to cast a ballot for ANY particular candidate.
Those were some *great* freeper days, imho. Managing threads, covering all the court cases night and day via TV, radio and streaming media. Reading opinions from justices and legal eagle freepers. Reading about the freeper protests. Enjoying the theatre that was Judge Saul's court and the Democratic "case". And Al Gore telling his guests to just look for the crowd chanting "Get out of Cheney's house."
Can we finally put the 2000 election to bed? Please?
Ask anybody in Bill Daley's Chicago Democrat machine. When you're in a hurry at 7:15 PM to fix an election, you put a whole stack of ballots into the Vote-O-Matic machine at the same time and vote a straight Democrat ticket. Unfortunately, on some of the older machines that creates a lot of dimpled or hanging chads.
Clearly it's muddled. ... I have consistently said, George Bush has been sworn in. We all support him. We support him now more than ever."
Bill Clinton tells us that today's terrorism is a result somehow of America's past sins like slavery and taking lands from Native Americans.
Hillary tells us that the tax rebate caused national security lapses and indirectly caused the terrorism.
Rush is right when he says liberals really get funny when they're desperate and powerless. Let them keep on talking.
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.